The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1877-12-26

one Lnlng. Dub IL WVuiu s6lll % uin9A0nV
question whether the Synod having taking a
Judicial case for one purpOse-that is upon
sppeal-does thereby secure to itself the
right of original jurisdiction over it, that is
for different purpose, and thus take it out
of the hands of the Presbytery for new trial
This, however, will come up again; at
present We beg leave to examine our broth
er's theory of Our Constitution. Whether
the precise point he makes depends upon 1t
or not, the theory itself is so radically wrong,
and so full of evil, that its error and mis-
chievous character ought not to pass unno-
tioed.
There is no debate as to the ultimate
source of Church pOwer-that it is all de-
rived from Christ, the sovereign Head and
King. 1t will be agreed, moreover, that
this power is vested by Christ in the whole
body of believers, and is ordinarily exercised
BY them Immediately in the choice of their
officers, and as to other things Immediately
through church officers, aud courts composed
of their representatives. 1t will also be
agreed, no doubt, that all our church courts
are one in nature, being constituted of the
same elements, possessed inherently of the
same kinds of rights and powers, and differ
ing only as the Constitution provides. They
are all in their nature Presbyteries, be-
ing composed exclusively of Presbyters.-
If it had been SO arranged that members were
to be admitted to particular churches By act
of the Presbytery instead of the Session, that
ministers were to be ordained and installed
by the Synod instead of the Pfesbytery, or
that the General Assembly, instead Of the
Synod, should erect and dissolve Presbyteries,
there would be no violation of Presbyterian
ism in such things as these, though it would
be enormously unsuitable and inconvenient.
Therefore it is necessary for the orderly and
efficient despatch of business that there
should be regular gradstion of church
courts, and that the sphere cf action in each
should be distinctly defined. In all this we
presume there is entire agreement But now
comes up the question where we differ funda-
mentally In Ohat Vdy is this sphere of Gc-
tom for these several courts defRedg When
Mr.. Shanks says the Constitution sis not a
source of power, but merely agreed and form,
ulated conditions of its exercise" very well.
And when he says, " We are not to look to
the Constitution for grants of power very
we'll again, if it is meant that this power
comes primarily from Christ, and is therefore
before and above the Constitution. But
when he says we are to look to the Constitu-
ton, not for "grants of power" but only
IS for Limitations upon its use, what does ne
mean His meaning is indicated by what
Immediately follows" these restrictions
must not be inferred or implied, but express
ly stated. The fact therefore that the Con.
stitution makes no mention of particular
power, is no evidence that it does not exist.
The theory then Of our Church government
which is here gravely prOpounded is this
that whatever ecclesiastical act it is compe.
tent for any of our Church courts to perform,
that same act may be properly performed by
each and all of our courts, provided they are
not expressly restricted from so doing. That
this is the meaning is unmistakable in sub
sequeut part of the article. The writer is
cOntending that " the Synod having once OBJ
tanned jurisdiction of the case by appeal, have
power to take it for new trial, and give il
to Commission. And to enforce this claim
he adds: II say they had this power. There
is nothing in the Constitution forbidding the
exercise of this power, and giving to the
Presbytery the exclusive right to retry a
case" Here then we are presented with the
naked theory that any of our Church courts
may perform any ecclesiastical act-whieh
is not forbidden by the Constitution That
is, in short, whdtsuer Is not forbidden is al
lOwed. Now it deeply concerns US to find q
view thus upheld which We are persuaded is
radically wrong, and in its nature full Of
deadly evil. It is our purpose to withstand
it to the face, and to plant our feet upon the
old ime-honored doctrine of our Presbyte-
risn fathers.
1. That "the Constitution of the Presby-
terrain church, like that of our national
union, is a constitution of specific powers,
granted by the Presbyteries, the fountains Of
power, to the Synods and General Assem-
bly,"
2. "No powers, not spec feally granted,
can lawfully be inferred and assumed by the
General Assembly, but only such as are in
dispensably necessary to carry into effect
those which are specifically granted"
This doctrine it shall be our endeavor to
expouud and maintain. The subject is one
of wide sweep, aud cannot be disposed Of
in hurry. We request those who feel an
interest in the discussion to preserve this
paper for reference until we shall close cur
remarks.
THE SEAsON.-While emitting any formal
or elaborate address appropriate to the Occa
sion, the editor of the Central Presbyterian
would not be so unmindful tf the relation
sustained to large circle of friends as to