The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1877-12-26
FoR THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN.
THE LAW OF COMMISSIONS.

Rsv. VILLAIN BrOwn, D. d.:
Dear Brother,-When l penned the lette
to brother Price, published recently, l neve
= dreamed that would be so soon in the mer
ciless grip of the Central. l have seen 81
many unfortunates writhing in your inexor
able mill, that l assure you have grea
dread of even the appearance of cOntes
with you. But as you have been pleased II
make me conspicuous in your paper, and hav'
invited discussion, there seems to be nothing
left me but to lock horns with you. Ant
now if in the following discussion l seem Il
you to be exercising myself in things TOT
high for me-" l beg in advance that you vii
be content with a moderate exhibition o.
your skill in Skinning.
Before 1 take up the main point there arr
some pertinent preliminaries to be set down
1. I disclaim all purpose of assailipg the
brethren of East Hanover. l believe they
are sll incapable of wilfully perpetrating ar
injustice, and / beg them to remember thai
l am discussing this case from purely legal
standpoint.
2 If q Commission had been appointed, the
Church would have had at once thorough
investigation. The case has gone to the AS
sembly upon legal point, and with an i'm
perfect record, and the strong probability is
that all the facts of this unfortunate affair
will never come out.
8. While the Synod did indirectly decline
to appoint commission, there is no evidence
that it was regarded as fragrant and I'M
pardondble uiolation of the Constitution, and
that the act of the Presbytery in stripping
the accused of his constitutional protection
against injustice, and this too in the face oi
an explicit decision of our Assembly, was as
insignificant as fracturing little finger. "
1 suspect the great majority thought the
Presbytery dealt the backbone of the Consti'
tuition some pretty hard blows.
4. The "bran-new idea of allowing an &C
cused party to appear before such tribunals
only as might be wsH pleasing &" his O~n
sight" is the offspring of your imagination
You must not lay the brat at my door
When sid in my letter, written hurriedly,
that DIR. Baird had right to be tried by
what he considered perfectly impartial tri-
bunsl," my language may have been ambig-
uous, it was certainly not absurd. All that
was intended was this that between two
constitutional tribunals, the PreSbytery and
Synodical Commission, he had righteous
claim to select that court which he considered
perfectly impartial. And this is no " BRAN
new idea" 1t is an every day occurrence
for an accused person in the civil court to
select the tribunal which is to try him, by
either challenging members of the vsnire OF
moving for change of venue. On the other
hand it is something "new under the sun
for court charged NTH being interested in
condemning the accused to insist, against his
strenuous protest, upon trying his case.
5. The fact that the Synod adopted by q
large majority DR.. Dabney's paper, is nc
very serious argument, under the circum'
stances, against the constitutionality of g
Commission. The vote was taken at very
late hour Saturday night, and all attempts tt
get the scheme of a Commission before the
Synod as an alternate proposition were frus
trated by call for the question. All dis
cusSOn and every attempt to amend were il
this way cut Off-and the paper hurried
through under the suggestion of the author
that the accused could challenge the right o
any member of the Presbytery to sit ant
} that Commission was unconstitutional
DR.. Dabney is No. in his special depart
ment. But Gamaliel tripped here. sus
pect you would tell him very different tai
5 about your right to sit in this case, and tina
the next Assembly will not approve the &C
ton of the Synod as Just the thing of al
others which was best, and wisest and consti
, tutional.
And now for the main question. And
1. Has Synod power to act by Commis
f sion in any case? If it has not, then 0
r course there is an end of controversy.
Y think it has.
8 All church power is original, that is, it be
9 longs to the court as the gift of its Head an
: grows out of the nature and design of tn
il Church-and is not conferred by the Const
r tuition, which is not q source of power bu
Q merely agreed and formulated conditions c
its exercise. We are not to look to the Cor
# stitution for grants of power, but for limits
/. tions upon its use, and these restrictions mul
It not be inferred or implied but expressl
,s stated. The fact therefore that the Const
j. tuition makes no mention of a psrticuls
10 power is no evidence that it does not exis
y The power in nquestion is one of these inh
ss rent powers. 1t is right which every cour
70 considered apart from any constitutional r
in strictions, undeniably possesses, and may e.
h ercise at discretion under its responsibility
D. God. There is certainly "nothing in IL
re Word of God, nor in the principles on whi'
h such bodies are constituted, which would 70
a. bid any Presbytery or Synod, if untrammel
/" by any treaty stipulatiOnS, delegating the
powers to committee of their own numb