The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1877-11-28
TIE Law OF COMMISSIONS.

Inc request received privately 20 copy
from the Dispatch corrected statement Of
the vote and remarks of the Rev. D. W.
Shanks, is cheerfully complied with. 1t
opens at the same time an opportunity for a
few remarks concerning a certain question
connected with the appointment of such
commission as the one referred to.
1t will be remembered that before the
Synod had determined to 60 into the trial OF
DR. Baird's appeal, Dr.. HOge offered reso-
luton proposing, for reasons stated, to send
the case back to East Hanover Presbytery
for full investigation by new trial. To
this DR.. Baird objected, but proposed that
it be sent for such trial to a commission ap-
pointed by the Synod. Mr.. Sbsuks, with
few others, was in favor of this course. MIR.
Shanks says: "a commission, l believed
then and now, to be constitutional, and if
any doubt as to its legality existed, 1t seemed
to beremoved by the consent Of the accused
If any brethren who entertained this view
feel prepared to sustain it, the space in our
columns necessary for that purpose is at
their disposal. It seemed evident that the
great majority of the Synod did not so I'M
derstand it, and if an error, it would be
good service to have It corrected. This We
say in no other spirit than that of sincerity
and respect for the opinions of al concerned
But now as to the real question here
before US that question is not whether a
church session, or Presbytery, or General
Assembly may under some circumstances,
appoint 3 commission (er extraordinary com
mittee) to try a Judicial case. While the
power to do SO has been strenuOusly main
tanned by some, it has been as strenuOusly
denied BY others; and when the report of q
very able committee appointed by the As
sembly of 1916, (of which DR.. Hodge was
chairman made report in 1S47 strongly
advocating the affirmative, that Assembly,
by pOstpOning the whole subject, refused
to affirm or deny either Of the two PROPOSE
tons presented. Toe subject was up 10 an
other form in the Assemblies of 1849 and
1854, in proposals that the Assembly should
send down overtures fer provision in the
) constitution to create such a commission, bat
these proposals were discountenanced By be-
ing laid on the table. And in point Of fact,
the theory 6ods no encouragement in any
practice within our knowledge under our
present revised Constitution.
But dispose Of that question as you may
it is not the one now before Us. That CUES
ton is this-Could the Synod Of Virginia,
Of its own power, lawfully appoint commits
sion to do what was proposed-give the APP
pellant a new trial? We ask how it posi-
bly, could do so
Its Jurisdiction in the case must be either
appellate or original. If appellate it had 10
authority to 90 a syllable beyond tde records
of the Presbytery. (See Dis. chap. 4 rule
y It will be remembered how Dr.. S. J.
Baird had his fingers scorched by some caua-
tic application, because of breach Of deco
rum and violation of the intent of this right
eous law, by an outside circulation of q
pamphlet bearing upon the case before the
Synod in Alexandria.
But suppose the jurisdiction of the Synod
to be original what then? Examine chap
tiers IL and u in ogr Form of Government
and you search in vain for any such power as
the one here required. But in chap. 10
you find it in the powers of the Pres6ytery
and in the Discipline, chap. s. rule ,, most
explicitly, land exclusively rs to all other
oourts) as follows: process against gOs
pei minister shall always be entered before
the Presbytery Of which he is a member"
There are only two conditions under which
the Synod could take the case otherwise than
as an appeal; VIZ: as a reference from the
Presbytery dis. chap. I sec. p or as il
chap. 8, on the plea of 'new testimony" II
both of these, however, it would 60 to tht
Synod BY the act or concurrence Of the Pres
bytery, and not as a matter over which the
Synod has original jurisdiction. Ia the lat
ter ease Of neoo testimony, the consent Of the
appellant also is required
The whole matter then is in nutshell
If this is a case of appellate Jurisdiction, the
Synod is confined to the record Of the Pres
bytery, and therefore, cannot, of itself, take
it for new trial, or give it to a Commission
If is q trial under original jurisdiction, the
Presbytery alone, and not the Synod, is au
thOrized to take oognizance Of it. For the
Synod to assume such a power would be as
fragrant violation Of the law Of the Church
as for the General Assembly TO institute pro
cess against a private member of the church
The Synod would not allow, on the part o
East Hanover Presbytery, aud under yer!
peculiar circumstances, the least fracture O
the constitution, in so much as one of its lit
tie fingers, but sent it back to be mended.-
It would therefore have been unpardonabl,
had the venerable Synod itself set about t
break that same constitution in the back
bone.
How it was that {" the consent of the &C
eused in favor of Commission, removed
from the mind Of brother Shanks ANY doub
as to its legality" is not apparent. Tn
only concurrence or consent noticed in Ou
rules is in the case Of ae10 testimony, ALREADY
rafarrad IN