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

in all countries where Presbyterianism hat
existed, and is now every day exercised with
out question, in some cases, such as the In
Stallation of pastors and the organization and
visitation of churches Indeed the power is
80 essential that no Church could absolutely
surrender it without incurably ipjuring its
efficiency, and disabling itself for performing
its functions, and fal6 ling'its mission. See
this argument at length in DR.. Hodges able
report to the Assembly of 1847.
Again: This power SO far from being de-
MED by the Constitution is expressly recog-
nized in two instances. Book of Discipline,
chap. V, sec. 4, and chap. vi, sec. 1S. In
each of these cases the Constitution does not
confer but simply recognizes an existing
power. The language is not thatss grant,
but simply suggestive and directive.
Again: The principle contended' for BY
me has been universally recognized as part
of Presbyterianism. 1t has been claimed
and acted upon by Presbyteries, Synods and
Assemblies. 1t is an undeniable fact that
the Church in Scotland is familiar with it,
and that in this country all kinds of execu-
tive and judicial acts were performed by Syn
odical Commissions from the institution of the
Synod of Philadelphia in 17l6, down to the
organisation of the Assembly in 1888. An
nusl and special Commissions we're habitusl-
ly appointed. So far as | know the right
was never questioned by any branch OF the
Presbyterian Church until lately, and if
usage and precedents can ever avail to settle
disputed question, this one should be con-
sidered as determined. eff the principles of
Presbyterianism can be learned from the
practice of all Presbyterian Churches, it is
most unreasonable to denounce the right in
question as anti Presbyterian. See Hodges
History of the Presbyterian Church for
multitude of instances of the exercise of this
power.
Again: This right has been expressly
recognized and approved by the General AS
sembly. II was approved in the famous
Cumberland Presbytery case, of which | will
say more presently. 1t was recognized in
1S42, in the Peoria, Illinois, church CASE
A consideration of this case would enlighten
you as to the exclusive power of PreSby'
terry under Form of Government, Chap. X,
Sec. 8, to act originally upon the matters
said there to be within its jurisdiction. And
if you will refer to the Princeton Review of
1847, you will find that the action Of that
Assembly, in indefinitely pOstponing the
resolution denying the power Of Synod to
act by Commission, was upon Ae motion of
DR.. Hodge, and regarded by the friends of
the doctrine sustained in his report as re-
fu8al, on the part of the Assembly, to deny
this right. The Reuie~ says the action of
the Assembly was all the friends of the re-
port wished-and that a decided majority
was in favor of the doctrine. In 1349, the
Assembly declined to overture the Presbyte-
ries for permanent Commission as inexpe-
dient,-a in 1854, when two propositions
were before it-one to appoint permanent
Commission and the other to overture the
Presbyteries, the subject was laid on the ia
Bile. Now / cannot for the life of me see
how this action discountenanced the right in
question. The history of the matter proves
that in point of fact, the theory of COmmis-
sion has found good deal of encouragement
since the revision of the Constitution.
For these reasons, am set in the opinion
that Synod has the power to act BY Com
mission, and more, that whatever the Synod
itself can do, that same thing it can do by q
Commission. See Hodges History of the
Presbyterian Church, for this last PROPOSE
ton.
II. And now for ''the case in nutshell" ;"
The question is not, Did the Synod have orig
inal jurisdiction to try this case either BY it
self or q Commission-but: Did the Synod,
having once obtained jurisdiction of the case
by appeal, have power to take it for new
trial, and give it to Commission l say it
had this power.
There is nothing in the Constitution for
bidding the exercise of this power, and Civ
ing to the Presbytery exclusive right to re-
try case. You cite Book of Discipline,
Chap. ", Sec. %, as denying ths power
"And nothing but what is contained in the
record may be taken into consideration in
reviewing the proceedings in superior
court" This has nothing to do with the
question under discussion. The point is not
whether Synod can, in issuing an appeal 60
outside the record, but can the Synod in is.
suing an appeal lawfully determine by reason
of matter in the record, to take the case fol
nsw trial. The Synod may keep rigidly
to the record, and yet the record itself, af
in this case, may furnish ample reason why
the Synod as its final decision upon the ap
peal, should exercise its power to give the
case to 9. Commission.
Form Of Government, Chap. K, Sec. 8
does not expressly deny the power-it says
"The Presbytery has power to judge minis
ters, &C." But it does not say that tht
Synod shall not in issuing an appeal retry
the case. The Constitution itself recognize
cases in which the Synod may judge minis
ters, and there are numerous instances of I
Synod going over the head of Presbytery