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

cess had already been entered, and the a.
cused was there before the Synod upon a
appeal, and the question was not whethe
process should be entered against him, bu
whether the Synod could proceed to try hin
he being already by his appeal within tn
Jurisdiction of the Synod. There is grea
gap between entering process and meaO trial
The most this section can be tortured int
teaching is that the Presbytery had origina
jurisdiction of the case.
Again: This power has been exercised re
peatedly. can only refer here to few, ou
of multitude of cases. In 1885, SynoC
upon an appeal, appointed a Commission tt
determine the business" In another cas-
two Presbyteries we're conjoined into Com
mission to try the case of Rev. Mr.. Morgan
In another case, in reference to an appea
from New Castle Presbytery, the Synot
says, "As this matter cannot be Issued here
We appoint Commission to hear and try til.
merits of the case, and to issue the whole af
fair, and to take what methods they may
think proper in relation thereto" And IL
the Cumberland Presbytery case, the Synod
of Kentucky, having obtained jurisdiction Of
the case by review and control, by Com
mission suspended ministers without trial
Much more could they have done this after
trial. You say there are only two cases in
which Synod can retry case, namely, @
case of reference, and that of new testimony,
with consent of the appellant and the judi
catory. But in the above record | have
cited cases of a trial by Synod upon review
and control and appeal, without any new tes-
timony suggested.
Again: This power inheres in the Synod,
and it could not, as it has not, absolutely
surrendered it. There are cases where the
Presbytery is legally disqualified for ga fair
and impartial trial. as required by the Book
of Discipline, Chap. w., Sec. Is, and the
interposition of the Synod is imperatively de-
manded. The case under discussion is an
illustration of this truth. DR.. Baird charged
openly that the members of the Presbytery
who were also members of the Committee o.
Publication, were interested in his condemna-
ton, and by this understood him to assert
that brethren were familiar with his way
of doing business, and knew of this recipro-
cal exchange of credit by him as b. z.
Baird and b. z. Baird, Secretary. Now
whether this allegation is true or false, is the
very core and gist of this case. If it is un-
true, DR.. Baird's wrong doing is aggravated
by the fact, but if it is true, then certainly
the faithfulness of the Committee to the
trust committed to them, is seriously i'm
peached, and | am glad to see that the Pres
bytery at last appreciates the supreme i'm
portance of this point, for in the charges
lately preferred, it is said, "he did all these
acts without the knowledge or consent of the
Committee of Publication" But whether
DR.. Baird's assertion or the Presbytery' 8
counter, allegation is true or false, is the very
point to be judged. And now, can it be true
that the Church is powerless to save this
man from a trial by those who are charged
with being interested in his condemnation,
and that upon their demand the Synod must
submit to them the question whether they are
free from all blame. Away with the mon
strous doctrine Talk not of "Little fingers
or backbone" this is tearing out the very
heart of the Constitution under the plea Of
guarding the rights of Presbytery.
But lastly, you say: "How the consent
of the accused in favor of Commission re.
moved from brother Shanks' mind any doubt
as to its legality, is not apparent" Well,
think this is at least as apparent as, How the
consent of the accused removed from DR.
Browns mind all doubt as to the power o.
the Presbytery to deprive him Of the inalien
able right of being present, and cross exam
ining the witnesses against him. See Bool
of Discipline, Chap. ~, Sec. Is. But if {
Synod, obtaining jurisdiction Of case by
review and control, can by committee il
the exercise of its inherent power, upon th'
ground that the Presbytery was fatally pre-
iudiced in favor of the accused, as it did il
the Cumberland Presbytery case, suspend {
minister without trial, and without the con
sent of either the accused or the Presbytery
then fOrtiori it can upon an appeal take {
case for new trial by a Commission will
the consent of the accused, upon the grount
that the Presbytery is prjudiced agains
him and interested in his condemnation.
And l beg you to note that the General AS
sembly not only approved, but thankful.
arpauded the Synod of Kentucky for tn
above action. And now say if any doub
as to the legality of Commission existed
it not only seemed to be, but is removed b.
the consent of the accused. If he consente'
who could rightfully Objact?
My reply to you is very long but l coul
not in the interest of truth and sound doc
trine make it more concise.
Very truly, &c,
D. w. SHANKs.