The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1878-02-20
REPLY TO REV. MR.. SHANXS.

In replying to this closing article the same meth
easily understood if the reader will pursue what
Mr. Shanks' says down to the letter (a) in brack-
ets then turn to what is said under the cores
pOnding letter in the reply; and SO to the end.
| (a) Nothing could more clearly show this theo-
~ of reseoed poooer to be in drticulo n,orS than
the attempt to galvanzo it into life by reference to
our Assembly at Savannah in 1876. Without re-
sorting to other considerations there is a single
fact which completely breaks its neck DR.. Adger
and others strenuously argued that the Presbyte.
rian Council was another Church Court, and there
fore it was unlawful to send delegates to it. This
was met by resolution adopted with but one dis
seuting voice declaring that it is not to be re-
garded as another and higher court, but as an as
semblage of Committees, appointed by the several
churches which they represent, for the purpose Of
joint conference and report, and for such action
only as belongs to our association Of delegates thus
constituted" Or. Adger declared himself satisfied
with this view. UnleSs therefore, brother Shanks
has come to the conclusion that the appointment
of committee by the General Assembly to confer
with committees appointed by other Presbyterian
churches is unauthorized by any power already in
the Constitution, and can only be defended by the
help of that forOrn hope of "reserved poUerS," his
illustration from the Savannah Assembly is about
as far from the point as Fancy Hill post. office is
from the city Of Edinburgh
| ~ Assembly of 1887. Having the revised edi.
tion of the Digest (lS5S) and not 1856, we know
not what the precise reference is. But we do know
that said Assembly, whether right or wrong, did
over and over declare its measures to be authorized
by the Constitution; see the two Pastoral Letters
prepared by Drs. Alexander and Breckinridge II
SO, they did not put their action upon the slippery
footing Of reserved powers" Moreover, we find
them declaring IA second time We believe that
our powers, as judicstory, are limited and pre-
scribed by the Constitution of the Presbyterian
Church" But that too, We suppose, must pass
for sporadic" a $50
Current of usage" Yet not single instance
of judicial Commission to be found in the Digest
since the revision of the Constitution in 1921 The
classical and original illustration closing the para
graph would be spoiled by any comments.
| (c) ASSEMBLY IN st. Louis of 1866. We are fal
from charging or supposing that Mr.. Shanks, OF
any of the great and good men he mentions, would
have approved those acts. DR.. Hodge, however
while condemning the acts, did support the g con
solidation theory" But this we know, that those
enormities were defended also on the ground o.
inherent powers, the very theory to which Mr.
5hsnks has committed himself The chief poin
in which it differs from the consolidation" view
is that it is, if possible, worse.
| (d) The explanation is easy: When Mr.. Shank
sent his second communication it was followed b.
private note the next day, January l6.h, request
ing us to make some changes, which was immedi
ately attended to. That is the only cpmmunics
ton of the kind of which We have any knowledge
1t would have given US pleasure to do any thin
in that way. and VIC now Oheerfplly do all in ou
power to print his emeuded edition correctly b
adding the words in italics: Whatever the Syno
itself can do, that same thing uader certain lin
tations, it can do by a Commission.
"CertainP But the c.rtaia are left so uncertain
that the whole limitation is precisely as larg
as piece of chalk
(e) Our opinion about Commissions The brotl
er will fad it clearly and fully stated in this pape
twice, November %. and Jauuary l6; the sui
stance of which is that while the power Ito try
q judicial case BY Com mission) has been strenl
ousy maintained by some, it has been as siren,
! ousy denied by others > and that I" in point
fact the theory finds no encouragement in ar
practice within our knowledge under our presel
revised Constitution" That is all for which v
J are responsible. The brother from Rockbridt
t has laboriously proved what all of US know VIC
q as A B C-that in the early history of our Churc
il such Commissions we're sometimes employed
chiefly, We suppose, because Of the extreme
Q sparse population, and the immense territory co
s cred by Presbytery or Synod. But it is evide
i that the Church early became cautious not to 81
n suspicious, of them; and the fact that they hs
@ not been at all countenanced under our prese
Constitution is a complete proof OF this, and
u the assertion we made at the first. If it ever
)t lawful it was not as reserved power, but u
70 der the Constitutional power to appoint comm
q tees If our opinion on the merits of the questi
itself can be Of any Importance to Mr. Shsnks, '
have no hesitation in saying that the power to
10 member or minister and susperd or depose hi
OF Professionally (which might be for whole yea
al ought not to be entrusted to such body; and