The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1878-02-20

down the sweeping proposition that anythinI
which Church court can itself perform,
may also perform by Commission" you d
me another injustice. 1t is true this Senti
ment was expressed in my letter as printed
But after that letter was mailed and on,
week before it was printed, and at least three
weeks before you penned that criticism,
wrote you stating that this sentence was in
complete and requesting you to amend it tt
read thus, "Thst whatever the Synod itsel
can do, that same thing, under certain linn
tations, it can do by a Commission" II
would seem, therefore, that when that Seuti
ment was imputed to me by you, yOn at least
knew that it was disavowed by me. An ex-
PLANTATION is in order. (d)
2. You seem to be preparing for retreat
on this question. 1t is impossible to say
from your articles what yonr opinion is
You apparently both affirm and deny. Your
discussion reminds me of the snake that
"wired in and wired out, so that no one
could tell whether it was "going North or
coming South" Will you please tell us how
you voted in the Synod of Virginia in 1845.
upon the motion to censure Lexington Pres
bytery for appointing judicial Commission
And just here l would state that that Com
mission, with DR.. B. NJ Smith at its head,
was clothed with plemGry power, to try
and issue the case. This may be the expla-
nation of the Synod's vote COndemning it. (e)
8. You cite with great A,urish Of trum-
pets, and array of Influential names, the case of
Rev. A G. Fraser, and remark, "We think
this will give brother Shanks long pause. Z"
This is an instance of a big cry and little
wool" The case has not the strength of q
spiders web. 1t has nothing to do with Com
missions, and it is amazing you should have
produced it. You must be counting upon
my "ignorance. The facts are these: Mr..
Fraser, disregarding the forms of carrying a
case before superior judicatory, attempted
by simple petition to put his case before
the Assembly. The judicial committee re-
ported, and the Assembly approved, that
there was no case before the Assembly, in
either of the ways prescribed in the Consti
tuition, and so the Assembly could not pro-
perly take cognizanee of his case. If you
will turn to Baird's Digest, p. ia, edition
of 1856, you will see that the only thing de-
cided in this case was that ga memorial or
petition cannot bring case bofOre a supe-
rior court for judicial hearing" 00
4, beg to remind you of the numerous
precedents referred to by me, and especially
the cases of the Cumberland Presbytery and
Peoria church, which you have found it con-
yenient to overlook on this point. (g)
5. contend that the facts of the case
warrant the statement that the Assembly of
1847 did endorse Commissions. DR.. Hodge
states that the action of the Assembly was
at the instance of the friends of his report
that the Assembly by its action refused to
deny this right to our primary courts, and
that decided majority approved the power.
And this last statement is confirmed by the
statement of DR. Thornwell, who was present,
that the right to appoint Commissions was
universally conceded" and that the only
question was Gas to the powers with which
they might be legitimately invested" (D
6. DR.. Thornwell explicitly approved Com
missions. This you admit, but endeavor to
break its force by the statement that he was
" comparatively young man." When his
imagined opinion suits you he is every inch
a man-but when his unambiguous judgment
is against you, then he is nothing. 1t may
clear up the matter little to remind you
that when that opinion was given he was
President of South Carolina College, and one
of the most Influential men in the Church,
and had been Moderator of the Assembly of
1847, in which the report of DR.. Hodge on
Commissions was elsborstely discussed. ()
7. In the judicial case of Rev. Mr.. Cook
and others, against the proceedings and judg-
ments of Louisville Presbytery, in our AS
sembly of 1875, motion was made by DR..
]. R. Wilson for the appointment of Com
mission. The majority of those who debated
the point admitted the laWfulness of Com.
missions. DR.. Girardeau endorsed Com.
missions with plenary poWer-and even our
very constitutional brother, DR.. Lefevre
conceded that a Commission with limited
powers, was lawful. The motion was tabled
believe, upon the ground of inexpediency
But need l say more? The whole matter
may be summed up thus: The Church has il
numerous instances endorsed and employed
judicial Commissions, and so far as l know
the right has never been diSCredited save il
the single instance of the Synod Of Virginia
and in this case the Commission was clotbet
with plenary power to try and issue the case
" With this statement of facts l now submit
to the judgment of all who feel any interes
in the subject" whether you have not ut
terly failed to discredit Commissions. You
failure reminds me of this story. A youD
minister preached on one occasion before
Methodist Conference and did his best Al
ter the beuediction, good brother aske
one of the fathers how he liked the youn
brotber's sermon. He replied, " You haV
heard of persons coming out of the little en-