The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1878-01-09
THE QUESTION OF COMMISSIONS,

Inc tneOfy OF our OVuot1tu1luu ASAu ~
Mr.. Shanks was stated last Week-the sub
stance being this, that a Church court mag
perform any ecclesiastical act which It is not
expressly forbidden to do. Two objections,
each of which was claimed to be decisive, were
urged against this view, viz : that it proposed
most singular and iaeOnUsnient mode Of
making a constitution and that it involued
complete uncertainty and confusion. We nov
proceed to show as a matter Of fact that this
theory has been explicitly discredited and
repudiated," by the most approved sources
Of authority, personal and ecclesiastical.
1. In the General Assembly of 1884, the
Rev. Samuel G. Winchester, D. D., then Of
Philadelphia, delivered an elaborate srgu-
ment on a question involving this further
question as to the powers Vt the General As
sembly. This speech made a powerful i'm
preston, and was generally regarded as an
unansWerable exposition Of our Constitution.
So much value was attached to it that at
public meeting held in Philadelphia formal
request was made for its publication. This
great argument is directly in the teeth Of
Mr.. Shanks' view. DR.. Winchester says ::
as is well known and acknowledged rule
that the delegation of powers is always evil
deuce against the possession of those not del
egated." at (the Assembly sis body of
limited and defined authority" And he very
pertinently asks, Why it is, if this inherent
power exists, that our " Book has grsvely
and particularly entered into specification
of powers So also De. Robert Brecken,
ridge argued at the same time. The Assem-
bly,, he said, was body possessing powers
limited and strictly defined"
?. The principle maintained by the Act
and Testimony Of 1885 says" We most
particularly testify against the exercise by
the General Assembly Of auy power not
clearly delegated to it. ="
3. In the famous General Assembly Of
1887 those who then protested against abol-
isbing the Plan of U aiOn with the COngregs-
tionaIsts, commended that it was originally a
lawful compact for the General Assembly to
make: it was, they said, "neither specifoal-
ly provided for, nor prohibited By the COnsti
astion. There is Mr. Shanks' doctrine,
"not prohibited, therefore lawful Now
what was the well-weigbed official answer
made by that Assembly, when the prime
question before it wss-What is the true
theory of our Constitution on that point p
Here it is;
l. I" The Constellation of the Presbyterian
Church, Ike that of the National Union, as a
Constellation of specific po,0ers granted By the
Pres5yteries, the fountains of poorer, to the
Synods and General Assembly"
?. "No pOwera not specifically granted can
lapfully Be inferred and assumed By the Gen
sral Assembly; bit only such as are iadis-
psn8a6ly necessary to carry into effect those
specifically granted" This vas the doctrine
set forth in those days by such men as Drs.
Alexander, Miller, James Hoge, Green, Win
chester, Cuyler, Phillips, Plumer, MoIlhen-
ney, Baxter, Samuel C. Anderson, Esq, and
host of others. Il may be proper to add
that although the New School brethren of
1887 were led, under the stress Of circum-
stances, to invoke the aid of the theory re-
ferred to, they soon repudiated it, and no
Presbyterians in the land have been more
thoroughly set against it ever since. As suf-
foient proof of this We need only quote from
Moore's Digest such expressions as these;
"No judieatory of our Church has any legit-
innate functions save those which, either ex-
pressly or BY clear implication the Constitu-
tion confers." The power which it has ''can
be exercised only in the form and methods
marked out in the Constitution. PIP. 252,
233.
3. The Northern Old School General As.
sembly at st. Louis IN 1856, is a memorable
case in point. The view which prevailed in
that Assembly Of violent men, assembled
on that " Hill of Evil Counsel on the Wes-
tern bank Of the Mississippi was this: that
as the several judicatories are representative
bodies, they are clothed with the same power
which pertains TO their respective oonstitu-
eneies therefore as the Session has al the
power Of the congregation, so the General
Assembly has all che power which inheres in
the entire Church. All legitimate ecclesias-
tical powers so iuhere il che Assembly, and
all ecclesiastical functions so appersain to it,
that it can at its discretion do any and all
the things which the inferior courts can do,
provided it is not expressly forbidden. IN
der this molstrous assumption followed those
whole tyrannieal proceedings towards the
8 gners of the Declaration and Testimony,
which constrained the SyOods Of Missouri
aud Kentucky to dissolve their ecclesiastical
connection with the Northern Church.
Yet strange to say it was vindioated by
DR.. Hodge. In the Princeton RevisV for
July, 1866, he admits that those acts we're
''uncared for, " "needlessly severe, - adapt |
ed to fomeas strife and division" and to
put in jeopardy important interests; never