The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1878-01-16

years no case appears IN Ia'oA " o~Uu "
pointments, shows how little encouragement
has been given to, the theory which claims
the power.
But the evidence on this point does not
stop there. We recur now to what has been
referred to by both parties in this discussion
The case was this: In 1845 the PresbyterieS
of Lexington and Winchester appointed com
mittees of the kind We are considering, who
went over the head of the Sessions, and after
judicial process administered discipline IN
three cases. The Synod condemned this &C
ton, declared that such an appointment was
creating a tribunal unknown to our law and
unauthorized. When the records OF the
Synod came to be reviewed 10 the Assembly
of 1916, we fad the following:
Resolved, That the records of the Synod
of Virginia be approved; while in doing SO
the Assembly would be understood as ez
pressing no opinion on the question decided
by the Synod in reference to the authority
Of the Presbyteries of Winchester and Lex
ington. to appoint Commissions in the cases
alluded to in the records of the Synod.
AT the same meeting the following reaolu-
ton was referred to a committee of which
the Rev. DR.. Hodge was chairuan-Viz:
Resolved, That in the Judgment of this
Assembly, it is contrary to the Constitution
and uniform practice Of the Presbyterian
Church in the Uoited States, for any eccle-
slastical judicatOry to appoint Commission
to determine judicially any case Whatever.
The report of this Committee, drawn by
DR.. Hodge was presented the next year,
1S47. 1t states fully, what is not disputed,
that Commissions have occasionally been ap
pointed, and in judicial as well ss other cases.
1t claims the right for judicatory to do
this, not from any specific or implied author
ity in the Constitution, but from its anhe
rent pooerS" the view which has been 81
ready contrOverted. DR.. Hodge persuaded
himself that this report was disposed of in q
way satisfactory to himself and to those who
agreed with him. We must beg the rriVi
lege of presenting the precise facts from the
Minutes. The committee made its report
which was made special order, and when 1t
came up this is the record -"On motion
the original resolution recommended by the
committee on the subject of the power Of &C.
clesiastical bodies to appoint Judicial Com.
missions was laid on the table to take up the
following, viz:
"ResOlved, That the resolution declaring,
&C., be indefoitely postponed After some
discussion the whole subject was, on motion,
indefinitely postponed.
Here we have the following facts-Q.)
Toe Synod of Virginia pOintedly condemn
such Commissions; a. The Assembly, in
reviewing those records, decline to condemn
or approve; Is A resolution, condemnir G
Commissions is referred to committee: this
committee report approving Commissions
| az A motion made to adopt this report was
laid on the table, and then the whole sui jeot
was indefinitely postponed. DR.. Hodge say s
in the Princeton Rsvie1O, concerning this
vote, that " it was refusal on the part Of
Assembly to deny this right to our primary
courts Yes; but that was not all, and DR..
Thornwell correctly states it in the Southern
Presbyterian Review 1.-The Assembly by
this vote, refused either to affirm or deny
that our primary courts possess the right IL
dispute Two attempts we're made IL
1919 and in 1854 TO get an express provl
sion for such a Commission for the use Of
the Assembly, but failed. A number Of
points connected with this subject may suit
ably claim attention at some future time
What has been here presented is enoug ID to
make good our statement which was to the
effect, that the right to appoint Commissions
to adjudicate cases of Judicial process was q
disputed question, and that in point of fact
the practice under our revised Constitution
did not encourage the idea that the authority
was conceded.
1t has been stated that there is no instance
mentioned in Baird's Digest of Commission
under our revised Constitutions period of
more than fifty years. Il is proper to state
that MoOre'S Digest, which gives the cases
occurring under both the Old and New
School Assemblies, mentions FIVE instances
iu the Old School body since the Southern
Church separated from IT, In every one,
however, the Commission was appointed BY
consent of parties, aud, moreover, and it
each instance the action of the Commission
was not of the nature Of a judgment provis-
ionally enforced, but was reported iumedi-
ately to the Assembly which made the ap-
poiutmeut, and became effec i've only by its
approval. There are other questions te-
longing to this SUI sct which it is proposed
to examine at some future time-in articu
lar the powers which may be properly en-
trusted to a Commission, and the merits OF
che provision in our Book of Church Order
now sent down to the Presbyteries. Mr..
Shanks and Dr.. Hodge lay down the sweep
ing proposition that anything which church
court can itself perform, it may also perform
By a COMMISSIONS Ike If which we do
not suppose is to be found Sin the earth be-
meath, or for aught we know, Sin the aterS
under the earth.
Another paper will conclude what is pro
posed to be said on the subject of Mr..
| CbsDks' artioia