The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1878-02-20
FoE THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN.
LETTER OF REV. MR.. sHANKs.
FALLING SPRING MANsE, Jan. 81, rs

FALLING SPRING MANsE, Jan. 81, '7S.
Rev. Vim. BrOaOn, D. d.:
Dear Sir,-A few words more will cover
all have to say on the inherent power OF
church courts. In your argument you laid
great stress on the Substantial concurrence of
our Assembly in the voluminous statement of
doctrine and constitutional principles con-
tanned in the letter of the Synod of Ken
tueky. In reply endesvored to fairly as
certain the value of this document as de-
liveranee of the Church. l showed that the
circumstances were unfriendly to dehbera-
ton, that in point of fact twas only partial
ly read to the Assembly, that at the best the
Assembly expressed only substantial con-
eurrence, that many in the Synod of Virginia
repudiated in the Ruffner case the theory Of
that paper, and that you explicitly disowned
it, and advocated the doctrine of inherent
power 10 the Presbyteries. And now in-
Vite your attention to another fact. 10 the
Assembly at Savannah the Committee on
Bills and 0vertures, to which was referred
for consideration and report the subject of
representation in the Pan. Presbyterian Ooun
Gil, presented unanimous report: "That
the proposed confederation is not contrary
20 the Constitution of our Church and it is
advisable to appoint delegates" This too
in the face of demand by DR.. Adger, to be
shown warrant for this measure in the
Constitution or the Bible, which is part,
and the very foundation part of .j,tre divinO
Presbyterian Constitution. Good doctrine
By the way.) Here now We see "gravely
prOpounded" the theory of non-c on-cOntradiction,
aud expediency-in other words that the
General Assembly has power to perform any
ecclesiastical act not forbidden in the Con-
stisution. And now who were on that Com
mittee, An excellent elder from Virginia,
w. M. Tredwsy; the author of that letter of
the Synod of Kentucky, DR.. Stuart Robin
son, and DR.. Moses Hoge, chairman. Why,
how could you suppress your ''deep concern"
and forbesr withstanding DR.. HOge to the
face" and 'planting your feet upon the time
honOred doctrine ?" But "the times change
and we change with them" This theory of
Drs. Robinson and Hoge is not mine. l have
referred to it to show the estimate placed on
the action of our Assembly in that house
warming at Nashville, and to evince the utter
worthlessness of such deliveranoes. (a)
We have another illustration of this last
remark, in the fact that the same Assembly
of 1887, which by committee uttered the
propositions of restricted power which you
set out with, did eat its own words, and be-
fore the close of its sessions propOunded the
theory of inherent power. Baird's Digest, p.
$50, edition of 1856. The truth is your
latest theory has never been enunciated with
even quasi official authority except in a
moment of fright or frenzy, and the whole
current of every day usage of the Church is
against it. But yOW are not troubled with it
If one theory does not suit you have another
At one time the "Presbyteries are the Con
stitutional fountains OF pOwer," and theI
4" each iudicatory is a fountain of power under
the arrangements of our Constitutions" ther,
is inherent power in the Presbytery one day
aud the next this notion coatraaicts common
sense. You are like the Irishmans flea, whel
you put your hand on him he is not there
Your theories are about as incongruous, no
to say grotesque, as that fabulous anima
which was half horse and half alligator wit
little touch of thunder. But have hope
Of you. (0
One word more. The intimatiou in you
article of January 9;h, that in endorsing d.
Hodges report l committed myself to tn
theory of that Assembly of violent men
in st. Louis in 1866, is as unworthy of 20
as it is unjust to me, and not to me only br
, to the memory of those good and great me
, Drs Mcfarland and ThOrnwell, both of who
endorsed that report. The first was men
, Der of DR.. Hodges committee. They wei
0 not called upon to state all the limitation
s upon the doctrine, and no one knows bett
f than you that the theory of inherent pow
y contended for in that report bears no ik
9 ness to the doctrine of consolidation a
o vauced by the Northern Assembly in 186
IS (c)
3 will now give attention briefly to t
r, question of Commissions, and remark