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

, the blind, to be as un@sbie sS weather
t cock is pitiable, aud then to have his oil
clothes" aired in the Central, this is too bad
I have compassion, but public interests, yo'
know, must be supreme. And you really
thought of proposing cessation of hostili
ties, did you? This reninda me Of fight
witnessed when boy. A big bully wa'
challenging everybody n the Court green fol
a fight. Presently he cressed little fellow
whom he thought he could whip, and began
to badger him. To his surprise the little
fellow sprang upon him, and tripping him,
began to pound him heaviA In terror he
beloved, "Take him off!!" They were sep
arated, but the little fellow, who had just
begun to warm to his work, shot an angry
glance at the bully, and in almost mortal
agony he cried out, Hold him! hold him
1t will take two to hold him-one can hold
me-" (k)
There are two thipSs which vill surprise
everybody: One is, that you have expendedsO
much time and space in refuting "noDsense;'
the other is, that you should denounce in
such unmeasured terms au opinion which in
its EXTREMIST form you publicly advocated
two years ago. Now keep cool, Doctor. l
have not sought this discussion. | have not
alluded to the merits of this case, but you
and others know my opinion and have not
assailed anything save the laR as expounded
BY you, And now surely matters have come
to pretty pass in our Church, if a minister
cannotrespectfully but fearlessly dissent from
the Synod of Virginia. am not to be turned
aside by your proverbp, or your threats; but
in this closing letter am going straight to
the heart of this matter. The great princi-
pie, I repeat, involved here is, "The power
of the Church to prevent a prejudced verdict
and secure to the meanest member OF her
fold the inalienable right of trial by an i'm
partial and disinterested jury of his breth
rem" This principle you have not dared to
asssil directly. ~
And now what is the precise question in
debate? The heading Of your editorial of
January 23-" Process against q minister; /;
to whom belongs the right of instit@ting it p
is misleading. This is not the question, but
this: Can Synod, having obtained juris.
diction of case by appeal, in issuing the
appeal lawfully, as its final decision upon
the appeal, and by reason of matter in the
record, determine to take it for new trial Z
And on this / remark
l. The case of Lowry, cited by you, has
no bearing upon either Commissions or the
point now debated. The Assembly decided
that Mr.. Lowry ought to have been tried by
the courts instituted BY the Constitution
that the Session constitub bd by the Presbytery
was a new, and so unchnssit1tional court
that the allegation that it was only Com
mittee of Presbytery was incorrect because
it possessed the power peculiar to Session,
and that the Presbytery could not delegate
to committee such powers. Where now is
the pertineucy of this case Z (m)
g. The imagined case of the General AS
sembly claiming power to suspend member
of Falling Spring church is irrelevant, be-
cause the case in hand is whether the Synod
can retry case regularly before it by ap-
peal-not whether it can institute process
and take original jurisdiction. The latitude,
however, claimed for the Assembly in your
argument for a Pan Presbyterian Council,
would satisfy the most Aagrant ambition,
and even justify the Assembly in such a
usurpation. (n)
3. You have said that the Book gives to
the Presbytery exclusively the power to en-
ter process against minister, and that the
Synod cannot retry case upon appeal, be-
cause new trial must begin de nOvO by en-
tering process, tabling charges, &c. The
book expressly provides for a new trial by
the Synod in case of an appeal, where there
is new testimony. Now does the Synod in
this case begin de novo, or simply take it up
where the Presbytery left it, the accused be-
ing already by his appeal under its jurisdic.
tion Let the reader refer to what l have
said on this entering of process. (O)
4. You affirm that the Book expressly
says, the Synod "msy remit the cause for q
new trial" and 80 virtually denies to it the
power to retry it. You are mistaken. Here
is the passage, and beg you to note th'
punctuation: "The decision may be either
to-; or to remit the cause for the purpos'
of amending the record; or for new
trial" The " for a new trial is not con
nected with the word remit--but the punctu
alton shows that in isuing the appeal tn
Synod may decide for new trial-but BY
whom is not said. (p)
And now l will briefly set down some ar
guments in favor of my position. The anal
ogy of the civil law favors it. You call it
noble science and it.deserVes all the prais
bestowed upon it, "Whoever heard of sue
an anomaly in our Court Of Appeals as MI
Shanks pleads for in the Church2" We
J let the Code of Virginia answer you. |
the county court all appeals from Justice
Court are heard de nOvO, and "when an
Judgment, decree or order of county cOul
is reversed by the Circuit Court the cauf
e shall not be remanded to said court but sha
4 be retained in the Circuit Court and thel