The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1878-01-16
THE QUESTION OF COMMISSIONS.
WHAT IS A COMMISSION ?

Before entering upon this question we beg
leave to repeat what was said in the Central
Presbyterian of November 18th, and which
contains the position for which we are re-
sponsible.
"The question is, not whether church
session, or Presbytery, or Synod, or General
Assembly, may, under some circumstances,
appoint a commission Cor extraordinary COM
mittee) to try judicial case. While the
power to do so has been strenuously main
tanned by some, it has been as strenuously
denied by others and when the very able
committee appointed by the Assembly of
1864, (Of which DR.. Hodge was chairman)
made report in 1847, strongly advocating
the affirmative, that Assembly by postpOuing
the whole subject, refused to affirm or deny
either of the TWO propositions presented
The subject was CD in another form in the
Assemblies of 1S49 and 1854, in proposals
that the Assembly should send down over
lures for provision in the Constitution to
create such commission; but these pro-
posals were discountenanced by being laid on
the table. And in point of fact the theory
finds no encouragement in any practice with
in our knowledge under our present revised
Constitution"
Every statement Of this paragraph IS in
accordance with the facts in relation to it.
But let US now consider the question
WHAT IS A COMMISSION?
This word has the same source in its ety.
mOlogy as the word committee, and both are
used INTERCHANGEABLE in the records of the
Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian
Churches of this country. The word COM
mission is used lin the sense here meant
but twice in our book of Discipline, (cbap.
", rule 4sb; chap. VI, rule ~ and in both
places it refers to a provision for appointing
committee to take testimony under special
circumstances.
After examining the cases 10 which CON-
missions have been appointed in the service
of the Church in the United States, we are
free to say that it is not easy to bring the
word, in technical sense, within the limits
of a very distinct definition. Wewill do the
best in our power, and be thankful to any
one who will do better
l. A commission is not church cour'.-
Taere is an entire mistake on this point.
One of our most distinguished ecolesiashcs
says-"it is the court itself resolving TO be
constituted as sWeb, with less than majority
of its members. The appointment of certain
persons by name preeludes none others from
attending: all the members of the court are
de jlsre members of the Commission; the only
purpose of the appointment Is to render 1t
certain that some shall attend, by making it
their special duty to do 80. This was writ
ten by Dr.. Thornwell in 1917, when he was
comparatively young man. At any tate
il is inconsistent with a fundamental fact
which appears, so far as We can find, through
out the whole history of Commissions in
Scotland and this country. That fact is tbat
the acts Of Commission are only provisional,
and unless approved by the body appointing
it, are not vested with ecclesiastical authority.
Il can therefore be in no sense the court it.
self
2. Nor is a Commission an ordinary Com
mittee. The duties of an ordinary commit
tee are q To collect information on SOM
particular subject, and make report either
with or without argument; or e To con-
slider and discuss some particular question;
or 81 to perform certain acts by particular
directiOn-the court itself having determined
what is to be done, and the committee being
simply the instrument to execute it.
The cases in which Commissions have been
employed and the powers with which they
have been entrusted, seem to warrant the de-
fnition about as it is given in Baird's Digest,
viz:
"a Commission is an extraordinary CON-
mittee of a Church Court, appointed either
for some special business, or to take cogni,
zance of such as may arise during the Vaea-
tiOns of the court.
There can be no question-fOr it is mat
ter of bistory-that such committees have at
times been appointed to take charge Of all
sorts of church matters, such as to lcerse,
ordain, release, and translate pastors, settle
discussions, &c.
That they were also appointed to exercise
judicial pOVsrs in eensures Inflicted upon
private members, elders, aud ministers, IS
we'll sttested. And all these things were
done both before and after the adoption of
our present Constitution in 1888. 1t will
be observed that we have not denied that
there is authority to appoint Commission
for taking charge Of cases of Judicial process.
All that We affirmed vas that 10 point of fact
the theory which maintains that it may be
lawfully done, "6nds no sncoursg cement IN
any practice within our knowledge under our
present revised Consultations. This Constitu-
ton, be it remembered, was reused in 1921;
and, account for it as you may, it is a re-
marksble fact that the Digest does not pre-
sent single instance since that time in favor
of any such Commission. Mr.. Shanks refers
20 the PeOris case in 1910; but it will be