The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1878-01-02
THE QUESTION OF COMMISSIONS.

We come now to consider question Of
vital Importance What the true theory of
our Constellation concerning the pOsOer of our
Church courts?
There are some things which might be ap-
propristely introduced here if it were other
wise suitable. Il would be interesting, for
example, TO explain the genesis, or natural
origin of these courts in their regular grsds-
ton; to show that when the growth of the
Church calls for it, the formation of any one,
from the session to the General Assembly, is
Just as Presbyterian and scriptural as that of
any other; and that the fountain of power
viewing it from its human souree) is not ex-
clusiVely in the Presbytery; but that each
iudieatory is a fountain of power, according
to the arrangements under the Constitution.
But this would require far greater space than
can be appropriately given in a newspaper.
Coming to what bears more directly upon
our present purpose, it may be presumed
that there will be no dispute on such state
ments as these; that all our Church courts
are in accordance with the plan of govern
ment which Presbyterians believe to be indi-
Gated in the Scriptures; that as they are not
originally of human but divine appointment,
there is in all of them an inherent power con-
nected with that appointment; that the ex-
tent of this power is to be understood and
measured by the purpose for which each was
established; and that the object of the Con
stitution is that the limitations within which
each shall act may be sseertained and agreed
upon. For while it is true that some things
belong in common to all, yet no one pretends
that they are alike in all things, for in that
case there would have been no necessity for
more than one. So that we are here met
with the further que8tiOn-Ho0 are these
limitations to be ascertainsd and defined
There are two forms of speech under
which powers are defined in al kinds of or.
CARNATIONS, the one positive, the other mega
tive; or in other words by commands and pro-
bibitions. Our State and Federal Constitu-
tions are examples in point. This is also the
way our duty is laid down in the Word of
God. OF the ten commandments eight are
in the form of prohibition. In our Church
Government it will De found that where the
formal statement is made of the power as
signed to each, it is altogether in the posi-
tive manner (ohaps. 9, 10, II, 12) And
this is nearly always the mode adopted
throughout our book of Government and
Discipline, though in few instances it is
otherwise. But that does not affect the
question already referred to-HosO are zoe to
ascertain the srtsnt of Po0er possessed By
each of these courts ?
This question will be determined by the
view adopted concerning the Constitution of
our Church. There are two theories which
are held.
/. One is this; That our Constitution
is one of expressly granted powers, which
are sometimes stated in particular, some.
times in general terms and that no powers
not expressly bestowed can lawfully be in
ferred; but only such as are necessary to
carry into effect those expressly mentioned.
According to this view whatever is not grant
ed expressly or implicitly is forbidden. When
che Constitution thereforeis once fixed, it is
the direct source of al power in the sd-
ministrations under it, and to it alone must
our several courts and people appeal for
knowledge of their rights, privileges and du-
ties connected with its government. The
word granted is here used not in reference to
Christ, the ultimate source of all Church
power, but to such distributions to the Sow
eral courts as have been agreed upon and as
signed in forming the Constitution.
2. The other theory is That we are not
to look to the Constitution for grants of
power, but for limitations upon its use, and
these restrictions must not be inferred or i'm
piled, but expressly stated. The fact there
fore that the Constitution makes no mention
of a particular power is no evidence that it
does not exist. Therefore al kinds of eccle
siastical acts-thss is, such as properly be-
long to the government Of tee Church
may be lawfully performed by any one of its
courts, unless restrained from so doing by
sonoe avnress stinnlatioD
This last is the view presented By brother
Shanks, and which is more fully set forth in
the report of Dr.. Hodge to the General As
sembly of 1916, to which reference is made
in his article, and from which he also makes
quotations. A Synod. for instance, has Gin
herent rights, derived from Christ the Head,
and any of these which are not restricted by
stipulation with the other courts, it may ex-
ercise at its discretion. That this is his
meaning is further evident from a particular
illustration in his article. He contends that
the Synod of Virginia "having once obtained
jurisd,C ton of the case" Or. Baird's) "by
appeal, hal power to take it for new trial
and give it to i, Commission. He then adds
the words we here emphasize, "THsrs as moth.
ing IN the Constitution for6iddiNg the exercise
Of this pOsVsr, etc. i