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

, l.
where that point is practically avoided.
How. we would have v5cedin the SYNOD
giinia IN lS47. An, EIDE. Ealing Spipgs
dozen of good old ladis culd tell the
that, inasmuch as we geIssSsn member1jl
ington Presbytery, wes.>:a:0, not vote at s,,SSe'
It's records we're reviess ,he Synod. 5an
of learning is a dangerous thing as welifss -
little" of it. We do no femcmber, but very Ike
ly our opinion then was w the Presbytery: VIZ
always allowed ourseIs .aioa room to grow, and re
commend similar liberal policy to some OF Gu
acquaintance.
Clothed ,oith plenary po,oer." de- About al
the judicial Commissions we read of had such pow.
er, that is to adjudicate the case and report. and
therefore that could hardly be the ground Of the
| SyDod's condemnation.
| (J) FLOURISH of trunpets Case of Fraser.
| We published the Assembly minute in full: il
declares two things. (l) that According to the
Book of Discipline there are but four ways in
which the General Assembly can have ccgnizance
of g Judicial case" Mr.. Shanks view makes out
FIVE. (2) Mr.. Fraser had asked for judicial
I tGomuissior-; 20 which the Assembly reply that
they cannot do SO without violation of the Con.
ssitution.' That is enough to give "a long
pause, without any flourish of trumpets. -
(g) Case of Cumberland Resbyt9y. We re-
mark. Il 1t was in lS0l-l0, long before our pre-
sent Constitution. (2) The Synod took hold of it,
not by virtue of reserved powers" but under an
express provision in Discipline, chap. 7, sec. l,
rule (3) The Commission appointed by the Syn
cd with full judicial powers is spoken of in the
latest and most complete history of the Presbyte-
rian Church in the United States as q questiona-
bic expedient.' al Much of the corfct arose
| from resistance to the Commission as being 'un.
constitutional. (5) The same view was held by
two out Of the three delegates to the Assembly of
1907, from the Synod of Kentucky itself. (6) I'm
the Assembly DR.. Green, Messrs. Janeway, Cath
cart and Linn agreed with him, Cameron, of Ky.)
while Drs. Miller, Woodruff, j. P. Wilson and
Specie were strenuous in opposition. The debate
was keen and spirited. The prevalent opinion was
that the Presbytery had erred, but that the Synod
had been too rigorous 1t was argued that Syn
| Cd could not proceed against individual members
Of Presbytery except in case of appeal that only
Presbytery could examine licentiates or call its
members to account; that for Synod to suspend
ordained ministers. especially bva Commission aoas
transcending ats pOaors" See Gletts History
| of Presbyterian Church, Vol. 2, p. 166 Some
| regarded the very appointment of the Commission
as " unconstitutional. The Assembly of 1907
pronounced some of the acts of the Commission
at least Of questionable regularity; but the As
| sembly of 1909. in view of the whole case, sus-
| tanned the Synod with unanimity. This can be
understood, without supposing they agreed to
every thing done the case was difficult in re-.
mote frontier, and gross errors had undoubtedly
crept in. All this shows how far Mr.. Shanks is
mistaken when he said that "the right Ito ap-
point such Commissions) Z" was never questioned
by any branch of the Presbyterian Church until
lately"
(h) Assembly Of lS47. ~ The Synod of Vir-
ginia censured the Presbytery of Lexington for
appointing judicial Commission. (2) The AS
sembly of lS47 declined to condemn or approve the
action of the Synod, but referred it to a commit
tee. (3) The Assembly of lS47, after long dis
cussion, refused to adopt the report of Dr. Hodge
approving Commissions, and indefinitely postponed
the whole subject. II that was endorsing Com
missions, the brother may make the most of it.
| DIR. Thorn0eH He did concede the right to
appoint Commissions, and who ever disputed it
A Commission is, per Sc, nothing but committee.
But when you come to the question OF its powers,
that is precisely where the rub comes, and there
DR.. Thornwell says truly, was the debate. He
considered them lawful when invested with plenary
judicial powers, because, as he expressly says he
| considered the Commission to be the court itself
we have elsewhere fully given his own words
This shows that he was as far as can be from ad
vocating such Commission as Mr.. Sharks is after
| and therefore the weight Of that name is not Oh
his side.
| (t) Dr. Thornwell was indeed even then very
eminent man, but that did not prove that he was
not comparatively young man, and no one car
reasonably suppose that ten years after, or at any
time, he could, upon thorough examination of the
subject have made SO great mistake as to call any
of the judicial Commissions ever appointed, or suct
as DIR. Hodge advocated, Church COURT
| tD Our Assembly at St Louis IN 1875. Ate
considerable debate, which disclosed exactly wha
we said in the outset OF this discussion, viz som
strenuousy asserting and others denying the law
fulness of such measure, (even with the modifet
feature of parties) the proposal was re
jected by large majority. How many thought i
unlawful Mr. Shanks is not authorized to say-a
there was no test vote. Nearly all seemed to agre
that it was inexpedient, which also shows just wha
we asserted at first that in point of fact such Com
missions have not been encouraged in any practic
under our revised Constitution. That instrumen
expressly provides in two cases, for "Commis
sion" by name to take testimony. If it had beer
the mind of its trainers that Commission to exer
else judicial pOaoers was important and lawful it
simply incredible that they should have omitted t
: insert it. That single fact condemns the idea G
: foisting it in as "a reserved power" Further
? MIR. Shanks has been called upon to show, if b
| can, in Baird's Digest single instance in whic
!. such Commission has been appointed since 1872
He is as dumb as an oyster. Uader this state {
the case he is welcome to the big end Of the hor,
9 or something helpful 10 making sound-vor
pr9ter ca aita
/. (k) Common politenees would seem to demar
r some comment on this paragraph; but really it
: enough to give one little paralysis. We can Sc
a no help for it, except to look and wonder
i (l) "Nonsense" was Mr.. Shanks' own word, n,
ours we only showed which he has not attemp
# ed to disprove-thst what he so characterised WI
y precisely the theory of Church power (the sje
1t theory which he himself advocates.
e What he ADVOCATED t,oO gears ago" How a
e fectonatey the good man nurses that " little ev
II lamb" we presented to him Much may it con
/ Ct him IN oil b;s trihulatiop Rnt on this moi
= he Gorgets how many times he himself has had
y mend has hold since he set out.
'. "Keep Cool" During long life it may be tn