The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1879-12-17

really present in the minds of Atlanta
Presbytery-then it differs toto coeLO from
the one here proposed Our question is,
Are the dehverances of the General As
sembly authoritative interpretations Of
Church law?" Notice that the question
asked is not Has the General Assembly
power, as a legislative body, to make
laws?' But has it power as a court to
interpret law? Not has the Assembly
power to add to or alter the Constitution
of the Church and the law Of God as given
in His Word? But can it give an au-
thoritative construction of the teachings
of the Constitution or of the Word of
God? Not has the General Assembl y
going outside of the Word Of God, in or
der to meet certain exigencies not pro-
vided for therein-the power to say Of
this, that or the other practice, 1--WE de-
cree that such practice is henceforth to be
deemed sin, and as such to be disci-
plined?" But has it power to say what
are the principles of our Constitution and
the Word Of God, and then applying
these principles to certain practices not
specifically mentioned in the Constitution
or the Scnpture-has it the power to say
Of these practices, According to our in
depreciation of the Constitution and to the
Bible these practices are sinful and 10 be
disciplined?' The question is not has
the General Assembly power as an arbi-
trary tyrant over the whole Church to
promulgate DEGREES and edicts. But the
question is simply this-In cases where
there is a conflict of opinion in the lower
courts as to what is the teaching Of the
Constitution or the Word of God as to a
certain practice, has the General Assem-
bly-as the supreme Court Of the Church
the right to say, This is the teaching
of the Constitution as regards that mat
ter This is the teaching of the Bible
on that subject In other words, we
raise no question as to whether the AS
sembly has the power to make law on
any subject: But has it not the power to
declare and aatthontativelyt to declare what
IS the existing law in regard to any prac-
| IlC6 DIGSeulGCl W 4LS dltCIltlOll'
Now the writer would not rashly affirm
that the last General Assembly returned
negative answer to this question. But
if it did, then he would present and ask
for light upon some difficulties which oc-
cur to his mind in view Of such negative
answer.
l. To deny to the deliverances OF the
General Assembly on constitutional ques-
tions, the character of authoritative inter
pretations of law, seems to be equivalent to
Adenying to the Assembly itself the char
aof the supreme Court Of the Pres
ca Church.
ally it is-qot IL flnctinn--aff- 2
.,sokc laws-this Derosy
Stature. But certainly it is within
re functions of the Supreme Court, when
Intercepted in the proper way, to declare
what is the law. Does not the Book Of
Church Order confirm this view when it
says The General Assembly shall have
power to decide in all controversies re-
specting doctrine and discipine?" Form
Of Government, chap. V, sec. 6, par. s.
To be specifc-while all would admit
that no Church court could enact law
making dancing sin, does it follow that
it is beyond the province Of the General
Assembly to declare, and to declare au-
thoritatively that the lar of God con-
tanned in the Bible, makes dancing a sin
And after our supreme Court has thus
given its opinion-its authoritative inter
probation of the law of God on this sub
ject of dancing, is it still to be discretion
airy with our lower courts (who them
selves have asked the Assembly whether
or no. according to Gods law, dancing is a
SIM OF even with individuals to accept or
reject this Interpretation as they please
A court may not indeed pass law
making certain act a crime-least of all
a Church court. But where there is any
dispute or doubt as to whether certain
practice is condemned by the law of God,
may not the General Assembly give an
authoritative Interpretation of the law
which shall decide the controversy" and
remove the doubt? Must not this inter
probation bind all the lower courts?
Some one may say, however, "All that
you say must be admitted, provided only
the Interpretation of which you speak be
sought and obtained in the proper way.
But no court gives its opinions or its in
terpretations Of law in the same manner
in which the General Assembly renders
its deliverances. The deliverances' Of
the Assembly, to which reference is here
had, are rendered upon principles of law
coming before it IN thesi No civil Su-
preme court, however, attempts to inter
pref law except when it has before it a
particular judicial case"
This, it must be admitted, is true Of
our civil courts, but here arises another
difficulty,
2. Our ecclesiastical courts, it is true