The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-07-14

merely advisory. This supposition is un-
tenable. The testimony of a Church
court must derive its nature and force
from the matter testified to. If the tes-
timony be TO the law contained in tie
word as interpreted in our standards, and
be true testimony, 1t must have the
force attached to the law itself 1t is
then authoritative testimony. If the tes-
timony be to a matter of expediency, the
same principle of construction holds
it is then advisory testimony. There is
no middle ground A Church court may
testify to the doctrines and precepts of
the word, and then the testimony, if true,
is authoritative; or the court may testify
as to what is simply expedient, and then
the testimony is unauthoritative and ad
visory. 1t cannot help the matter to say
that the term authoritative, as used by
the Assembly, may qualify testimony
2. The first item in the Assembly s de-
cision is: Nothing is law to be enforced
by judicial prosecution, but that which is
contained in the word as interpreted in our
standards. You suggest that this state
ment may have been intended to exclude
the supposition, that necessary differences
from the law have the same authority as
the law itself, and so no deliverance of
Church court, although consisting of ne
cessary differences from the law, can have
the force of law.
(a) 1 accepted this statement of the
Assembly's paper as conveyinga doctrine
which 1 had in the debate again and
again admitted, namely, that only that
which is contained in the word as inter
preted in our standards is possessed Of
legal authority, and that those deliver
ances of the courts which affirm other
matter than this, put forth the doctrines
and commandments of men, and therefore
have no legal authority.
o. I cannot speak for the intentions
of the Trainer of the deliverance but it
is certain that no dictum of a Church
court, and consequently none of this AS
sembly can set aside or nullify the logical
maxim universally admitted, and asserted
by our Confession of Faith, that necessary
differences are part and partial of the
enunciation from which they are dedueed
The Confession ranks good and necessary
consequences from the word with the
work itself The mere absence of the
words erplicitlyor implicitly as qualifying
the word contained' cannot affect the
sense of the Assembly's statement They
are understood, and the statement must
be accepted as conforming to the logical
law which has been mentioned. The As
sembly could not have excluded the OPP
Grafton of that law by the absence Of any
words affirming it. 1t never enteredinto
my mind that the statement could have
any other meaning than this: Nothing is
law to be enforced by judicial prosecution
but that which is expressly contained in
the word as interpreted in our standards,
or may be deduced from it by good and
necessary consequences. Any other con-
struction would be in the teeth of logic
and our constitution alike With private
construction we have nothing to do.
There is the construction which the
Church must logically put upon the AS
sembly's language, and it must stand un-
til corrected by another Assembly.
8. The first part of the second item is :
The judicial decisions of our courts diff
fer from the IN thesi deliverances, in that
the former determine, and, when pro-
ceeding from our highest court, conclude,
particular case" particular cases l. l
saw nothing to object to in this statement
1t appeared to give, with sufficient clear
ness, the diferentiating property which
contra-distinguishes the judicial from the
IN thesi decision. | had in my speeches
admitted the distinction. You intimate
that this implies that Judicial decisions
are binding only in the particular cases
which evoked them. Well no other
cases are actually determined by them;
but Judge it would be conceded by ALL
that any precisely similar cases which
may occur may be adiudicated in con-
formity with the principles enounced in
the previous decisions. They would have
the value of precedents. That, as I un-
derstand it, is principle acted on by all
courts.
The second part of the second item is :
)" But both these kinds of decisions name
ly, the IN the85 decision and the judicial
decision are alike interpretations Of the
word by Church court, and both not
only deserve high consideration but both
must be submitted to, unless contrary to
the constitution and the word" Upon
this | remark: ear
(a.) The very point insisted on by the
protestants against the deliverance Of the
Assembly of 1879 was, that it represented
judicial decisions as authoritative and