The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-07-28

deliverances an thesi binding on the con-
science, it can make La,0S which are con-
trary to the first esolution-contrary to
our standards and contrary TO the plain
teaching of Scripture. Therefore, to
and to enable both resolutions to stand,
we must interpret the latter as yielding
to the first In other words, the mere
deliverance IN theSi can never have the
force of ldaU. If it be consonant to the
word, then the word as interpreted by
our standards gives the law-and the de-
liverances' the Assembly does not give
it. If it be not consonant to the word
then no one will pretend that it will have
any authority of any kind. Hence, the
only meaning that the resolution which
declares that deliverance IN thesi not
contrary to the word, must be submitted
to, can have, is simply that such deliver
ances though not LaaO must be gravely
and seriously considered and needed by
every church member, but only as "di-
dactic, advisory, and monitory." There
fore, these resolutions do not carry us one
step beyond the deliverance of 1879.
They are wholly imperative and unne-
cessary, and they labor under the addi-
tional disadvantage of being certainly
ambiguous and at least in appearance,
elf-contradictory. The Interpretation
given to them in the "open letter" of
Rev DR.. Girardeau is entirely inadmis-
sible, and will be, at once, repudiated by
thousands of ministers, elders, and private
members in our Church t,-,
u fnbio hro+ho,, rr,o o,,1,,,oe
that, because the mere preamble or in
troductory sentence preceding the reso-
lutions themselves uses the words, '"The
Assembly met in Charleston, in virtue of
its power to give authoritative interpre-
tations of the word, declares" etc., there
fore the necessary meaning of their action
is that, by a deliverance IN theS1 they can
exercise laa0-making poaoer. He reaches
this far-fetched and illogical conclusion
by virtue of the word authoritative, to
which he attributes wondrous powers
He says advice, however solemn, cannot,
without solecism, be said to be author
ve-authoritative advice is contra
diction in terms. Authority and law are
correlatives-not authority and advice"
Now these "glittering generaities" are
very much in the style Of great deal of
the talk of our day, and, when analysed,
will be found destitute of truth and sound
ness. A SoIeciSn1 / take to be neither
more nor less than what the lexicons de-
fine it to be, 4. e., an offence against the
laws of language by using words in
wrong construction. And the words
authority" and authoritative" both of
which come from the same source, mean
simply such right, power, force, influence,
rule as may be really and actually vested
in the author or agent acting" There
fore it is not solecism to say that "ad-
vice may be authoritative Advice, in
struction, admonition, may be the very
function of the agent or author author
azed by the terms of his existence. 1t
may be, and very often is, the only func-
tion he can exercise. 1t is not every man
or woman who has authority to give
advice. Hence, we see, every day, that
men resent and turn deaf ear to advice
from one man, and give serious heed to
advice from another man. Why? Be
cause the first has "no authority to give
advice. No facts in his position or his
individuality, his age, wisdom, or char
acter give him this authority" But
the latter has such authority and there
fore is listened to. And it is equally un-
sound and untrue to say in general that
authority and law are correlatives."
Seldom was a more misleading sentence
written. authority exists in thousands
of cases where there is no right to make |
or TO declare LAM. A constable has "au-
thority" to arrest man who has com
mitted or is about to commit a crime. |
Has a constable therefore authority to
make laws or to interpret laws by his
dictum so as to bind the conscience and |
conduct of the citizen? A Judge, hold
ing legal court, has authority" to in
terpret the law of his country, and his in
depreciation will govern the special case
he is trying, and, if affirmed by the high
est court, may consign a criminal to the |
soafold. Has Judge therefore any au-
thority to make LolOs: or to interpret
laws when not presiding in special iu-
dicial case? We know he has not. His
opinions, in his office or on the street or
when not sitting judicially have no more
authority" in the line of making law or
Interpreting law than those of any other
well-informed citizen. They are simply
didactic, advisory, or monitory." And |
as such they may have much authority.
But they are mere "deliverances IN Mesj,'