The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-03-03

y
But ask in the next place-are 'con-
troversies of discip pine the same ma
ture as judicial processes 1t would
seem not. First, from the language of
the Constitution itself. In defining the
jurisdiction of Church courts in general
the Constitution says: Every court has
the right to. resolve questions ofdoctrine
and discipline seriously and reasonably
proposed. judicial processes are not of
the nature of questions of discipline Sc
riously and reasonably proposed" This
language implies that there may be "ques-
tlons of discipline" g. e., questions as to
what is disciplinable) as well as cases
OF discipline" No one would seriously
contend that the way in which these
questions of discipline" are to be re-
solved is by instituting process against
those proposing them. Again, in defining
the powers and rights of the General AS
sembly the Constitution says, 1.-The Gen
eral Assembly shall have power to re-
ceive and issue all appeals, references,
and complaints regularly brought before
1t from the inferior courts to bear tes-
tlmony against error in doctrine and i'm
morality In practice injuriously affecting
the Church; to decide in all controver-
sizes respecting doctrine and discipline"
This clause expressly distinguishes be-
tween judicial processes and "contro-
versies of discipline 1t makes three
grants of power to the Acknowledgements
as court of final appeal to exercise re-
mote jurisdiction over judicial cases
brought before it in the way of appeal.
reference, or complaint; power to pro
test; power to decide in all controversies
OF discipline. Second, judicial processes"
and controversies of discipline" will
evidently appear to be different in their
nature If we will compare the two things.
judicial processes concern particular
individuals; controversies of discipline"
concern the sinfulness of certain practices
or acts in themselves considered. A
judicial process is instituted to decide
whether a particular individual ca. b.
is guilty OF a violation of law; "contro-
versy of discipline" raises a question as
to whether such and such a practice is a
violation of the Constitution. There may
be controversies of discipline" in the
Church and no cases of discipline" Il
the Constitution had not provided for the
decision of controversies of discipline"
in some other way than by judicial pro
cess" the Church would be in an awk-
ward and perilous position. For mani
testify there are controversies of doctrine
and discipline" which do much toward
lnuring the purity and peace of the
Church before the evils causing these
controversies come before the Assembly
In the shape of judicial cases. Such an
evil is dancing. There has long been a
controversy in the lower courts as to
whether the practice is sinful. Sessions.
have failed to discipline for this practice
because the mind of the Church seemed
so divided on the question of its sinful
ness. Much injury has hence ensued
both to the peace and purity of the
Church. is there no remedy? Must
this controversy go on forever? or until
some church has been torn to pieces by a
painful and bitter trial begun in the SEES
sion and going through all intermediate
courts up to the Assembly? The Con
stltutlon to me appears to have provided
remedy. For. while it denies to the
Assembly original Jurisdiction in judicial
prosecutions it distinctly gives that body
the right to decide in all controversies
OF doctrine and discipline.
That "Luke's" last position may be
entirely shorn of strength it only remains
to show that in controversies of disci-
pine the General Assembly has origi
nal jurisdiction This will appear if we
consider First, the explicit language of
the Constitution quoted above. Second,
the fact that no one pretends to deny to
the Assembly original jurisdiction in
" controversies Of doctrine" How many
Assemblies have decided questions of doc
trine reasonably proposed? But the
Constitution joins controversies of doc
trine and discipline together. The right
to decide as to the soundness of a doe
trine and the snfulness of a practice must
stand or fall together Third the fact
that there Is no reason why the Assembly
should not have original Jurisdiction in
controversies of doctrine and discipline
and every reason why is should have it
In cases of process this is not so. There
original jurisdiction is wisely given to
Presbyteries and Sessions. These courts
are best situated to take up and invest
gate cases Of Individual and personal de
linquency-they are best able to take
cognizance Of the ofence-to bring to-
gether witnesses and to weigh the evi-
dence. There are many obvious reasone