The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-07-14
An Open Letter.
MOUNT pleasant

MOUNT PLEASANT,
Charleston Co., S. c., June, %, 80.
THE Rev. d. W. Sha1eks:
Dear Brother, Your letter post-marked
the 22d inst, has been received, and I
take an early opportunity to reply.
You express desire to see the speech
es delivered before the Assembly more
fully and correctly presented than was
done by the papers which reported them.
| would say that full abstracts of them
have, at the request of one of the editors
of the Southern Presbyterian Review been
furnished him for publication, in connex-
ion with abstracts of DIR. Woodrow's
speeches to be Submitted by him. Both
sides will, therefore, be fairly represented.
You express the apprehension that too
much was conceded by the side which I
represented, in agreeing to the paper
which was adopted by the Assembly, and
request me to give you my construction
of the deliverance made by that body. I
proceed to do so, taking up the points in
the order in which they actually occur.
l. The Introductory statement is: "The
Assembly met in Charleston, in virtue of
its power to give authoritative interpre-
GdG4OnS Ol GHe WOfQ, declares.
This language must include IN thesj in
terpretations as well as those involved in
Judicial decisions, for, this very decision
is in that category, and the paper after
wards places the two classes of interpre-
tation together, not only as deserving
high consideration but requiring submits
sion to them, unless contrary to the con
stitution and the word Now of both
classes of Interpretation it is affirmed that
they may be authoritative, and it is i'm
piled that they are authoritative when
consonant to the word as interpreted in
our standards. There can be no dispute
therefore as to the fact that the Assembly
In this deliverance pronounced IN thesi
decisions to be authoritative, when not
contrary to the word as interpreted in
our standards Now the very question
before the Assembly was: Are any IN thesi
deiverances of our Church courts author
itative? Or are they all unauthoritative?
And the Assembly declares that it has
the power to give authoritative IN tEesi
interpretations, etc. What is that but to
assert that some IN thesi deliverances are
authoritative. That is precisely the point
for which contended The Assembly
affirmed it,
The only difficulty in this interpreta-
ton of the Assembly's language lies in the
supposition, that it may be maintained
that the word authoritative may qualify
advice. The meaning of the paper then
may be that the Assembly has power to
give authoritative advice in interpreting
the word, etc. Against this supposition
two fatal objections may be urged;
a. Advice, however solemn, cannot
without a solecism be said to be authori-
tative-authoritahve advice is a contra
diction in terms. Authority and law are
correlatives, not authority and advice
The latter terms are antithetical-
is authoritative is not advisory-what is
advisory not authoritative. The language
of the Assembly's deliverance can only
be interpreted to mean that as some IN
tbeSl deliverances are authoritative, all
are not merely advisory.
(2) The express terms of the Assem-
bly's deliverance forbid the supposition
mentioned After the statement that
both IN theSi and judicial decisions are
alike interpretations of the word by a
Church court, it is affirmed that both
AiAeASO W oublAAlbbCO W. II llOb COuIdIy W
the constitution and the word. Of course,
then, IN tbesi deliverances, if interpreta-
tons of the word which are consonant to
the constitution and the word "must be
submitted to" Now it cannot be pro-
perly predicated of advice that it must
be submitted to- There is no must about
It, He who receives advice is not bound
by it, as such. Submission implies legal
authority. In thesi deliverances. there
fore, are declared by the Assembly to be
more than advisory, when consonant with
the word as interpreted in our standards.
Whatever, therefore, may have been
the intention Of the author of the paper
the Assembly, in the language employed
affirmed the principle for which I was
contending, viz, that all IN thes5 deliver
ances are not merely advisory, but some
are possessed Of legal authority. The de-
liverance Of the Assembly of 1879 was
modified. To this it may be replied that