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

bly, then proceeds very properly to say
that both these classes of decision, so far
as they are consonant to the word as in
terpreted in our standards are authorita-
t;ye-thev must be submitted to-"
The true teaching of Christ's viii upon
an abstract question of doctrine or duty
is to be submitted to, as well as
the true teaching of His will in re-
gard to a particular case involving
personal rights and relations. They
are alike invested with the authority
of Christ For, as no other authority is
one to which the Church must submit in
ecclesiastical and spiritual matters, the
Assembly must be understood as refer
ring to Christ's authority 1t therefore
declares the IN thesi deliverance when
not merely advisory, but mandatory, to
be, so far as it is consonant with His re-
vealed will, invested with the authority
of the King of the Church That was
the great point pressed by the directors
to the deliverance of 1879 The Assem-
bly, yielded to their request, in modify
ing that deliverance as it did.
o. You say, that the purport of the
late Assembly's paper may be to strip
both the IN thesi and the judicial decis-
ion of legal authority, and to attribute
to both only moral influence; and if so,
that this deliverance goes bow-shot
beyond even that of 1879" To this
answer: First, such could not have been
the intention of the able and honored
brother who drafted the paper; other
wise 1 seriously misunderstood him. 1t
is not his wont to use language for the
purpose of concealing ideas. Secondly,
the distinction between legal authority
and moral influence has no significance
when the divine law is concerned
Gods law in the aspect of it here con-
sidered is moral, its authority moral It's
influence though mandatory is moral If
therefore interpretations of that law
when consonant with it, must be submit
ted to, it must be because they exert an
authoritative influence which, like the
law and the nature upon which it
operates, is moral. There is here then
no room for the distinction between a
legal and moral influence If your
meaning be that the Assembly only
meant to assign an advisory influence,
in contradistinction from a legal to both
sorts of ecclesiastical decisions, the an
swer is that already given which is de-
rived from the face of the paper, viz,
that decisions which must be submitted
to- cannot be regarded as simply ad-
visory. And it may further be urged,
that the Assembly could not have meant
to ascribe merel y advisory influence to
a judicial decision which, in its own
words, determines and concludes a par
ticular case. Surely that implies legal
authority, if anything can. But both
kinds of decision are affirmed to be alike
as to authority. What, as to the author
ity in which they are grounded and
which they represent, is practicable of
the one is practicable likewise of the
other. Their effects are different their
authoritativeness the same. I do not
see, therefore, how such construction,
as that you mention, can legitimately be
placed upon the late Assembly's deliver
ance.
The third part of the second item of
the paper is "Of which of the ques-
ton whether decision of Church court
be consonant to the word as interpreted in
our standards there is right Of private
judgment belonging to every Church
court, and also every individual Church
member" You observe, that " the AS
sembly afirms that those who are called
upon to submit have the right to say
whether they ought or ought not to, will
or will not submit; and of course if
they have this right, their decision is not
an offence and matter of discipline, and
they are in effect the supreme court of
the Church. You fear evil consequences
from this utterance.
(a) The Assembly but afirms the
great Protestant canon of the right of
private judgment, right which belongs
inalienably to every, the humblest, mem
Der Of the Church. We must stand by
that principle.
(b) Those who opposed the deliver
ance of 1879, themselves proceeded in
accordance with the principle enounced
by the late Assembly. They exercised
their right of judging whether that de-
liverance was or was not consonant to
the word of God as interpreted in our
standards. Our Church has ever recog-
nized and acted upon this principle.
(c.) This principle of the right of
private judgment has, like all others, its
limitations; and conceive that the late
Assembly, by implication at least, indi-
Gates one Of those to which it is subject.