The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-09-27

gious denominations and societies as
standing on the same footing in the eye
of the law, and which declares that in
that eye, no heresy exists?
The real contrast on this subject is be-
tween English law and American law,
and this contrast is clearly and power
fully shown in the opinion of the court
in Watson Us. Jones, PIP. 727-729. "The
dissenting Church in England is not
free Church in the sense in which we APP
ply the term in this country, and it was
much less free in Lord Eidon's time than
now. Laws then existed upon the statute
book hampering the free exercise of reli-
gious belief and worship in many most
oppressive FORMS" And among the OPP
pressions of the English system is the
exact practice which &c R. L. D." wishes
to see established in our country in oppo-
sltlon to the wise and safe principles of
Watson Us. Jones. For, in England, the
civil courts constantly claim and exercise
the right to decide for themselves upon
questions of heresy, church membership,
Interpretation of religious articles and
symbols and all other religious questions
and the result is shameful oppression TO
soul and bod~and estate in many cases.
l rejoice to say that "R. L. D." is
grossly in error when he asserts that in
Watson Us. Jones, the Supreme Court
announced a ae,U doctrine. He talks
glibly of " the new law promulgated by
Mr.. Justice Miller and "R. R. H" I
glory in the union thus ASST gned me- The
questions were indeed new in the Su-
preme Court. But the principles an
nounced in the opinion were not new.
They are the same principles which had
been previously established in the high
est courts of many of the separate States,
viz: in Sutter Us. Dutch Reformed
Church. 6. Wright Pennsylvania. Gi6-
son Us, armstrong. 7, B. Monroe (Ken-
tucky). Den Us. Bolton. T. Halstead
New Jersey Smith Us. Nelson. Is
(Vermont). Harrison as. Hoyle. "a.
(Ohio). GroSvenor Us. United Society of
Believers. 119. (Massachusetts), and
Brooke as. Shacklett. Is. Grattan (Vir-
ginia)
Instead of repeating these principles,
l believe it will enlighten all fair-minded
and intelligent readers of the Central to
quote briefly from the opinion in Watson
as. Jones,
Speaking of the purely religious and
Church questions which may enter into
the controversy concerning the posses
sion and enjoyment of Church property
to be decided by the civil court, Mr..
Justice Miller delivering the opinion of
the Supreme Court says "Nor do we
see that justice would be likely to be
promoted by the submitting those de-
cisions to review in the ordinary civil
tribunals. Each of these large and in
let reference be had to the Protestant
Episcopal, the Methodist Episcopal, and
the Presbyterian Churches) has a body
of constitutional and ecclesiastical law of
its own, to be found in their written
organic laws, their books of discipline,
in their collections of precedents, in their
usage and customs, which, as to each,
constitute system of ecclesiastical law
and religious faith that tasks the ablest
minds to become familiar with. 1t is
not to be supposed that the judges of
the civil courts can be as competent in
the ecclesiastical law and religious faith
of all these bodies as the ablest men in
each are In reference to their own. 1t
would therefore be an appeal from the
more learned tribunal in the law which
should decide the case, to one which is
less so, page 100.
In fact no class of intelligent persons
have ever called in question the sound
ness and safety of the principles decided
in Watson Us. Jones, except few ultraists
of the Southern States. Even the Hon.
Mr.. Bullitt, of Kentucky, who argued
the case on the defeated side, afterwards
expressly admitted that the principles
decided in it are not ae1O, but had been
previously held, in substance, by the
State courts The only movezty which
Mr.. Bullitt attributed to Watson Us.
Jones was that he thought it decided
that the judgment of the highest
Church tribunal is conclusive upon the
civil court as to the jurisdiction of the
body rendering the judgment" But on
this point it is manifest that Mr.. Bullitt
missed the decision, for the words Of the
opinion are: at may very well be con-
coded that if the General Assembly Of
the Presbyterian Church should under
take to try one of its members for MUIR
der, and punish him with death or i'm
prisonment, its sentence would be of no
validity in a civil court or any where
else. Or if it should, at the instance of
one of its members, entertain jurisdiction
as between him and another member as