The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-12-27
For the Central Presbyterian.
r.. r. H., DR.. Dabney, and the
Supreme Court of the
United States.

Relations
l have not taken any part in that dis
cussion, nor do 1 propose to do so now.
1t has been the means, however, of call
ing attention anew to the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States in
the Walnut Street church of Louisville
case, Watson u.s. Jones. Is, Wallace-679
DR.. R. l.. Dabney, in his article upon
fraternal relations, in stating what in his
opinion would be the results of fusion, or
organic union with the Northern Presby-
terrain Church, says, 1t means that we
surrender our tenure In all church
property to that new, Popish rule, de-
vised by Radical Supreme Court, and
greedily embodied in the Digest of the
Church" For this the DIR. has been Sc
verely taken to task in several communi-
cations in your paper over the signature
of r. R. H"
The question involved is of such in
terest to Southern Presbyterians, and the
last article of R. R. 81" Central, Sep
TENDER 27th,) contains such extraor-
binary misstatements, and does the Dr.
such injustice, that I will ask, even at
this late day, having been prevented from
doing so sooner, the favor to he heard
upon it.
Justice Miller, in his opinion in the
case of Watson as. Jones, took occasion
to announce some very sound doctrines
and valued truths: such as gin this land
and "that the civil law knows no heresy
and is committed to the support of no
dogma, the establishment of no sect"
ETC., etc.
These are admitted truths They
were not questioned in the case, and
have been repeatedly announced by the
courts of this country. [ presume there
is not well-instructed boy, Is years of
age, in the Presbyterian Church, who
does not know that such is the law of
this land, and that these are not "Popish"
doctrines. Yet "R. R. H." would have
your readers believe that DIR. Dabney
meant to apply the term Popish to them !
What the DR.. meant is, think, easily
ascertained. "R. R. H." towards the
close of his article says: I'm other
words, Watson as. Jones decides that
the civil court is NOT bound to fol-
low the decision of the church iudica-
tory as to the religious and eccle-
siastical questions involved in the con-
troversy, unless satisfied that the church
had jou1Sdiction-thot Is had right and
po,Oer according to the constitution or
organic lar of the Church to pass upon
those questions; and If the ciUiZ court IS
satisfied that the church court atSuaped
1ooaOer IN the premises, 1t IS not bound By
such church decision, but may decide for
gtSef"
This is most wonderful misstatement,
for, whatever else the case decides, it
does not decide thotI II your readers
will omit from his statement the words
I have italicised they will have the point
substantially, as decided by the Court.
In other words, it decides that the civil
court has no right to inquire whether
the ecclesiastical court chad right or
power according to the constitution OF
the church to pass upon the question =
but must take the decision of the ecclesi-
astical court upon its right and power as
conclusive.
This evidently was DR.. Dabney's un.
Outstanding of the decision, and what he
called Popish If the decision was what
"R. R. H" says it was the DR.. never
would have styled it Popish. Now which
10 IlSuO do w OuS ul6duluS vi GulS u6ClSlOQ
DR.. Dabney or R. R. H.?
Your unprofessional readers may not
be aware that the Reporter-who in this
case was an able lawyer, Mr.. Wallace
prefxes to each case syllabus of the
points understood to be decided in it.
Now in the syllabus to this case there is
nothing like what " R. R. II" states was
the decision, nor nothing from which his
statement of it could be inferred. The
tenth point in the syllabus is the one to
which objection has been made, and to
which DIR. Dabney evidently referred
1t is in these words: Where the right
Of property in the civil court is depend.
ent on the question of doctrine, :disci.
pine, ecclesiastical law, rule or custom, OF
church government, and has been decided
by the highest tribunal within the organi.
zation to which it has been carried, the
civil court will accept that decision as
conclusive, and be governed by 1t in its
application to the case before it."
1t will be seen that there are no such
qualifying words in this statement as
those italicised in "R r. HIS" statement.
The principle that lfthe church court
has jurisdiction, or to use or. r. H. g"
words, fright and power according to the
constitution Of the church to pass upon -