The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1886-09-29

noeoee vi Ine Ouurcn. III mas tne power
to declare that certain doctrines are err
roneous and not to be held, or certain
practices are immoral and not to be in
obliged by any of its members. But 1t
has no right to say that any individual
holds the erroneous doctrine or practices
the immortality until the case comes up
nom an inferior court And it has the
same right to say the one as the other.
The same right to say that am thief
as that | hold doctrines repugnant to the
word of God.
When declarations made by the AS
sembly as to errors in doctrine or i'm
moral practices are to be applied to in E.
dlvldual cases, the act partakes of Judi
clal character, and the Assembly has no
original Jurisdiction in such cases. Wheth-
er the individual has held errors or prac-
Used lmmoralities contrary to these de-
claratlons or deliverances is to be ascer
tanned by the prescribed judicial pro-
ceeding and can be ascertained in no
other way. The constitution of the
Church no where prescribes any method
for trying Professor as Such but pre-
vldes tor his trial only as minister or
member of the Church. But a minister
or member accepting office in a seminary
does thereby consent to be tried as Pro
lessor In the manner prescribed in the
constitution of that seminary. If the
terms of that constitution provide for
such trial before he can be removed
neither the Assembly nor the Synods
have any power over the Professor as
Such until he has been so tried. A man
can be rightfully tried only in the man
ner and by the body which the law gov
erning his case prescribes. By the con-
stltutlon of Columbia the Board of Di-
rectors only possess the power to try
Professor and to renaOUe him. Their &C.
ton is subject to the approval of the
Synods. But the Synods can no more
remove a Professor without trial by the
Board of Directors than the latter can
remove him without the approval of the
Synods. The action of both seems to be
necessary and In the prescribed order.
Fine utmost power in such a case that
could be claimed for the Assembly would
be to recommendation that he be re-
moved because the Assembly says he is
guilty-but that he be tried by the tri-
bunal authorized by the constitution of
the seminary to try him. and if he be
found guilty by 1t of holding views
which the Assembly declare, repugnant
to the word of God, that he be removed.
The Augusta Assembly went much
further than this. 1t expressed an opin-
ion as to the guilt of Professor and on
that ground recommended his removal.
If the Assembly can not lawfully try him
can it lawfully express an opinion as to
the offense with which he is charged?
An ofense, the proper object of judicial
process, is defined to be anything in the
principles or practice of church mem
Der protesting faith in Christ, which is
contrary to the word of God"
DR.. Woodrow is minister and the AS
sembly declares that he holds views re-
pugnant Cor contrary to the word of
God. 1t is true that no sentence of de-
, position, &C., no penal consequences fol-
low, but if this is not saying that he is
guilty of an ofenSe what is it? Whether
he has committed an ofense or not can
be rightfully determined only by trial
or by voluntary confession before court
, having the right to try him. Even in
leases without process" the party must
come before the court protesting to &C.
knowledge guilt and full statement of
the facts Ii. e. the confesson) must be re-
corded on which the Judgment is rem
dered. 1t has never been held, so far as
can find, that statements made in the
discussion of questions legitimately before
court could be treated as admissions on
which the party making them could be
declared guilty. If such statements
should show guilt they would have to be
proven before the court trying the party
as any other fact. Before the Augusta
Assembly there was not and could not
rightfully, have been any trial of Dr.
Woodrow. Nevertheless that Assembly
declares that be held views repugnant to
the word of God, and so declared him
guilty of an ofense The ingenious dis
t tinotlon sought to be drawn between this
and declaring him a hereto is without
{ foundation For while the constitution
recognizes the differences in degree of
: offences, it makes no distinction in the
e manner Of ascertaining and declaring
guilt between offences of less and greater
3 magnitude. The Assembly has no more
{ right to say that be held views repugnant
, to the word of God than to say that ne is
hereto. l am superintendent of
3 Sabbath School under the control of a
Session. Has the Assembly the right to
pass such resolution in regard to me as
3 it did in regard to DR.. Woodrow, and re-
| commend the Session to remove me from
tbet y,oaitiop7 T think not Yet oar-