The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1886-11-03

may suspend him temporarily until his
case be fully tried IF there is to be no
trial? For if the Board, as is commended,
can remove at once, without trial, why
insert the power to suspend until fully
tried. Such provision would be UTTER
y useless and senseless unless the trial
was to be in eve'y case before removal,
and the suspension only in dangerous
cases. A trial simply requires notice to
the party, an opportunity to make de-
tense, and decision upon the case made
before it by the tribunal trying What
sort of trial must the article In the con-
stitution of Columbia Seminary mean
The whole history of that constitution
and the changes made in it answers, not
the trial OF a minister before his Presby-
tery-the only court having original ju-
risdiction over him-but trial as a Pro
feSSor. For not once is the Presbytery
named In this connection in the constitu-
ton. But the Synods or the Assembly
are expressly given the power to try
down to 1877. The change then made
gives the power to try the Professor to
the Board and no other tribunal. For
If, in addition to what has been written
above, this be not the true construction
OF that article az there is the absurdity
of requiring the Synods to approve their
own acts.
Mr.. Henry r, fers to the action of the
Assembly In the case OF DR.. Plumer to
show that this question isreS a6judicata.
On examining the discussion referred to
by him, l find that the question whether
DR.. Plumer could be removed without
trial, was never suggested or discussed at
all, and no trial was demanded by him.
His opposition to the action of the Board
was on entirely different grounds 1t is
true he was removed without a trial
But, a decision of any court, where
point IS not brought to its attention, and
no opinion is asked upon it, is, as Mr..
Henry is aware, entitled to but little
weight, although That point may be in
volved in the decision.
have nothing to do with the incon-
sistencies of DR.. Boggs and DR.. Woodrow.
| have been arguing as to the true con-
struction of written instruments. And
have been contending for an observance
OF the provisions OF the constitution of
the Church, and an adherence to the
agreements with the seminares. II these
last do not give to the Assembly sufficient
power to enable it to make its supervis-
ion of the seminaries effective in preserv-
ing sound doctrine, let it apply to the
authorities to make new arrangements
with additional powers If this is not
agreed to, the Assembly has the remedy
in its own hands, and can establish insti.
buttons of its own to be controlled as it
pleases.
Such views instead Of fastening or in
any way contributing to the ruin" which
Mr.. Henry fears, would tend to avert it.
JAMES D. ARMSTRONG.
| X We do not know what discussion of this
subject Judge Armstrong has seen, but if he
will read the discussion as reported in the South
ern Presbyterian RerieD of July, 1880, (pages
524-'30) he will find that the action Of the
Board in removing DR.. Plumer was defended
solely on the ground that the Board had the
power of removal under the tn article of the
constitution of the Seminary. without any trial
Dr. Plumer complained" They have removed
me without notice to me'-"without any accu-
sation of unfaithfulness, but merely of age and
infrmities."
All the trial that the Board 1oas competent to
gre was demanded in these words. With this
correction of most material fact we are con
tent to leave the matter to the Judgment of the
Church.-EDs CEN. PRES