The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1906-05-30


DR.. 4. @. Hopkins: The responsibility upon us is
the apology for what L have to say First condi-
tlon of reception of u minister is an examination
which Is satisfactory to Presbytery The minority
has ten days in which to impair his reception.
Minority complied with this condition; case goes to
Synod and Synod, in exercise of its constitutional
right, annulled action of Presbytery. Had Synod a
right to act as it did? Yes every decision is liable
to review.
Or. H. H. Smith: The Assembly should not consider
two thlngs-the effect of our decision the outside
WORLD the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of Dr. Caldwell
Case: Synod exceeded its constitutional limits in de
priving Dr. Caldwell of his rights in our church with
out judicial process.
Colonel Bennett H. Young: 81 vowed when [ be-
came an officer in the church to be faithful to its
standards. Presbytery has powers to receiue but
every decision is subject to review, etc Notice was
given DR.. Caldwell ct ais. of complaint Case was
taken up for rehearing-past acts of Presbytery all
botted out Synod of Texas acted within its consi-
tutlonal powers and right
DR.. Il. II. Munroe: L voted with majority of SYNOD
of Texas to last act then had to part company
that is too sweeping Dr. Caldwell's name was on
minutes of Synod member. Therefore DR.. Cald-
well was and is member of the Presbytery of Fort
Worth Synod has no power to eXpel from the
Presbytery or to dissolve the pastoral relation.
DR.. R. H. Fleming: This is a question of law
Theory of our book Power of the part is the power
of the whole and the power of the whole every
part" L believe Synod of Texas acted constitu-
of Forth Worth in all things Dr. Caldwell not fully
in Presbytery at Fort Worth. Dispute as to his
right. Illustrated by in possession of piece of
land with disputed title-n such title good
ReD w. H. Scott: 1 not assured of right of
Synod believe it erred in that it did not enter upon
heresy trial; in changing grounds of complaints
initiated trial without citing to trial; condemned
DIR. Caldwell unheard put DIR. Caldwell out without
trial. dissolved pastoral relation, which beyond
its constitutional power.
Dy A
sion. wellnigh held to the opinion that after Il
man was formally received the only was to
prefer charges. | now that book provides for
another namely, review and control. There
fore compliments were right; Synod right. DR..
Caldwell had all his rights in his eXaminaton-knew
what it meant; had six months to answer questions.
We should try to reclaim. He is a man, wants to
speak and act he believes, not tyro, and it is
not in our province to admonish a mature not
to speak as he thinks
ReD Bunydn Mcleod: DIR. Caldwell is in accord
with us in essentials; therefore / am going to vote
to sustain complaint
Rev w. " Smith called for the question, and the
vote ordered to be taken.
The second item of the complaint was on motion,
withdrawn.
The complaint against the Synod of Texas was
READ, and is as follows
We, the members of the session of the First Pres
byteran church of Fort Worth Texas hereby COM
plain to the General Assembly against the action
of the Synod of Texas in sustaining the complaint
of Rev John V. Mccall and others against the Pres
bytery of Fort Worth in pronouncing judgment
annulling the action said Presbytery by which
Rev. William Caldwell was received and installed
pastor of the First Presbyterian church of Fort
Worth.
l. When the Synod did not proceed regularly in
the trial of the cause (a) in that it acted upon a
complaint which had not constitutional standing
before Synod and (b) in that it heard and decided
the issue upon record of the which was not
the record upon which the Presbytery of Fort Worth
acted in receiving Dr. Caldwell and c) in that it
denied to Rev. William Caldwell his constitutional