Year: 1875

a difference of opinion, and which led to a
discussion of the case last year, aud now
again this year, is this i: Had the Lexington
Presbytery the right under our constitution,
to divest him of his ofice-no offence being
chargeable, but solely on account of the
reason assigned in his letter and in the pa
per adopted by the Presbytery, viz: long
continued incapacity under fixed bronchial
disease, to perform the work of preaching.
This incapacity began soon after bis ordina-
tion. He had been laid aside for more than
twenty years, and had no expectation Of be.
ing egsr-abIs te.yssums the gOrk cf the MN
istry. The committee 20 review tie records
last year reported recommending that this
action. of the Presbytery be disapproved, as
being "plainly in violation of the Constitu.
tion" of our Church.


The whole subject was referred, after a
good deal of discussion, to a committee, con-
sisting of Rev. Messrs. William Brown; J.
A. Lefevre, J. G. Barr, with ruling elders,
Hon. J. A. IDglis and Hon. Robert Ould,
"to make report to the Synod at its next
meeting, and recommend such action as may
be deemed advisable"


The report of the majority, in which
Messrs. Lefevre, Barr and Inglis concurred,
wes as follows:


Resolved, That the report of the Commit.
tee on the Records of the Lexington Presby-
terry made last year to the Synod at Win
chester, be adopted.


The minority report, in which Messrs.
Brown and Ould concurred, was as follows:
1. Resozved That in view of all the facts
and considerations belonging to the case, the
Synod does not judge it best to disturb the
action taken by the Presbytery of Lexington.
2. Resolved, That in view Of the whole
subject the General Assembly be, and the
same hereby is, respectfully petitioned to
send down to the Pfesbyteres, in such terms
as may be deemed most suitable, an overture
embracing the questions involved, to the end
that the mind of the Church may be clearly
ascertained and the law of the Church clearly
determined.


The adoption of the report of the majority
was moved, and then the report of the min
ority was offered as a substitute. This
brought up a discussion covering the whole
ground. 1t began on Friday night, continu-
ing till 10! o'clock, and occupied most of
Saturday afternoon and Saturday night
We give full synopsis.


Col. John T. anderson, from Montgome-
ry Presbytery very briefly expressed his ap-
proval of the action of the Presbytery, as
entirely suitable to the exigency of the case
to which it was applied. He had failed to
see any thing in the constitution forbidding
it, it was thing in its own nature proper
for the cognizance of Church judicatory,
and the Presbytery was the proper, and the
only proper body to take action for this end.
He thought it ought not to be disturbed, and
would therefore vote to sustain the views pre-
sented by the minority.


Rev. A. ". Pitzsr thought there ought
to be such legislation through an overture of
the Assembly to the Presbyteries as would
make the law clear to the minds of all. It
was an entire misrepresentation to say that
any of us wish to introduce lax view Of
sacred obligations, or to allow minister to
lay aside his work or Office at his own mere
pleasure. We contend only that there are
cases in which it would be proper, and that
the Presbytery has the right to Judge when
they are presented. This subject involves
the whole question, what is call to the min
istry, and what ia ordination? The call is from
God; the convictions of the man himself,
the view Of the Presbytery, and the favorable
views of congregation inviting him to
pastoral relation, do not constitute the call;
they are only expressions of their opinion
whether there is call from God. They may
all be mistaken from the first; or they may
be satisfied, as in this case, that though there
was call at first to this work, yet the pro-
vidence of God has made it plain that this
call now no longer exists, but is in fact to-
wards other duties. Has the Presbytery no
power to correct mistake, or 10 act in view
of condition of things wholly different from
the former? 1t is discretion which may
of course be abused but he believed the Pres-
bytery had and ought to have this discretion,
and use. it wisely under their responsibility
to the higher court, and to the divine Head
of the Church.


Reu. DR.. Letevre, who presented the ma
jority report, was willing to appear as the
advocate of the old doctrine of the Church
=" once minister, always minister" un-
less deposed on account Of some offence
He wished however that this consideration of
the report on the Records of Lexington Pres.
bytery had not been complicated by prop
osition to send an overture to the General
Assembly. There had been, he would not
say ar Intentional, but q very skillful confu-
sion between the question of what is, and
wha. ought to be the law Of the Church.
That law is that the oiiice Of minister is
perpetual, and no man can be deprived of 1t
except for heresy or immortality. Was not
tais the sense in which it was received at
our ordination He deeply regretted to sec
the Presbytery of Lexington rushing into a
species of radcalism, and at such time as
this. lie considered the very foundations of
our Presbyterian government involved in
this question, and solemnly invoked the
Synod not to commit itself to the revolution
connected with sustaining the action Of the
Presbytery.


This is the sense given to it by the highest
courts He insisted that this was most i'm
portant. The sense of Scripture is the Scrip
, ire itself SO the authoritative Interpretation
of the law is the law. At this point DR.. L..
took up the Digest and entered into an ex.
animation of cases adjudcated.


In 1893 the Presbytery Of New York dis
continued the name of Rev. VIM. Woodruff