[Form of Gov., chap. x., sec. viii., chap. xi., sec. iv.—Comp. Digest of 1873, pp. 145, 154.]
The constitutionality and expediency of presbyteries and synods appointing “Commissions” of their body to try judicial cases, was brought before the last General Assembly, and referred, with very little discussion to a committee to report to the present Assembly. Dr. Hodge, on behalf of the committee, presented the following report:
“In the Minutes of the General Assembly for 1846, p. 210, is found the following resolution, viz.: ‘Resolved, That the records of the Synod of Virginia be approved, while in so doing the Assembly would be understood as expressing no opinion on the question decided by the synod, in reference to the authority of the presbyteries of Winchester and Lexington to appoint commissions in the case alluded to in the record of the synod.’
“It appears from the minutes, p. 216, that the following resolution was subsequently offered and referred to a committee consisting of Drs. Hodge, Lindsley, Musgrave, McFarland, and McDowell, to report thereon at the next Assembly, viz.: ‘Resolved, That in the judgment of this Assembly, it is contrary to the constitution and uniform practice of the Presbyterian Church in the United States for any ecclesiastical judicatory to appoint a commission to determine judicially any case whatever.’
“This resolution presents two questions for consideration, one of principle, the other of fact. First, Is it contrary to the constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States for its judicatories to appoint commissions to decide judicially cases which may be brought before them? Secondly, Are such appointments contrary to the uniform practice of our Church? Your committee are constrained to answer both these questions in the negative.
“That such appointments are not contrary to the constitution, the committee argue, 1st. Because the power in question is one of the inherent original powers of all primary Church courts. 2d. Because there is nothing in our constitution which forbids the exercise of that right.
“It is important in considering this subject, to bear in mind that the constitution is not a grant of powers to our primary Church courts, but a limitation, by treaty and stipulations, of the exercise of those powers. For example, a presbytery does not derive from the constitution (i.e. from the consent of other presbyteries) its right to ordain; but by adopting the constitution it has bound itself to exercise its inherent right of ordination only under certain conditions. Were it not for its voluntary contract with other presbyteries, it might ordain any man who, in its judgment, had the requisite qualifications for the ministry. It has, however, agreed not to ordain any candidate for that office, who has not studied theology for at least two years; who cannot read Greek and Hebrew; and who has not had a liberal education. The same remark might be made with regard to other cases, showing that the constitution does not confer power on our primary bodies, but it is of the nature of a treaty binding and guiding them in the exercise of the powers which they derive from the great Head of the Church. This being the case, all that is necessary to determine whether the power to act by commission belongs to our primary courts is to ascertain whether such power naturally belongs to them; and whether, if it does originally pertain to them, they have by adopting the constitution removed its exercise.
“That the power in question does inhere in our primary Church courts, may be inferred first, from their nature. It is a generally recognized principle that inherent, as opposed to delegated powers, may be exercised either by those in whom they inhere, or by their representatives. The powers inherent in the people, they may exercise themselves, or delegate to those whom they choose to act in their stead. We can see nothing in the Word of God, nor in the principles on which such bodies are constituted, which would forbid any presbytery or synod, if independent or untrammelled by treaty stipulations with other similar bodies, delegating their powers to a committee of their own number to act in their name, and subject to their review and control. Secondly. We infer that the power in question does belong originally to primary Church courts from universal consent. It is an undeniable fact that presbyteries and synods, when not constrained by special enactments, have in all countries where Presbyterianism has existed, acted on the assumption that they possessed the right of acting by commissions. It is on the principle that a presbytery may delegate its powers, our presbyteries are still in the habit of commissioning one or more ministers to organize churches, ordain elders and perform other similar acts.
“If then it be admitted that the right to act by commissions did belong to presbyteries and synods, were it not for the provisions of the constitution, the question arises, whether the constitution does forbid the exercise of this right.