[Form of Gov., chap. xxii., sects. i. and ii.—Digest of 1873, pp. 463, 464, 466–470.]
a. The Assembly Judges the Qualifications of its Members
THE second position [taken in the “Review of Leading Measures of the Assembly of 1837, by a member of the New York bar,”] is, that the Assembly has no right to decide whether a commissioner is entitled to his seat or not; that is, it has no right to judge of the qualifications of its own members. Does this mean that the Assembly has no right to decide whether a delegate comes from a body qualified to send him, but is bound to admit him to a seat, no matter where he comes from? This is surely too absurd to be what is meant; and yet this is all the judging of qualification involved in the present case. It is not a question whether a commissioner was duly elected; or whether he himself is what he purports to be, a minister or elder. The question is not about his personal qualification, but about the right of the body giving the commission. Has the Assembly no authority to decide this point? Must it allow any and every man, from Europe, Asia, Africa or America, who may come with a commission, to take his seat as a matter of course? If a man were to rise and say to the moderator, Sir, I hold in my hand a commission from the Presbytery of North Africa; does the Assembly forfeit its existence by telling him, Sir, as we know no such presbytery, we cannot receive you? A cause must surely be desperate that requires such a right to be denied to any representative body upon earth.
It is essential to the existence of the Assembly that it should have the right to decide whether the body giving the commission has authority to do so or not. And from this decision there is no appeal, but to the churches. Should they disapprove of the decision, they will send up delegates the next year who will reverse it. If they sanction it, the aggrieved party has no resource but submission, or revolution.
We must not be understood, however, as admitting that the Assembly has no right to judge of the qualification of delegates from presbyteries in good standing. This Reviewer says, that the commission is the only sufficient evidence of the requisite qualification of the delegate, and must, in all cases, be admitted, as it must be correct, unless the officers of the presbytery certify to “palpable lies.” We think this language very incorrect. He forgets how often Congregational laymen have appeared in the Assembly bearing commissions declaring them to be ruling elders. This is certainly very wrong, but we should not like to adopt the language of this writer on the subject. Should a man with such a commission, rise and tell the Assembly that he was not an elder, there can be no question of the right of that body to say to him, then you are not entitled to a seat here. This question, however, except in the form stated above, is not involved in the present case; and we therefore dismiss it.
b. Disputed Elections
The committee of elections reported in the case of the Rev. David M. Smith, that it appeared to the satisfaction of the committee, that the Presbytery of Columbia failed to form a quorum at the time appointed for their stated spring meeting; that there were present two ministers, and ruling elders from a majority of the churches; that those present requested the Assembly to receive Mr. Smith as their commissioner, in which request two of the absent ministers have expressed their concurrence in writing; and that it is believed the appointment of Mr. Smith would have been unanimous had the presbytery formed a quorum. In view of these facts the Assembly decided that Mr. Smith could not, agreeably to the constitution, be admitted to a seat.
On the one hand, it was urged that the presbytery, being a permanent body, might express its will, if not regularly as to form, at least substantially and effectively, even when not in session; that as the will of the presbytery constituted the essence of a commission, we have in the present case all that is essential; and that the reception of Mr. Smith could afford no precedent for the reception of commissioners when the will of the presbytery appointing them was not satisfactorily known.
On the other hand, it was contended, that although a presbytery is a permanent body, it can only act when in session; that the assent of the several members of our national congress to any legislative measure would have no force, unless that assent was given when the body was regularly convened; that the Assembly had no authority to set aside the express prescriptions of the constitution, and that all precedents which violate important principles are dangerous.
c. Irregular Commissions
As usual, several delegates appeared without the prescribed documentary evidence of their election. These cases are recorded, as they will have the force of precedents, whatever may be said to the contrary.
There are always two ways of looking at such cases. Some men are disposed to go by the letter, and others by the spirit of the law. It is the will of the presbytery duly expressed and authenticated, that gives a delegate a right to sit as a member of the Assembly. The book prescribes one definite mode in which the will of the presbytery is to be made known. The strict legal right under the book, therefore, can pertain to those only who have commissions regularly executed. A will is no will in law, unless executed in the prescribed form; but it has full force on the conscience, if there is satisfactory evidence of any kind that it is the real will of the testator. Now, as our courts are not courts of law, but moral tribunals, representing the animus of the Church, we think it is clearly obligatory to receive as members those whom we, in our conscience, believe the presbyteries will to be members.