[Book of Discipline, chap. vii., sec. i., par’s. v. and vi.—Digest of 1873, p. 541; Comp. chap. v., sec. ix.—Digest of 1873, p. 525.]
On Thursday, May 25, Mr. Plummer, from the committee on the Pittsburg memorial, made a final report, recommending that the Assembly take up and decide upon the items in the memorial relating to Church order and discipline. The report was accepted. In pursuance of this plan, he subsequently moved the adoption of the following resolutions, viz.
-
That the proper steps be now taken to cite to the bar of the next Assembly such inferior judicatories as are charged by common fame with irregularities.
-
That a special committee be appointed to ascertain what inferior judicatories are thus charged by common fame; to prepare charges and specifications against them; and to digest a suitable plan of procedure in the matter, and that said committee be requested to report as soon as practicable.
-
That as citation, on the foregoing plan, is the commencement of process involving the right of membership in the Assembly, therefore,
Resolved, That agreeably to a principle laid down, chap. v. sec. 9, of the Form of Government, the members of the said judicatories be excluded from a seat in the next General Assembly until their case shall be decided.
The adoption of these resolutions was opposed by Messrs. Jessup, White, Beman, Dickinson, Peters, and M’Auley; and advocated by Messrs. Plumer, Breckinridge, and Baxter. After a debate occupying most of the time on Thursday afternoon and Friday morning and afternoon, the question was taken and decided in the affirmative, yeas 128, nays 122.
The resolutions were opposed on various grounds. 1. It was denied that the Assembly possessed original jurisdiction such as it is now proposed to exercise. The fifth paragraph of sec. 1, in the chapter on Review and Control, is the strong hold of those who contend that the resolutions are constitutional. But what is the case contemplated in that article? It is, that there has already been some irregularity, in the proceedings of the lower judicatory, either apparent in the records, or proclaimed by common fame. This undoubtedly refers to a case of judical action, or erroneous or defective record, or a case adjudicated in such a manner that the trumpet of common fame proclaims it wrong, and such that it can plainly be proved to be wrong before the superior judicatory. In the circumstances specified in the constitution, it would be right for you to cite a synod to appear before you and answer and show what they have done in relation to the matter in question, in a case that has been before them. And after hearing their answer, you are to send the case back to them, with directions to do what the constitution and justice require. The words are “After which,” that is, after the citation and answer, not after a trial, for the rule says nothing about a trial; but supposes that the case is sent back for trial to the judicatory which is cited. We cannot try and punish here. Suppose we were to cite the Synod of Virginia, for heresy, in maintaining, in the face of all the former decisions of the General Assembly, that slavery is consistent with the Scriptures and the institutions of the Presbyterian Church. Well, our committee, we will suppose, have cited that synod. Then they must send down all the budget of charges they have collected, to tell the synod they must stay these irregular proceedings, on penalty of exclusion from the Church. Every one knows that this cannot be the correct interpretation of the rule. Otherwise, it will make you a court of original jurisdiction, with power to cut off ministers, directly contrary to every provision of the book.
-
But admitting that, under certain circumstances, you have the authority to cite a synod, how do you get the right to cite a presbytery? The rule says, “the next superior judicatory,” which limits it to the one immediately above. This provision is in the chapter on Review and Control, and it can give authority only by the express meaning of the words. The session is under review and control of the presbytery, the presbytery of the synod, and the synod of the General Assembly; because they only have the legal right to inspect their records. The General Assembly is, therefore, constitutionally restricted to action on the synods. Unless you can show, by some new ecclesiastical multiplication table, that the General Assembly is next above a presbytery or session or individual member, you have no right to issue a citation to them, and it would be an act of usurpation in you to do it. The General Assembly has indeed power to reprove. But can we not reprove without citation and conviction? We can reprove immorality in the South and in the North, on mere report, without alleging that any individual is guilty, and so without conviction. The power to cite presbyteries and Church sessions is not the same with warning and reproving; and is in terms given to another body, to the next superior judicatory. If you cite a presbytery to appear here, they will file their plea in bar, that you have no authority, and they will not answer. We have no right thus to take away the constitutional rights of synods, or to strike out, by a mere vote of the Assembly, an important word from the constitution. If we can interfere with presbyteries, by the same argument we may interfere with the sessions.
-
A third objection, is the mode of proceeding. If these charges were against individuals, we should know how to proceed. But that this great court of errors should leave its proper judicial business to hunt up criminals, is most extraordinary. You appoint a committee to find out offences, and then to find out the offenders. Are this committee to be clothed with the plenary powers of a Presbyterian inquisition, to cite and try whom they please, and on what ground they please? Are they to report to you every rumour which the blast of the trumpet of common fame may blow over the land in any direction? Or by what rule are they to discriminate? We wish to know, and the churches ought to know, whether this committee are to be clothed with preliminary judicial powers. If so, in what do they differ from the prerogatives of an inquisition, except that the civil arm withholds its power? Or what better is a Protestant than a Roman Catholic inquisition? Our judicatories are, in fact, to be tried by this committee, without opportunity of defence; to be first adjudged delinquent, and then deprived of their seats; while it is perfectly understood by the commissioners from certain other judicatories, concerning whose irregularities common fame is at least equally loud, that if they will support this measure, no reports shall be entertained concerning them by the committee, and no words of reproof administered by the Assembly.