Vanderveer, D., Elizabeth, N. J. Van Eman, Geo., Memphis, Mo. Wall, T. G., Englewood, N. J. Wasson, L. J., Allegheny City, Pa. Welsh, James, College Corner, 0. Wherry, John, Shanghai, China. White, John, Summit Hill, Pa. Wilhelm, J. C., Shippensburg, Pa. Winn, John, Henry, Ill. Wyeth, C. A., Jonestown, Pa. Yantes, D.D., J. L., Dresden, Mo. Yeomans, Alfred, Rochester, N. Y. Zahnizer, Geo. W., Huntington.Pa. THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, (N. S.) THE SEVENTY-SECOND GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA met, according to appointment, in the First Presbyterian Church, St. Louis, Mo., on Thursday, May 17, 1866, at 11 o'clock, A. M. JAMES B. SHAW, the retiring Moderator, opened the sessions with a discourse from Psalms lxv. 2: "O Thou that hearest prayer." After the discourse, the Permanent Clerk reported the following commissioners, who were enrolled as members of the Seventy-second General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. North River. Deyo, O. H. Perry RULING ELDERS. Edw. Wells. Wm. T. Taylor. Stew. A. Terry. Wm. H. Christee. Alanson Sheley. Wm. Newton. P. D. GURLEY, D.D., Minister, and Hon. LINCOLN CLARK, Ruling Elder, from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, holding its sessions in St. Louis, Mo., in 1866. R. D. HARPER, D.D., Minister, from the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church of North America. Rev. DAVID HERRON, Minister, from the General Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America. Rev. JOHN W. CHICKERING, Jr., Minister, from the Congregational General Association of New Hampshire. Rev. BENJAMIN F. RAY, Minister, from the Congregational General Convention of Vermont. SAMUEL M. HOPKINS, D.D., of Cayuga Presbytery, was elected Moderator. Rev. JOHN W. BAILEY, of Bloomington Presbytery, and Rev. STEPHEN BUSH, of Albany Presbytery, were elected Temporary Clerks. Bills and Overtures. JAMES B. SHAW, D.D., Chairman of this Committee, reported the following: OVERTURE, NO. I.-A church member comes before the session, makes a voluntary confession of heretical sentiments, acknowledges a breach of cove nant, and waives the formality of a trial, in view of and in order to excommunication from the Church. Can such church member be excommunicated on such confession and declaration without the actual processes prescribed by the Book? The committee find that the question thus raised was answered substantially by the last Assembly (see Minutes, page 12, and The Presbyterian Historical Almanac for 1866, page 187); and whilst they recommend that the party asking it be referred to that response, they also recommend that the Assembly affirm the impropriety of a church court reaching and recording such grave result of discipline as excommunication from the Church, without a strict adherence to those forms of fair, impartial trial by which alone the result may be justified. If an accused person confess judgment, the actual process may be shortened, but should not be dispensed with. Adopted. No. II. From certain members of Madison Presbytery, making the following statement and inquiries: A person is (we will suppose) under suspension in one of our own churches. He removes and unites, on examination, with another of our churches, the session of the latter one being wholly ignorant of his former membership, and, of course, of his suspension. The facts are, however, afterward discovered. Would this discovery, of itself, vitiate his second membership, and leave him simply a suspended member of the former church? Would unworthiness for church membership, clearly manifested while in the latter church, and before said discovery, rightfully add any efficacy toward producing this result? To the first of the above questions the committee recommend an answer in the affirmative; to the second, if the question mean whether the session of the second church has jurisdiction in the case of unworthiness manifested in the second relation, the committee recommend an answer in the negative; but if the question mean whether the unworthiness manifested in the second relation be proper ground of separate process by the session of the first church, the committee recommend an answer in the affirmative. In respect to the whole case, the committee agree in the statement following: The person, uniting with the second church on examination, unites deceptively. So soon as the facts in the case are ascertained by the session of this second church, the proper order of procedure is, for this session, after conference with the accused person, to strike his name from their roll of church members, as not under their jurisdiction, to communicate their action to the session suspending him, with the reasons for it, and to request the said session to proceed against him, on separate process, for duplicity and disorder. Adopted. The last Assembly referred the following Overture (see The Presbyterian Historical Almanac for 1866, page 193) to a special committee to report to this Assembly. Samuel W. Fisher, D.D., Chairman, of said committee, made the following report, which was adopted: The Overture is in these words: "When the judicatory have proceeded, in accordance with chapter iv. section 13, of the Book of Discipline, to take the testimony in the case of an accused person, may they proceed to pass judgment thereon, as if he were present, or shall he be left simply under censure for contumacy?" The question thus presented is exclusively one of power. It is not whether, in all cases, it is advisable that a church judicatory should proceed to a final determination of the case; nor is it what has been the usage in some of the tribunals of the Church; but it is strictly, What does the Book of Discipline authorize? It is freely admitted that a long course of usage under a statute is no inconsiderable evidence of the meaning of that statute; but it must be a usage growing out of the enactment itself, and claimed to have been authorized by it. Mere neglect to exercise powers conferred is no proof that they were not granted. Had the fathers of the Church generally decided that, by the fourth chapter of the Book of Discipline, no power is recognized in a judicatory to proceed to the trial of an accused person when he has refused to obey its citations, that his contumacious refusal must arrest all steps to purify the Church of the offence charged, beyond taking evidence to prove that offence, and had such a construction of the Book been generally accepted, it ought to have weight in this answer to Overture. But there is no evidence that any such judicial construction has been generally given to the language of the Book. Undoubtedly there have been differences of opinion, and possibly it may have been decided in some judicatory that jurisdiction over an offence charged is necessarily suspended whenever an accused person disobeys the citations; but this is of little value in determining what the framers of the Book of Discipline meant by its directions respecting process, trial and judgment. It is much more important that, in certain cases, where the proof is clear, as where the accused has confessed his guilt, or where he has been convicted of violating the civil law and has absconded, church sessions have been accustomed to proceed to trial and judgment, notwithstanding a refusal of the accused to appear in answer to citations. Such cases are judicial assertions of power, never denied, so far as we are informed. But there is not enough in judicial decision nor in authoritative usage to settle the question. After all, it must be answered from the Book, and the true inquiry is, What is the fair interpretation of the rules laid down in the fourth chapter? A universally recognized rule of construction is, that when the purpose of a statute is clear, the means given for effectuating it are to be interpreted with reference to the purpose, and if possible so as to secure its accomplishment. Now the ends of discipline are clearly defined. They are declared, by the second section of the first chapter, to be "the removal of offences, the vindication of the honor of Christ, the promotion of the purity and general edification of the Church, and also the benefit of the offender himself." The fourth chapter contains the directions given to church judicatories, by which these ends are to be secured. Manifestly, they were intended to be a complete and efficient system adequate to the purposes in view. If they fail of that, the avowed object of their framers is defeated. Then there is no power to remove an offence in any case where the alleged offender refuses to submit himself to trial. Plainly, it is the offence charged which is sought to be removed, either by bringing the offender to repentance, or by the judgment of the Church upon it, and ultimately, if necessary, removing the offender. It is from that offence the Church is to be purified and the honor of Christ vindicated, for by that offence the evil has been done. Anything that comes short of discipline for that fails of accomplishing the avowed purposes for which the directions of the fourth chapter were prescribed. Contumacious disobedience of citations is another distinct offence, punishment for which is entirely collateral to discipline for the cause that induced the commencement of the process. It is contempt of the lawful authority of the Church. and suspension for it is summary punishment for the collateral offence alone. Neither directly nor indirectly is it an expression of opinion respecting the delinquent's guilt or innocence of the charge preferred originally against him. Suspension for contumacy would be proper, without regard to anything beyond it. It is quite conceivable that an accused person may willfully disobey citations, and yet be innocent of the charges made against him. It certainly would be an |