sent them; but he was taken sick, so that he could not attend, and neglected to forward them. Soon after, Mr. Abbott had paralysis, and ever since has been feeble and poor, so that the case was not prosecuted before the Presbytery of St. Louis withdrew from the jurisdiction of the General Assembly, and the Synod was no longer in existence as at the time of his trial.

Mr. Abbott declares his personal allegiance to this Assembly, as far as he can be permitted to express allegiance, and that, had he remained a member of the Presbytery, he should not have gone with the majority; and now brings this statement, and various papers accompanying it, to this Assembly, for consideration with a view to his relief.

From these papers your Committee learn the following facts respecting his trial before the Presbytery:

1. While the charges were based on common fame, efforts were made for more than a year to obtain some basis of complaint; and on one occasion, on receipt of an anonymous letter offering to give information, a Committee was appointed "to ferret out" the matter and learn grounds for a charge.

2. The grounds of the principal charges were matters of from eight to ten years' standing.

3. Witnesses were called and allowed to testify, whose names had not been given the defendant in the citation, and against his protest. In one instance, these were several in number.

4. Persons prominent in the prosecution were notoriously prejudiced against the defendant.

5. Efforts were made to intimidate those who might be inclined to sustain the defendant.

All these items the Committee think to be distinctly opposed to the instructions of our Book of Discipline. Moreover, the trial was at an adjourned meeting, when comparatively few members were present; and it was prosecuted, notwithstanding his physician certified that Mr. Abbott was too ill to attend with safety; and questions deemed important to the cause of the defendant were repeatedly ruled out.

For these reasons, the Committee recommend that Mr. Abbott have a rehearing, and that he be referred to the Presbytery of Cleveland, within the bounds of which he now resides, with instructions to that Presbytery to adjudicate the case.

The report was adopted.-1873, p. 540.

III. If it be found that the facts with which a minister stands charged, happened without the bounds of his own Presbytery, that Presbytery shall send notice to the Presbytery, within whose bounds they did happen, and desire them either (if within convenient distance) to cite the witnesses to appear at the place of trial; or (if the distance be so great as to render that inconvenient) to take the examination themselves, and transmit an authentic record of their testimony always giving due notice to the accused person of the time. and place of such examination.

[See the case of Aaron C. Collins, referred by the Assembly to the General Association of Connecticut, 1793, p. 68.]

1. A Suspended Licentiate can be Restored only by the Presbytery which Suspended him.-Another may take Testimony. The Committee, to which was referred the statement of the commissioner from the Presbytery of Fayetteville, respecting a licentiate of the Presbytery of Hopewell, who had been suspended, both from the privilege of preaching the gospel, and from the enjoyment of the sealing ordinances of God's house, reported the following resolution, which being read, was adopted, viz.:

Resolved, That the only correct mode to be pursued by the licentiate, in order to obtain restoration to his former standing, is to make direct application to the Presbytery of Hopewell; and that the Presbytery of Fayetteville may, with propriety, collect and transmit to the Presbytery of Hopewell, any testimony, touching the moral character of said licentiate, while living within the bounds of the Presbytery of Fayetteville, whenever requested by either the licentiate or the Presbytery of Hopewell.1822, p. 39.

[See above, under sec. ii., 1835, p. 476.]

2. Such Presbytery has no Power to Try, but only to take Testimony.

2. That in the opinion of this Assembly, the Presbyteries both of Harmony and Steubenville appear to have misconceived the directions as laid down in chap. v., secs. iii., iv., of the Book of Discipline; inasmuch as those rules do not transfer jurisdiction from a Presbytery to which a minister belongs, to the one within whose bounds he resides, so as to authorize the latter Presbytery to try such minister; but only to examine witnesses in the case, and transmit an authentic record of the testimony to the Presbytery which made the application; therefore,

Resolved, 3. That the Presbytery of Harmony is at liberty to pursue such a course in the case of Mr. Belknap as the circumstances of the case and the good of religion shall in their opinion require.-1831, p. 339.

IV. Nevertheless, in case of a minister being supposed to be guilty of a crime, or crimes, at such a distance from his usual place of residence, as that the offence is not likely to become otherwise known to the Presbytery to which he belongs; it shall, in such case, be the duty of the Presbytery within whose bounds the facts shall have happened, after satisfying themselves that there is probable ground of accusation, to send notice to the Presbytery of which he is a member, who are to proceed against him, and either send and take the testimony themselves, by a commission of their own body, or request the other Presbytery to take it for them, and transmit the same, properly authenticated.

See above, under sec. iii., 1835, p. 476; 1831, p. 339.

Duty of a Presbytery to give Notice of an Offence.

Overture No. 6. From the Presbytery of Rock River, being a question of interpretation of the Book of Discipline, chap. v., sec. iv.

The Committee recommends the following answer:

When it is alleged that a minister has committed an offence in the bounds of a Presbytery of which he is not a member, the Presbytery in the bounds of which it is alleged the offence was committed, has performed its entire duty in the premises when it notifies the Presbytery to which he belongs of the allegation and the grounds on which the allegation is based. The report was adopted.-1869, p. 922, O. S.

V. Process against a gospel minister shall not be commenced, unless some person or persons undertake to make out the charge; or unless common fame so loudly proclaims the scandal, that the Presbytery find it necessary, for the honor of religion, to investigate the charge.

An Action Based on Common Fame Sustained.-Informalities Waived by Act of the Accused.

Rev. Samuel Boyd appealed from the Synod of Wheeling sustaining the Presbytery of St. Clairsville. The Assembly appointed a commission to hear and report on the testimony. Against this Mr. Boyd remonstrated. The report of the commission was adopted as follows, viz. :

The main objection made by the appellant is that there were not written charges made against him as part of the process.

It appears from the testimony and records

1. That Mr. Boyd was living separate from his wife on account of domestic difficulties; that this was brought to the notice of the St. Clairsville Presbytery by common fame; that Mr. Boyd by common fame was charged with unkindness and severity toward his wife; that he requested the Presbytery to take the case and investigate it, after an ineffectual attempt had been made by the Presbytery to settle the difficulty.

2. That witnesses were cited; that the trial was commenced by the Presbytery, Mr. Boyd being present; that the written charge on the records on which the trial proceeded was, "that common fame charges the Rev. Samuel Boyd with living in a state of separation from his wife;" that a number of witnesses were examined on the part of Mrs. Boyd, and in the presence of Mr. Boyd; that he cross-examined said witnesses; that Mr. Boyd also cited and examined a number of witnesses on his own behalf; that it nowhere appears on the records that he objected to proceeding without more formal charges.

The commission are, therefore, of the opinion that Mr. Boyd waived, by his own acts, and led the Presbytery to believe that he waived, all informalities in the proceedings antecedent to the trial.

The commission are also of the opinion that the record and the defence of Mr. Boyd show plainly what the charges were. They are also of the opinion that the testimony sustains fully the sentence of the Synod of Wheeling, which was unanimous.

The commission are, therefore, of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed, and the decision of the Synod of Wheeling confirmed. This report is agreed upon unanimously by the commission.-1866, p. 74, O. S.

VI. As the success of the gospel greatly depends upon the exemplary character of its ministers, their soundness in the faith, and holy conversation; and as it is the duty of all Christians to be very cautious in taking up an ill report of any man, but especially of a min

ister of the gospel: therefore, if any man knows a minister to be guilty of a private, censurable fault, he should warn him in private. But, if the guilty person persist in his fault, or it become public, he who knows it should apply to some other bishop of the Presbytery for his advice in the case.

1. The Character of One Absent and not on Trial not to be Impeached.

Resolved, That no discussion ought to be allowed which may involve the character of Mr. McDowell in his absence.-1823, p. 74.

See under vii., below.

VII. The prosecutor of a minister shall be previously warned, that, if he fail to prove the charges, he must himself be censured as a slanderer of the gospel ministry, in proportion to the malignancy, or rashness, that shall appear in the prosecution.

2. Failure to prove Charges involves Censure for Slander. a. The unfinished business of Saturday, viz., an appeal by Mr. William L. McCalla from a decision of the Synod of Kentucky, in which decision the Synod declared, that Mr. McCalla had failed to prove certain charges which he had brought against the Rev. James Blythe, was resumed, and the appellant was heard till he declared himself satisfied. On motion,

Resolved, That the judgment of the Synod of Kentucky, with respect to the charges brought by Mr. William L. McCalla against the Rev. James Blythe, be and it hereby is affirmed.-1815, p. 596.

b. The complaint of J. W. Davidson, W. C. Koons and J. McElhinny, against the Synod of Baltimore.

This case originated in the Presbytery of Carlisle, as the result of the trial of a minister, by which the complainants were severely censured for presenting a certain paper containing allegations against the character of the said minister, which allegations, though not tabled as charges, were adjudged to be slanderous.

The parties censured complained to the Synod of Baltimore, and the complaint was sustained in part," by a vote of 17 to 12.

The Synod, in its final minute, still inflict a modified censure, of which the said Davidson, Koons and McElhinny complained to the last General Assembly. This last complaint was laid over to this Assembly, to enable the complainants to correct an informality; which they have since done. The Committee report the case in order, and recommend that it be taken up according to the directions of the Book of Discipline, as follows: 1. Read the judgment complained of.

2. Read the complaint.

3. Read the paper referred to in the judgment of the Synod, of which they complain.

The Committee recommend, that the only part of the record to be read in evidence be the paper originally read to the Presbytery of Carlisle, at Newville; and this may be waived by the parties agreeing; that the paper contains charges, which, if true, would be scandalous. This recommendation is based on the following reasons:

1. That it is found by the Synod, in their judgment, that the paper pre

sented by complainants was so presented by them without their being prepared to table charges, or to appear as prosecutors, and that they refused to appear as accusers after having presented such a paper.

II. In the complaint presented to us, these findings of the Synod are admitted, in that the complainants allege (as the ground of their complaint in this regard) that the Synod decided that the paper presented at Newville by the complainants, was of such a character that it should not have been presented, unless the parties presenting it were prepared to table charges upon it; when, in fact, as they allege, it was but an offer to aid Presbytery in investigating the difficulty in the congregation of Big Spring, to which complainants belonged, and not as the ground of charges. Thus it will be seen that they not only admit such findings of the Synod, but distinctly allege another and different reason in justification of such presentation, viz., that it was but an offer to aid Presbytery, etc.

III. If it be claimed, on the second ground of appeal, that the testimony adduced on the original trial be read before the Assembly, then we say that it should not be read, for the following reasons:

1. The accused minister, after a trial (declared by the Synod to be fair and impartial) was acquitted by the Presbytery, and no appeal was taken from such judgment of acquittal; so that the same thereby long since became final and absolute, and this Assembly has no power to reverse this judgment of the Presbytery, for the purpose of relieving these complainants from the censure of the Synod; to do so would be to pronounce two conflicting and contrary judgments upon the same evidence.

2. Because it has been already adjudicated, in the case of William S. McDowell (Assembly's Digest, Rev. Ed., p. 159), that "no discussion ought to be allowed (involving the character of an absent person) in his absence," much more should this rule be applied to the exclusion of the remaining record, in this case, from its peculiar character, and all the circumstances attending it.

Resolved, That the judgment of the Synod of Baltimore be sustained pro forma, and that the following paper of E. Thompson Baird be admitted to record, viz.:

The undersigned, counsel appointed to manage the case of Davidson, Koons and McElhinny, versus the Synod of Baltimore, begs leave to submit, that through an oversight of the complainants in stating their causes of complaint on the one hand, and on account of the rulings of the Assembly as to technical points on the other hand, it is impossible for the case to come before this body on its merits. The complaint ought to have brought up the whole proceedings in the courts below, in order to a judgment on their regularity as well as justice; but by an omission of the complainants, in stating the grounds of their complaint, this matter cannot be reached. The second cause of complaint is ruled out, because it requires a cross issue, involving the rights of a party not involved in And the first cause of complaint--i. e., as to the rights of the complainants to place on the table of Presbytery the statement alluded to-cannot be justly investigated without taking up all the records and ascertaining all the circumstances which led to its presentation. Under the rulings of this house this cannot be done, since it would involve an absent party. We are thus on technical grounds shut out from a full presentation of the case. All that is left for us is to request the Assembly to admit this paper to record as our reason for waiving a trial, and agreeing that the judgment of the Synod of Baltimore be sustained pro forma. E. T. BAIRD, On behalf of Complainants. -1860, pp. 31 and 35, O. S.

the case.