Carlisle, in which decision the Presbytery resolved not to put into his hands a call for the Rev. Henry R. Wilson, from the congregation of Carlisle, being resumed and fully discussed, it was

Resolved, That the decision of the Synod of Philadelphia be affirmed. And it was accordingly affirmed.-1814, p. 548.

b. The business left unfinished yesterday was resumed, viz., the consideration of the appeal of the Presbytery of Hudson from a decision of the Synod of New York and New Jersey, reversing a decision of said Presbytery, by which the Presbytery determined not to give leave to the congregation of Goodwill to prosecute before the Presbytery of New York a call which they had prepared for the Rev. William Gray, a member of that Presbytery.

It was moved and seconded that the appeal of the Presbytery of Hudson be sustained. After a full discussion of the subject, the question being taken on this motion, it was determined in the affirmative, and the appeal was therefore sustained.-1817, p. 644.

2. Against a Refusal to Obey the Superior Court.

An appeal from, and complaint against, a vote of the Synod of Philadelphia, in the case of Mr. Hindman, was introduced before the Assembly through the Committee of Overtures, and read. It was as follows, viz.:

It was overtured by the Presbytery of New Castle, that the Synod be requested to review the minute of their last meeting on the case of Mr. Hindman, and also to take into their consideration the conduct of Lewes Presbytery, in the affair of his licensure.

The vote being put, grant their request or not? it was carried not.

We, whose names are hereunto annexed, dissent from the aforesaid vote of Synod, and complain of and appeal therefrom, to the next General Assembly, for the following reasons:

1. Because, in our apprehension, the Synod have, by their vote in this affair, deprived aggrieved members of a privilege to which they have a just claim.

2. Because the Synod by this vote have, in our opinion, refused to correct the errors in their proceedings of last year, which were censured by the General Assembly, and which, in consequence of that censure, ought to be corrected.

3. Because the vote, as we believe, will, in its effects, tend to keep alive and increase uneasiness in the Presbyteries of New Castle and Lewes.

4. Because we believe that the whole transactions of the Synod of Philadelphia, relative to this affair, have been in direct violation of a known and wholesome rule of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, respecting the licensure of candidates, and contained in their Minutes of 1764, pages 78 and 80. And we likewise believe, that this violation has a tendency to promote irregularity, deception and injury, both among the churches and judicatures of the Presbyterian body.-1792, p. 53.

[This appeal was entertained and issued, see p. 56. The Synod was censured, but the licensure complained of was confirmed, though declared to be irregular.]

3. Appeal for Refusing to receive an Applicant.

A complaint and appeal of the Rev. Thomas Ledlie Birch, against certain proceedings of the Presbytery of Ohio, in the case of Mr. Birch, particularly for refusing to receive him as a member of their body, on the ground of a supposed want of acquaintance with experimental religion,

together with a representation of the congregation of Washington, in the bounds of said Presbytery, on the same subject, was brought in by the Committee of Bills and Overtures. On motion,

Resolved, That the Assembly will proceed, on Monday morning next, to hear said complaint and appeal.-1801, p. 213.

Subsequently the Assembly

Resolved, That no evidence of censurable procedure in the Presbytery of Ohio, in the case of Mr. Birch, has appeared to this house; inasmuch as there is a discretionary power necessarily lodged in every Presbytery to judge of the qualifications of those whom they receive, especially with respect to experimental religion.-1801, p. 218.

The Assembly having examined Mr. Birch, especially upon his acquaintance with experimental religion, Resolved, That they find no obstruction against any Presbytery to which he may apply taking him up and proceeding with him agreeably to the rules and regulations in this case made and provided.-1801, p. 221. In the next Assembly Mr. Birch complains, inter alia, "That the Presbytery of Ohio rejected him, in opposition to the decision and intention of the General Assembly."-1802, p. 246. complaint was not sustained.

This

4. Appeal against an Order or Decision of the Superior Court.

a. An appeal from the session of the Third Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia from the decision of the Synod of Philadelphia, affirming a decision of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, in which decision the Presbytery required said session within twenty days from the date of their decision, or after the final determination of the case, to convene the congregation for the purpose of electing a pastor, was determined in the affirmative.-1814, p. 559.

For the full minute of the decision, see Form of Government, chap. xiv., sec. i.

b. [The Second Presbytery of Philadelphia appealed against and complained of the act of the Synod of Philadelphia, ordering it to be merged in the Presbytery of Philadelphia. Both appeal and complaint were sustained and the act of the Synod pro tanto declared void.]-1834, p. 432.

c. The Assembly took up the appeal and complaint of the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia in relation to the decision of the Synod of Philadelphia dissolving them as a Presbytery.

The final vote was taken, first on the appeal, which was sustained, and then on the complaint, which was also sustained.-1836, pp. 273–276.

5. An Appeal will not Lie against a Judicatory for Obeying the Order of a Superior Judicatory.

Appeal of Rev. Mr. Hummer against the Presbytery of Highland. The last General Assembly passed the following order, viz.: Overture No. 19. That the General Assembly would take action and give relief in the case of Rev. Michael Hummer, who, having been deposed by the Presbytery of Iowa, had been restored by the Presbytery of Highland against the remonstrance of the Presbytery of Iowa, just as if he was an independent

minister.

In answer, the Assembly declares that it is irregular and unconstitutional for any Presbytery to receive and restore a member of another Presbytery who had been deposed, and therefore the action of the Presbytery of Highland, in restoring Mr. Hummer, was improper; and the

Presbytery of Highland is directed to reconsider its action, and proceed according to the requirements of the Constitution.

The report was adopted.

The Presbytery of Highland adopted the following minute:

Whereas, We believe that our action in the reception of Brother Hummer was unconstitutional; and whereas, we have no choice, in view of the direct injunction of the General Assembly; therefore,

Resolved, That we do now proceed to reconsider the action of this Presbytery, by which Mr. Hummer was received into this body.

Resolved, That this action of Presbytery be understood as putting the case into the position it occupied previous to his reception.

Resolved, That Presbytery earnestly advise Mr. Hummer to appeal once more to the Presbytery of Iowa to take up his case, in order that, in the event of their refusal to do him justice, he may appeal to the Synod, and thence, if necessary, to the General Assembly-which resolution was adopted.

Against this proceeding Mr. Hummer appeals.

But it appears that the Presbytery of Highland did nothing more than they were required to do by the General Assembly; that is to say, they reconsidered and set aside the action which the Assembly had declared "irregular," "unconstitutional," and "improper." In the judgment of the Committee, an appeal does not lie in such a case, and they recommend that it be dismissed, and Mr. Hummer have leave to withdraw his papers.

The report was accepted and adopted, and the case dismissed.—1863, 35, O. S.

6. An Appeal Dismissed because no Evidence is presented to Sustain the Allegation.

P.

Appeal and complaint of certain persons claiming to be ruling elders of the church at Little Falls vs. the Synod of Albany.

That they have examined the records and papers in said case; and although the appeal has been taken in proper form, and after due notice, yet, as there has been presented no evidence to sustain the allegations set forth as grounds of reversal, and as the allegations cannot therefore be tried by the Assembly, the Committee recommend that the said appeal and complaint be dismissed. Adopted.-1861, p. 312, O. S.

Also case of William McElwee vs. Synod of Toledo.-1873, p. 509.

7. Appeal will not Lie against a Refusal to Adopt a Paper or Determine a Constitutional Question in thesi.

a. The Judicial Committee having had under consideration No. 1, the appeal and complaint of the Rev. Robert J. Breckinridge, D. D., and others, against a decision of the Synod of Philadelphia, on the quorum question; and No. 2, the appeal and complaint of the Rev. R. J. Breckinridge, D. D., and others, against a decision of the Synod of Philadel phia, on the question of the imposition of hands in ordination, report, that in their opinion the Form of Government and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church do not authorize the appellants and complainants to bring before the General Assembly, either an appeal or complaint in the cases referred to. The report was adopted.-1844, p. 366, O. S.

[Against this a protest was entered, and the Assembly rejoin. See below, chap. vii., sec. iv., sub-sec. ii.]

8. Nor where the Court acts within the Limits of its Power and Authority.

The Special Committee, appointed to prepare a minute expressive of the sense of the Assembly in passing the vote in the case of the appeal of Silas Miller from the decision of the Synod of Illinois, recommended the adoption of the following minute:

The Assembly, having heard the appeal of Silas Miller from the decision of the Synod of Illinois, the sentence appealed from and the reasons assigned therefor, the whole record of the proceedings of the Synod in the case, including all the testimony and the reasons of their decision; and having heard the original parties by their counsel, namely, the appellant, by his counsel, Rev. George I. King, D. D., and the session of the church of Tuscola, by the Rev. Edwin Black; and having also heard the Rev. Livingston M. Glover, D. D., and others, members of the said Synod, in explanation of the grounds of their decision, and having carefully consid ered said appeal and the reasons assigned therefor by the appellant, are of the opinion that there is no valid ground for the appeal, in that it does not appear that the Synod exceeded its power and authority in the premises, or that it did any of the matters or things specified in chap. vii., sec. iii., paragraph 3, of the Book of Discipline, as being proper grounds of appeal; and therefore the Assembly do now order the appeal of said Silas Miller to be dismissed, and the decision of the Synod of Illinois to be confirmed.-1867, p. 516, N. S.

9. Nor where the Action below was Regular, and Itself according to the Equities of the Case.

Sixth. Case of M. A. Rockefeller, H. N. Waples, and M. E. Starick vs. the Synod of Harrisburg.

These persons complain and appeal, because the Synod decided their case without hearing both sides fully, since their representative was absent on the last day of the hearing; and because of injustice, in that the Synod did not regard the embarrassments of their position, and the irregularity of the action of the session and the Presbytery, from which they appealed.

The Committee learn from the records of the Synod, to which these appellants refer, as their only testimony, that a full hearing was granted, their representative being heard as long as he desired to speak, and in his absence, after having addressed the Synod, another representative was permitted to serve in his place; and all the provisions of the Book were granted the appellants. Moreover, the decision of the Synod, from which the appeal was taken, contained an injunction upon the Presbytery, to enjoin the session to invite these members of the Church to return to their duties and privileges in the Church, with the assurance that, if they would do so, the action against them should be annulled. The Committee, therefore, fail to find ground for their complaint, for either of the reasons they specify, and recommend that the case be dismissed. Adopted.-1873, p.

509.

IV. Appeals may be, either from a part of the proceedings of a judicatory, or from a definitive sentence.

V. Every appellant is bound to give notice of his intention to appeal, and also to lay the reasons thereof, in writing, before the judicatory appealed from, either before its rising, or within ten days

thereafter. If this notice, or these reasons, be not given to the judicatory while in session, they shall be lodged with the moderator.

1. Notice must be Given and Reasons in Writing.

a. An appeal of Mr. Benjamin Bell from a decision of the Presbytery of Geneva, and also an appeal of Mr. Bell from the decision of the Synod of Geneva, were laid before the Assembly by the Judicial Committee. These appeals were both dismissed, on account of the judicatories, from whose decisions they had been taken, not having received due notice from Mr. Bell that he designed to prosecute them before this Assembly.-1821, p. 25.

b. The appeal of Mr. Charles Yale from a sentence of the Presbytery of Bath, deposing him from the gospel ministry, was taken up and dismissed, because it appeared that Mr. Yale gave notice to said Presbytery that he should appeal to the Synod of Geneva, several days before he sig nified his desire to the moderator of Presbytery to appeal to the General Assembly.-1826, p. 187.

c. Resolved, That the appeal [of certain pew owners of the First Presbyterian Church in Troy] be dismissed, on the ground that the Synod has not had the constitutional notice of the reasons of the appeal.-1828, p. 242.

2. Evidence that Notice has been Given is Required.

a. The Judicial Committee, to whom was recommitted the appeal of the church of Bergen, made the following report, which was adopted, viz.: They recommend that said appeal be dismissed, on the ground that the only paper which appears to be intended as an appeal, is without date or signature, or evidence that it was ever before the Synod of Genesee, or lodged with the moderator of said Synod.-1830, p. 292.

A Synod Censured for Entertaining an Appeal without Notice.

b. The records of the Synod of Utica were approved with the following exceptions:

1. That the Synod issued an appeal from the inferior judicatory, when it appeared before them that an appellant had not given notice in writing that he should appeal, with his reasons assigned for appealing, as required by the Book of Discipline, before the rising of the judicatory appealed from, or within ten days thereafter.

2. That the Synod violated the principles of the Constitution in qualifying the members of the inferior judicatory to ascertain whether an appeal had been given, when the Book of Discipline requires that the appeal shall be lodged in the hands of the moderator; and further, that the inferior judicatory shall send authentic copies of all the records, and of all the testimony relating to the matter of appeal up to the Synod, whose duty it is to issue the appeal, when found to be in order, and in accordance with the Book of Discipline.-1840, p. 12, N. S.

c. The Committee further reported No. 13, viz.: Complaint of John Cochran against the Synod of Philadelphia, and recommended that the complainant have leave to withdraw his papers, on the ground that the Committee have no evidence that notice of said complaint was given to the Synod.--1834, p. 434.