null and void the previous action of the Synod, which had been formally approved by the Assembly, is an act of insubordination, which said Synod is hereby required to reconsider and reverse; that they report to the next Assembly what they have done or failed to do in the premises, and until that time the usual certificate of the moderator be withheld.*

The remaining portion of the report was then adopted as follows: On page 365, where the Synod reaffirm their testimony of November, 1861, with regard to the action of the Assembly of the same year, known as the Spring Resolutions-which testimony declares the action of that Assembly on the state of the country to be "unscriptural, unconstitutional, unwise, and unjust; of no binding force whatever on this Synod, or upon the members of the Presbyterian Church within our bounds."

The Committee also recommend that, besides excepting to the record as above stated, the repeated exhibition of such a rebellious spirit, on the part of any inferior court toward the supreme judicatory of the Church, should not pass without censure.-1866, p. 97, O. S.

b. The Synod of Albany claim and exercise the right of disregarding the exceptions to their records by the General Assembly of 1847, which they consider disrespectful and disorderly.-1848, p. 48, Ŏ. S. Also 1824, p. 116.

c. Finally, the Assembly cannot but express their disapprobation of the concluding paragraph of the memorial of the Synod of Ohio, in which they say, "the Synod consider the judgments entered upon their records against Samuel Lowrey in October, 1822, as remaining in full force," etc.

This declaration, notwithstanding the respectful expressions of the Synod, is apparently wanting in the respect due from an inferior to a superior judicatory; and is repugnant to the radical principles of the government of the Presbyterian Church. If an inferior court has authority to declare that its own decisions are in force, after they have been reversed by a superior court, then all appeals are nugatory, and our system, as it relates to judicial proceedings, is utterly subverted. The Assembly are willing to believe, however, that the Synod of Ohio did not mean to set themselves in opposition to the highest judicatory of the Church, and that when they have reconsidered the matter, they will rescind what is so manifestly inconsistent with the principles of the Constitution, which they have bound themselves to support.-1824, p. 116.

See Digest, anté, p. 539.]

3. Irregularities Recited and Animadverted on; Complaint will lie against Decisions not Judicial; Action Insufficient and Unjust; a Member of the Court may be called as a Witness; Minutes should be Approved before Adjournment.

The Committee on the Minutes of the Synod of Cincinnati respectfully report, recommending their approval as far as written, with the following exceptions:

a. Exception 1. The dismissal of Complaints Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, the paper entitled Appeal No. 6 (pp. 345-347) and the complaint of the Rev. Thomas H. Skinner (pp. 441, 442), on the ground that they were not from judicial decisions.

b. Exception 2. That the action of Synod in reference to the case of the Rev. N. West, D. D., against the Rev. B. P. Aydelotte, D. D., was both insufficient and unjust. The action referred to is the first exception

*The next year, the Synod having complied with the requirements of the Assembly, as appeared from an official transcript of its records on the subject read to the Assembly, the moderator was directed to approve the records of the Synod of Missouri of last year.-1867, p. 316, O. S.

to the minutes of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, adopted November 20, 1877, and is as follows: "The Presbytery seems to have gone to the extreme of leniency in being satisfied with Dr. B. P. Aydelotte's explanation of an article published in the Christian Press of May, 1876, which Dr. N. West deemed slanderous, and for which he tabled charges against the author. We do not mean to say that judicial process should have been instituted, but we think Dr. Aydelotte should have been exhorted to be more careful in publishing articles capable of so offensive a personal interpretation." The Synod, in view of their own declarations, should either have directed the Presbytery to entertain the charge of Dr. West, or to have adopted a minute declaring him free from the imputations of published articles which they declared capable of an "offensive personal interpretation," especially in view of the complete vindication of Dr. West by the Presbytery a few weeks before (see minutes of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, at Glendale, April 13, 1876).

c. Exception 3. That the action of Synod in reference to the second. exception (printed p. 27) is manifestly insufficient and unjust; each action of the Presbytery, if it was as Synod declares it to be, should have called down upon the Presbytery the severest rebuke for malfeasance.

And further, there seems to be no evidence of any kind, on the records of the Presbytery, of any such statements made by Dr. West as are alleged to have been made in resolution 2 of the Judicial Committee of the Presbytery; and the fact that said resolution was adopted a year subsequent to the time alluded to, and in the absence of Dr. West, and the Synod's own statement that it seems to have been prepared for a purpose, demand that the said resolution be expunged from the records of the Presbytery of Cincinnati.

d. Exception 4. That the action of Synod in reference to the third exception (printed p. 27), is insufficient and unjust, because the act barely disapproved involved the subjection of Dr. West, without cause, in a matter of private affliction, to the suspicion of improper conduct, when a committee of the Presbytery, in a report approved by the Presbytery, had declared themselves satisfied as to the propriety of his conduct. The action of the Presbytery should have been rebuked.

Exception 5. In not sustaining exception 2d to the minutes (p. 409), in the following words, "Denying to the prosecution the right to introduce members of the court on the spot, without a citation, to disprove and rebut certain testimony of the defence."

Exception 6. In not approving the minutes of the last day of the meeting of the Synod at Cincinnati, February 14, 1878, before their adjournment.-Adopted 1878, pp. 117, 118.

4. The Approval of the Minutes does not Affect the Right of Appeal or Complaint against any Action taken.

Overture from Rev. Luther Dodd, a member of the Presbytery of Fort Dodge, asking the General Assembly to reply to the following questions: 1. Does the approval of the minutes of a lower court, as those of a Presbytery by a Synod, not necessarily carry with it an approval of any and every judicial decision recorded in those minutes?

2. Is it competent for a Synod, having approved the records of a Presbytery, to remand a case recorded in those records for new trial, on grounds reflecting censure on the Presbytery?

3. Or would it be proper for a Synod, in a case where they approve the minutes of Presbytery, to require a new trial on any other grounds than alleged new testimony?

The committee recommended the following reply: The constituted right of appeal, "either from a part of the proceedings of a judicatory or from a definitive sentence," and the right of complaint "respecting a decision by an inferior judicatory," "either before its rising, or within ten days thereafter," cannot be in any way affected by the approval of the minutes of the judicatory, against the action of which the appeal or complaint may be taken.-Adopted 1879, p. 613.

5. Review and Control does not Extend to Statistical Items in Session Records.

Overture from the Presbytery of Chicago on the following points:

1. Does the right of "general review and control" extend to the statistical items of baptisms and administration of the Lord's Supper, inserted for record and convenient reference, in chronological order, between the minutes of actual proceedings?

6. Nor to the Agreement of the Action of Sessions with Presbyterial Rules for Sessions. Not Warranted by the Constitution.

2. Can the Presbytery pass rules for the conduct of church Sessions, and then take exception to the proceedings of church Sessions that are not according to said rules, when the rules are not prescribed by our Form of Government or Book of Discipline?

Your committee recommend that both these questions be answered in the negative. Adopted 1883, p. 631.

LXXIII. Members of a judicatory, the records of which are under review, shall not be allowed to vote thereon. [New.]

Cases Cited.

a. A protest signed by a number of members of the Synod of Geneva, against a decision of that Synod, excluding the Presbytery of Geneva from voting on the question, Whether their own records should be attested by the moderator of the Synod, as approved. Your committee were, however, of opinion that the decision of the Synod was consonant to the prevalent usage of the judicatories of the Presbyterian Church, as well as to the usage of other analogous bodies in similar cases, and that it ought therefore to be approved.-Adopted 1816, p. 611.

b. The records of the Synod of Kentucky approved, except "that the members of the West Lexington Presbytery voted in approbation of their own proceedings, which is deemed to be irregular."-1821, p. 23.

c. The moderator and elder from the Session of Irish Grove claimed the right to vote on the disapproval of their records; which was refused by Presbytery. The Session complained. The Assembly inter alia decideThat the Presbytery of Sangamon acted correctly in not permitting the members of Irish Grove Session to vote for approving or disapproving their own records.-1851, p. 33, O. S.

[See in full, under chap. ix., sec. iii., sub-sec. xcix., Book of Discipline. -M.]

LXXIV. In most cases the superior judicatory may discharge its duty by simply placing on its own records, and on those under review, the censure which it may pass. But irregular proceedings may be found so disreputable and injurious, that the inferior judicatory must

be required to review and correct, or reverse them, and report, within a specified time, its obedience to the order; provided, however, that no judicial decision shall be reversed, unless regularly taken up by appeal or complaint. [VII. i. 3, 4.]

1. Exceptions must be Recorded by the Judicatory excepting. a. Overture from the Presbytery of Columbus, requesting the Assembly to direct the insertion, in the minutes of this Assembly, of the exceptions taken by the last Assembly to the records of the Synods of Cincinnati, Illinois Central, Indiana North, New Jersey, and Tennessee, as noted on p. 580, Minutes of 1877; and further, to direct the clerks hereafter carefully to observe the constitutional rules in this respect.

The committee recommend the following answer:

That while the Assembly does not deem it expedient to order the insertion of the exceptions taken to the records of the Synods in question. the last year, it calls the particular attention of the recording clerks of the General Assembly to the duty of complying with the requirements of the Book of Discipline (Old), chap. vii., sec. i., sub-sec. 3.-Adopted 1878, p. 27.

b. The records of the Synod of Indiana approved, "except that on p. 342 the records of Greencastle Presbytery are reported as approved, with exceptions, while these exceptions are not spread on the minutes of the Synod, as required by the Book of Discipline (Old), chap. vii., sec. i., sub-sec. iii."-1857, p. 387, N. S.

c. Synod of Wheeling, p. 409. The exceptions to the records of New Lisbon Presbytery are not recorded, in violation of the Book of Discipline (Old), chap. vii., sec. 1, sub-sec. 3.-1859, p. 550, O. S.

d. The Synod of Illinois North, except the omission from record of the exceptions to the minutes of the Presbytery of Chicago, which, it is stated on p. 285, were adopted by the Synod. (See Moore's Digest, p. 538.)— Adopted 1881, p. 593.

2. Irregular and Injurious Proceedings Censured.

Exception to the records of the Synod of Onondaga. "On p. 186 we find the Synod administering censure to the Presbytery of Cayuga for an act of discipline toward one of its churches, on the ground that the reasons for such discipline were not given according to the requirements of our Book of Discipline, yet on the next page we find the said Synod reaffirming the acts of a church censured by its Presbytery, and reversing the decision of the Presbytery, without giving the required reasons for such a singular proceeding."-1863, p. 277, N. S.

[See also anté, p. 181, 1, b; p. 189, 1, a, b; p. 192, 2, 3.]

3. Judicial Decisions may not be Reversed on Review.

a. [In a case where the organization of a Presbytery was irregular, see above, Form of Government, chap. x., sec. ii. The Assembly inter alia declare-]

The Book of Discipline (Old), however, prescribes, chap. vii., sec. 1, sub-sec. 4, that "no judicial decision of a judicatory shall be reversed unless it be regularly brought up by appeal or complaint."

The trial of a minister under the circumstances proposed in the overture must be regarded as any other trial where there has been informality or irregularity in the citation or other preliminary stages of the process.

The trial, with the judgment based upon it, must be respected until the Synod, as the superior judicatory, shall judge how far the irregularity vitiates the proceedings and defeats the ends of justice, and shall annul or confirm the same.-1861, p. 457, N. S.

b. The Synod likewise seems to have erred in censuring as they did the committee of the Miami Presbytery, and in acting inconsistent with Constitutional Rules (Discipline, Old), chap. vii., sec. 1, sub-secs. 2 and 4, by virtually reversing a judicial decision, and this without citing the Presbytery to appear and answer, on the mere review of their records.-1857, p. 45, 0. S.

[See also under sec. LXXII., above, 1874, p. 86, and 1879, p. 613.]

LXXV. If a judicatory is, at any time, well advised of any unconstitutional proceedings of a lower judicatory, the latter shall be cited to appear, at a specified time and place, to produce the records, and to show what it has done in the matter in question; after which, if the charge is sustained, the whole matter shall be concluded by the judicatory itself, or be remitted to the lower judicatory, with directions as to its disposition. [VII. i. 5, largely amended.]

[See Form of Government, chap. xii., sec. v., and below, sec. LXXVI.] LXXVI. Judicatories may sometimes neglect to perform their duty, by which neglect heretical opinions or corrupt practices may be allowed to gain ground, or offenders of a gross character may be suffered to escape; or some part of their proceedings may have been omitted from the record, or not properly recorded. If, therefore, at any time, the superior judicatory is well advised of such neglects, omissions, or irregularities on the part of the inferior judicatory, it may require its records to be produced, and shall either proceed to examine and decide the whole matter, as completely as if proper record had been made; or it shall cite the lower judicatory, and proceed as in the next preceding section. [VII. i. 5, 6, largely amended.]

1. Citation of Judicatories on Review, or on Advice.

a. 1. Resolved, 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.

2. That a Special Committee be now appointed to ascertain what judicatories are thus charged by common fame; 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.

3. That, as citation on the foregoing plan is the commencement of a process involving the right of membership in the Assembly; therefore,

Resolved, That agreeably to a principle laid down chap. v., sec. ix., of the Book of Discipline (Old), the members of said judicatories be excluded from a seat in the next Assembly, until their case shall be decided.-1837, p. 425.

[After the passage of the acts declaring the Synods of Western Reserve,