I received the above on the morning of September 3, and showed it in perfect glee to my friends. In the afternoon the meeting was held that fastened me down so that I could not move. All the morning I was urged to consent to the putting up of another name than Orrin Robinson for Trustee. No! was my answer. See that letter. All that I could say at eventide was, “Save me from my friends!” I have appealed. I shall carry the matter through to the end, so that at the close there will be two questions settled. First – Can a Presbytery dissolve the pastoral relation at the petition of a minority of a church, when that Pastor is not only blameless, but declared to be “able, zealous, and faithful,” upon any assumed ground of expediency? _{Footnote no. 6} And that question through, another will come up. Are the acts of an Ecclesiastical Court final, whatever may be the material consequences which follow the violation of her own laws? Is not an Ecclesiastical Court obliged to keep its own laws, lest material bad consequences fall upon its members?

---

<sub>Footnote no. 6: The government of the Presbyterian Church recognizes the general principle of all covenants, viz.: that the power which makes is the only power that can unmake. People and Pastor agree to join in marriage; their Presbytery comes in and solemnizes the bond. The separation can only be on good grounds. The people must desire it, or the Pastor must seek it; or, both together must plead for it. If there be crime charged, and established, Presbytery may step in unasked, and dissolve the union. But when, as in the Elmira case, neither Pastor nor people separately, nor together, have asked, and where no crime is charged, where is the precept which warrants judicial actions? Precedent is not sufficient. Synod is, doubtless, prepared to say if an equivalent expediency be constitutional law.

Footnote no. 7: The Cardross case, decided lately by the Court of Session, Scotland, declared the principle that an Ecclesiastical Court is bound by its own laws. The General Assembly of the Free Church pleased that they were not under the government, and could not be made amenable to the civil law for their acts. The answer was, no laws but your own is considered, but Her Majesty’ subjects cannot be allowed to suffer through your misconstruction, or misapplication of your own precepts; and the Civil Court reinstated the complainant in the immunities and privileges of his office.

The same doctrine is held in this country. See the decision of Chief-Justice Williams, of the Supreme Court, Vermont, in the case of Smith vs. Nelson, 18 R., p 52: - In a court of justice, sworn to administer justice according to law, I cannot recognize any constitution, laws, or ordinances, or sentences of any Ecclesiastical tribunal, or of any voluntary society, as having any efficacy or power over the civil rights or contracts of individuals.” Again:

“It is idle for societies to talk of constitutional restrictions, or absolute or unlimited power, either in conventions, associations, or presbyteries. There cannot, in this country, be attributed to a synod, or to the decision of any ecclesiastical judiciary, either infallibility, or freedom from error; nor can they claim rightfully unlimited obedience; and when it is attempted to give their adjudications the same force as is given to the sentences of ecclesiastical courts in England, or superior courts of the common law here in this country, the attempt must be unavailing.</sub>