The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1869-01-13
Our Committee Of Publication and the
Southern Presbyterian Review.

Undertaking now some notice Of the criti-
eiSms Of the Regia0 spoken Of last week, 1t Is
not our purpose to notice all; this task would
require more space than should be given to
the performance. Our purpose will be an
swered by setting before the reader number
Of specimens.
l. Under question lis, "How is the preach
ing Presbyter ordained2" Dr. Smythe says
He is admitted to his Office by the vote OF
the whole Presbytery, and is set apart by
prayer, with the laying on of the hands of the
ministers present, belonging to the Presbyte
ry." Our critic says this is contrary to our
Form of Government But unfortunately
for him, the General Assembly, the supreme
court of the Church, has again and again de
eided differently. That decision see Minutes
Of General Assembly for 1874, or Baird's Di-
gsst, page ~ has been acquiesced in by the
whole Church for about quarter Of a century
The Assembly not only decided that elders
had no right TO lay on hands in the ordination
o. ministers, but it went so far as to express
the hope that agitation on the subject in ques
ton may now cease A meeting OF the miu
Ority was held, and they resolved to accept the
deci>i Of the Assembly, so far as to cease
from The agitation of this matter. La thi,
particular they manifested degree of gOo6
sense which may well serve as an example fo
generations coming after them. But Wit
were the men in that Assembly that led it t.
this deciSion-ot which they affirm l. THAI
the decision aceords with the word OF God;
2 With the very words OF our Constitution;
3 With the uniform practice of those whc
framed the Constitution; With the uniform.
practice of all other Presbyterian churches -
Who were some Of the men who speak thus
We only lock now at those from the South
Within the bounds Of the Southern SynOds We
have II ministers and l6 elders, in all SO who
voted aye; and 6 ministers and elders, in ali
II who voted nay. Among the names of those
voting in the affirmative, aud still living
from Virginia. are Drs. MeEIhenny, Wilson,
Foote, Bocock, aud Flumer. FROM ~ Caro-
lima are DR.. S. j. p. Anderson, f. Hines
From the Synod of S Carolina and Georgia,
are the names of Rev. MesSrs Douglass, Jno
S. Wilson, D. D., B. Gilderseeve, DR.. Petrie
From Mississippi-Drs. Chase and Gray
And so We might bring out a similar record
from the whole South; but it is not necessary.
But besides all this, that question of the
CateebiSm is asked simply as to u matter o.
fact. 1t does not ask how the constitution OF
the Church ought to be interpreted; and the
answer only asserts fact, namely that minis
tiers are ordained in certain manner. The
reviewer VII not pretend that it states this in
correctly. Then why all this finding fault
with the Committee for preSuming to publish
such a CatechiSm? A little examination Of
his language makes it plain enough, that after
all he says mot remarkable, certainly, for
either its eharitableness or its modesty,) about
the Committee lending itSelf to party purposes,
the real trouble is that it has not lent itself to
his own crOtehets. 1t has published nothing
cOntradicting the teaching of our standard,
upon by the Church. 1t only happens not to
conform to his opinions. And no wonder he
should be dissatisfied with the Committee
when he is not satisfied that even his church
standards are on this point entirely orthodox.
For, after some rather curious statements abou,
changes made in times past, he finds comfort
in the thought that, q" Ii IS undenabe thai
our Form of Government has upon this point
got nearer to the Scriptural idea of ordination
than the Westminster Form" Indeed =
Ony got neorerl' OF course this critics
dissatisfaction is with the Form of Govern
III u =, ~, ~
nation. he adds, lis an act of government,
which belongs, every part of it, to the who'll
court. This is an easy, ex cathedra style OF
settling the question, and had the Committee
only been so accommodating as to lend it.
self to this partizan view, the writer would
doubtless have thought it all right. But the
judgment of the Church having settled the
question just the other way from the reviewers
dictum, he has exactly the same reason to b.
dissatisfied with the Church as with the Com
mittee. When he carries this transgression OF
the Committee to the General Assembly, and
lays the burden of his aggrieved heart before
that venerable court, the story will be truly
touching one.
,. In answer 10 question lS5, Dr. Smythe
says that elders are set apart TO their office
with prayer or with prayer and the imposition
of hands. In answer 10 question l46 tits said
that deaeOns are set apart to their office &" by
prayer aud the imposition of the hands of the
pastor and elders. We are ready to admit
that it would have been better to use precisely
the same language in both instances. The
omission to do so was not from any sinister
purpose, but because the Committee, and no
doubt the author also, did not perceive the
terrible evil lurking in the discrepancy, which
the Mortified critic imagiaes, and at which he
speaks thus loftiy; Who gave the Commit
tee of Publication authority officially to sepa.
rate betwiSt the deacon aud the elder, aud
teach that the one is to be set apart in any
way differently from the other?'
But after all, it remains to be replied
that the answer to the first of these ques
tons Q35l is in precise accordance with
repeated decisions Of the General Assembly
while the answer to the other (l46) is based
10y distinct reterencel upon the 9th chapter OF
Acts. We are aware of the opinion that or
dination ought always to be accompanied With
the laying on OF the hands of the Court, as
vel as with prayer, but as the Assembly de-
cided that either method was laWful We SIM