The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1870-04-06

that clause is not correct scrlptura title tor or
binary ministers: the remedy is easy. Let it be
omitted I should, however, greatly regret to see
this done; because, in giving the warrant for the
ministerial office, all the scrptural titles descrip
tive of the Office and work OF the minister ought
to be given, as they are used In the New Tesla
ment Here is where in modern times we get our
title of Missionary" l. e., Acts xiii: 3, and xiv
ID. If the title is so much used among u.s. and
has become so necessary, 1t ought to be recog
lied and if the use of the word Apostle" will
create confusion, that word might be omitted and
the translated word missionary retained.
mention this particular clause as an example
Possibly there may be other clauses which breth-
rem may think it desirable to omit. Some clauses
can of course be omitted without impairing the
integrity of the Book Indeed some provisions
are of such nature that their utility depends on
their acceptability. The Presbyteries are now
called on by the General Assembly, to give the
subject their mature and careful consideration
with reference to suggesting amendments and
omissions When they have done their work, well
and faithfully, [ think two things will be made
manifest, viz: lst, that the Book has been i'm
proved, as was found to be the case at Mobile; and
I'd, that the differences of opinion among us will
show themselves to be less grave anG rreconclea-
BILE than it was at first supposed My belief Is, II
our Church only has the grace to exercise patience
and perseverance, and brethren continue to mani
fest the kind and fraternal spirit in consider
ing this subject which hA thus far been exhibited,
we can, by Gods blessing, mature Book of
Church Order, which will harmonic the Church
and greatly promote its efficiency | am sure we
have not reached that point YETI but progress has
been made, and | am persuaded progress is max
ing.
l have seen some inquiries made as to why the
proof texts were not added; and brethren some
times ask for Scrptural authority for certain rules
or regulations. The proof texts, as we now have
them appended to our present standards, form no
part thereof and are of no binding authority, be-
cause they were not adopted by the old Synod of
New York and Philadelphia along with the other
parts Of the constitution, nor we're they ever sub
mitted to the Presbyteries for their consideration,
nor even adopted by the General Assembly. They
were prepared by two successive Committees of the
Assembly who reported progress from year to year.
The first committee was appointed in 1872
In 1894 its work was reported and accepted by the
Assembly; but the whole was referred to another
Committee to make further revsal of the work,
compare it with the Westminster references, and
then publish it. In 1896 this latter Committee
reported that it had made considerable progress"
and part of the work was ready for the press. "
The Assembly ordered it to proceed and to print
1000 copies. The proof texts it will be seen are
there by the authority of the Assembly, but aoere
neuer adopted euen by
have given the above history of the preparing
of the prooftexts of our present standards, to
show brethren how our fathers exercised patience
and overcame difficulties by perseverance, Now,
in the first place. they agreed on what the Consti.
tuition of the Church should be; and, then, pro-
ceeded to give Scriptural authority for. And, in
the second place, they did not undertake the i'm
possibility of giving Scriptura authority for those
regulations which are left to the Christian pru-
dence of church officers and courts but, only for
those principles which are left for the guidance OF
the Church in the exercise of it's trusts. When
our work is completed, the proof-texts can be ap-
pended, either in the same way the present proof
texts were added or, what is far better, they can
be prepared and then referred to the Presbyteries
Again: Some portions of the present Form Of
Government which have been omitted may be re-
stored, if the Church wills it. The desire has
been expressed to have the chapter of "Prelimi
nary Principles" restored; and the question is
asked, why was it omitted2 The omission was
not made by the Revision Committee but by the
Memphis Assembly Why it did so, the Assem-
bly, did not state As member of that body lean
give some reasons which induced portion of the
members to vote to strike it out.
|. There is nothing in it that ought to be re-
tanned which is not stated elsewhere All those
subjects of christian Liberty" THE Commu-
Mon of Saints" and the duty of the Civil Ma
gistrate, as nursing father to the Church, are
fully set forth, doctrinally, in the Confession OF
Faith, in chapters 90 %, and 81 and the doc
trines of Church government in that Preliminary
chapter are set forth in chapters 25, 80 and 81 OF
the Confession of Faith, and under the proper
heads of the new Book Hence, it is unnecessary
2. Its indirect and apologize form was consid-
cred Objectionable. eve are unanimously of
opinion, they are persuaded, they consider"
they think, etc., are the terms in which its prin.
ciples are introduced, If the chapter is restored,
trust this timid and apologize form of express
sion will not be adopted. But
8. Some were not persuaded" Of the truth Of
all the "opinions." contained in it. For example,
they did not believe that Church which makes
its terms Of communion too lax or two narrow"
does 60 not infringe upon the liberty or the rights
of others, but only makes an improper use of its
own. If this means, in civil point Of view, of
course it is true; but it is doctrine of politics,
and is out of place in the Constitution of the
Church. Its proper place would be in the Constitu-
ton of the Commonwealth. But if it means that
any Church has right given by Jesus Christ to
make any terms of communion at all, | deny it
Christ has made his own terms of communion,
and his Church has no authority on the subject
except that which is ministerial and declarative
AS Christ's ministers, they may declare what are
the terms of communion which He has himself
made, as the only Lawgiver in Zion. Nor do !
believe that Church commits no offence against
Christ and His people, when they make the terms
of communion too lax, " and admit the unhoy and
profane to His ordinances. and thus compel His
people to hold fellowship with devils or when they
make them too narrow" and exclude Christ's
children from His own table. In either case, it is
usurpation of the crown rights of Christ and it is
lording it over Gods heritage. No Church has
right to make the right doctrines of Secession,
States rights, Slavery, etc., terms of communion;
and the Church which does so, is guilty of more
sin than merely making IAN improper use of their
own liberty" Towards Christ it is reasonable
and towards Christ and His Church catholic, it is
schismatical. For just such action the Declare