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

teries, Synods, and the General Assembly,
may be composed of ministers alone, =
''That the safest precedents in this matter,
viz: that ministers alone may transact the
business of the higher courts, "are those
furnished by our own and other Presbyterian
Church courts, and more especially those of
Scotland and Ireland, from which we derive
our forms of Government and Discipline. .
But there is divine authority for this. In
Acts xiii: 1-3 it is stated, that certain
prophets and teachers, no ruling elders pres
ent, separated Barnabas and Saul to the
work whereunto they were called.
But to proceed with the distinction be-
tween the bishop and ruling elder. Ruling
elders, even as ecclesiastical rulers, have not
the same authority as ministers or bishops
have, according to our Book. See chap.
10, sec. .7th; also chap. II, sec. 3rd. In
the new form it is expressly claimed that
ruling elders, as ecclesiastical rulers, have
the same authority-but it is virtually or
impliedly denied in chapter 5, section 4th,
paragraph 4th, which says that, ''three min
listers and at least one ruling elder, shall be
a quorum &c. If they have the same
authority, why does it not say that three
ministers and at least one ruling elder, or
three ruling elders and one minister may con-
stitute quorum? 1t would seem then that
they have not the same authority, as ecclesi-
astical rulers, even according to the new
form.
Again, one great excellency of the old
form is the soundness and completeness of
its Presbyterianism, as jare divino, 1t not
only declares that Jesus Christ "has erected
a Church" that He has appointed officers
to preach the gospel and administer the
sacraments' that He has established cer-
tain ordinances, mentioning them, and that
other things, specifying them, "are agrea'
bic to Scripture; but it, proves every prin-
ciple and constitutional law by direct re.
ference to Scripture passages, as authority
NOT leaving any statement itself to suggest
the Scripture. reason, and to suggest it to
those only who are familiar with the Scrip
lures. Why these constant references to the
Scriptures, if they are not designed to teach
that all these principles and statements are
of divine authority? In these respects the
new form is entirely deficient.
OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESENT FORM OF Gov
ERNMENT.
1t has been objected as proof of some
defect in it, that since its last revision in
1920, two descriptions have occurred in the
Church. But, think, it must be admitted
by every one who is at all acquainted with
the history of the Church at those periods
referred to, that those disruptions were not
owing to any defect in the constitution, but
owing to palPa6le violations of the constitu-
ton and to frequent departures from our
Doctrinal Standard or Confession of Faith.
Or, it may be ought to say, that they were
owing to disposition in the minds of North
ern brethren not to abide by constitution
and law. You might as well attempt to
bind the ocean with a rope of sand, as to
bind the Northern mind generally, with con-
stitutions and laws. They know no other
law but their own will The plan of union
of 1901 was palpably violation of the con-
stitution, and pronounced to be so, in 1887.
And by means of that plan, those who were
opposed to our Form of Government, and to
our Doctrinal Standard, were engrafted into
our Church, and thus confusion, animosity,
strife, and every evil work were produced,
which resulted in the disruption of 1873.
Now, will any one condemn the Form of
Government for this result, and desire to
have a new form on account of it! If any
one blame the constitution for this result,
the blame rests upon 1t only in part-the
Confession of Faith must bear large share
for the departure from it was one of the
principal causes of this result, and therefore
that ought to be amended with new Con-
fession. Who ever heard before of law
being blamed for violations of its plain pre-
cepts, or a doctrinal standard for departures
from it, and the evils which grew out of
those departures All will admit that the
Church prospered after it returned to the
, constitution in 1887, and continued to pros
per until it departed from it again in 1861.
Our constitution then must be good and
sound. But if any one holds up our Book
to contempt, and calls it "lOOse form, and
"a shelter for unpresbyterian project" be,
cause some of its plain statutes have been
violated, and these violations produced evils,
must he not treat the Confession in like man
ner, and call for new Confession, which
probably will be the next move, particularly
as the greater guilt lies at its door?
After what have said about the disrup-
ton in '37-8, and the cause of it, need
say nothing concerning the disruption in
81. For never was a constitution more
palpably violated than ours was then.
: Another objection to our Form of Gov
ernment is founded on the chapter concern
ing the office of deacon. That, it is said, is
t practically ignored. How can that be said
with truth, when the constitution declares
e that the Office sis perpetual" "a distinct