The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1870-03-09

thoughtful men the danger of our continuing I'M
der the same loose Form of Government with
them-the more especially seeing that, heretofore,
their I'M Presbyterian projects have found shelter
under it. May not the same evils follow in our
own body?
These brief suggestions, out of many of similar
tenor, must suffice under this head. Assuming
now that the occasion and circumstances justify
this call for an amended Constitution, we come to
the question: Is this Book of Order and Canons
of Discipline the amendment that ought to be
adopted?"
As to the revised Discipline, my experience as
an ecclesiastical lawyer is so very limited that
feel some difidence in expressing an opinion
Understand, however, that these Canons of Disci
pine are the result of the united labors of such
men as ThornwelI, Breckenridge Hodge, McGil,
Dabney, Adger, Baird and others-men who
ought-if large experience and knowledge of the
Word of cd can qualify them-to know what is
wisest and best in supplying the Gospel discipline
of the Church, can well afford to take it some
what on trust. And this the more so when on
carefully examining l find nothing but what l
think is the true application of Christs law dsc-
pine; and very much that is evidently far superior
to the Old Book.
As to the Book of Order or Form of Govern
ment feel less difidence in expressing opinion
seeing that in time past [ have been obliged to
study carefully most of the Presbyterian Constitu-
tons that have been framed since the Reforma-
ton. And feel no hesitation in saying that in
my Judgment the New Book of Order is incom-
parably the best application of the doctrines OF
Scripture, as interpreted by our Standards to the
practical administration of the Church, that have
ever met with. AS it went down to the Presby-
teres in 1866 there were included several incden-
tai statements and provisions in it that | would
have rejected either as of doubtful Scriptural au-
thorty or as an unwise and unnecessary exaltng OF
individual crotchets to the dignity of constitutional
law. And there are clauses still left which | would,
perhaps have put somewhat differently, and most
likely they then would have been regarded as
crotchets of my own. But as body of Constitu-
tional law made to rest directly on the Scriptures
as interpreted by our Confession, and most skill
fully applied to the condition of Presbyterian
body, emancipated from all civil control, know
of nothing equal to this Book of Order.
And yet, in my view, the grand excellency Of
the thing is that there are no Novelties in it
Whoever the authors were, Il am not familiar
with the history of its authorship they evidently
have caught the spirit of Tertullians famous max
i'm concerning Gospel truth" What is first i;
true-what is more recent is false" They have
manifesty studied the expositions of such early
Scottish giants as Andrew Melville sufficiently to
be able to separate the utterances of the Gospel
pure and simple in the ancient Constitutions from
the temporary devices therein to keep the Church
in poweragainst her tyrants They have studied toe
the Westminster attempt to compromise between
the theory of the Scotch Puritan battling with
tyrants for Christ crown rights, and the English
Puritan, battling with tyrants for his individual
rights as man, sufficiently to separate what again
is Gospel, pure and simple, from what is partly
Gospel and partly expedient, devised to avoid the
objections of independently. They have studied
the Constitution of 1888 sufficiently to discern be-
tween the Presbyteriansm, pure and simple, anC
the mellihuous circumlocutions out of polite re-
gard to New England Congregationalism. Anc
thus they have been able to compile from all
frame of government which simply, broadly, bold
ly and yet without offensive ostentation exhibits
confession. 1t manages always to lay down thu
rule of government in manner to suggest at once
the Scriptura reason of the rule.
am free to confess that chief attraction to me
in the New Book of Order is the completeness anC
soundness of its Presbyteranism, as jure diuino
vance. 1t is devoutly to be hoped that with all oul
losses from the late disruption, we enjoy the ad
vantage of being rid of that timid jejune Presby
teriansm-"afraid to call its soul its own''-whicl
affects to shudder at the declaration of Presbyter
anism as jure diUino. Indeed but for the hallu
cination of few brethren in confounding the jur,
diuiao theory of Presbyterianism with the bigotry
of High Church Epscopacy, whose jure diumc
theory unchurches all others of Gods people,
suppose we have none among US who deny this
claim to our system. The New Book, however
ought to satisfy the most timid in that respect
For instead of any pompous professions Of liberal
ity, as de opiaioae it boldly asserts, as de fde-
that while 'Presbytery is necessary to the pertec
ton of the order of the Church, it is not essentia
to its existence. (Chapter i: ~ And thai
"those particular churches which maintain the
word and sacraments in their integrity are to bC
recognized as churches of Jesus Christ" Chap
2, sect. ii p
The truth is that any Presbyterianism that il
not jgre diono is, according to our doctrnal sym
bols no Presbyterianism at all. For what Other
conclusion can any logical mind draw from such
propositions as these?-
Confession of Faith, chapt. 80: 81 Gas Je
sus Christ hath appointed a regular gOrernmaen
and discipline IN his Church." &c.
(Conf. 25: 81 "Unto the Catholic visible
Church Christ hath giren the ministry, ordnance
and oracle" &C.
(Conf. 80: l, 2) 1.-THE Lord Jesus, as King anG
Head of his Church, hath therein appointed q
government in the same of church officers, &c.
But, more distinctly and emphaticaly, in ques
ton As of the Larger Catechism, Christ exc
cuteth the office of King in calling out of the worlC
people to himself, and giving them officers, laao
and censures discipline BY WHICH He vIsIBL1
GOVERNS THEM.
Now the New Book, while making no materia
changes in the constitutional provisions of the Old
yet so sets forth these provisions as distinctly tt
ground them upon the foregoing and similar doc
trinal statements OF the Confession. Had such
been the method of the Old Book is it likely tina
ever those merely human machineries and human
itarian theories could have been introduced into
the Church which led to the descriptions of 1881
and 1861?
As to the method of the New Book, it is emf
nently logical, comprehensive and complete. As tC
its style, with all Difference to the rhetorical mart
nets, it seems to me to be the clear, sober and dig
ni6ed style suited to such composition. Indeed