The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-11-04
syyop OF vIRGIaIA.
FOURTH DAY--ArTEeSooS SESSION.
nxurssanS OF THE MINISTRY.

FOURTH DAH--AfTERNOoNo EssioNs
psNfsszoH OF THE MINISTRY Is
rbe untlnished business OF last night was.
taken up, when the Rev. j. r. Bowman
spoke ia support or the action OF the Lexing-
ton Presbytery. He took the ground that
this was not a case OF demission OF the minis.
try; that the Presbytery lad not allowed
Mr.. Ruffaer to demis the off 20 OF the minis.
try. but had deposed him from tho mi aistrs,
but without ceIsGre. He replied to; the argu.
ment OF DE-. Leievre Of last night. de bad
promised the Synod TO give them the law
but hid only given the decisions Of the AS
semS!y. The decisions ola court are NOT law.
There are swo kinds of deposition |; ops
on the ground OF crime, the other .oh
grounds not infesring crime. was the
latter that the Lexington Presbg tery mac,
Rev. r. b. white, d. D.. said be contend
cd against an Unconstitutional action oil Lex.
inpton presbytsry. He msintasnsd shat the
decisions OF the General Assembly were
iike the decisions Of the supreme courts OF
the iand--the iaw. The decisions Of the
Assembly were as binding as the constitu-
ton. These decisions were all against
this action, as had already been shown.
Moreover, this act Is unconstitutional be-
cause rot provided for, and therefore not
beyond the constitution and do auything
not forbidden, to what lengths may we not
gos, That this is not provided for IN the
constitution cannot be because Of 40 over
sight it was an intentional omission.
Although this doctrine of the perpetuity Of
the Office OF the ministry was teid by the
Roman Catholic Church il was also doc.
trine OF: the Protestant Church from Luther
and Calvin down. .n1 z+--& 80 -.
Rev. William T. Richardson would speak
to the law. He claimed TO be q strict con.
structionfst, but not In the narrow sense OF
those who charged the Saviour With break.
ing the law by heaiinga man on the Sabbath.
he took up the cases mentioned7by DR.. Le-
feyre and read further in these cases, and
showed that the Synod had never reversed
the action Of the Presbytery. He cited
another case in which the Synod had advised
o minister, TO demit the exercise Of the OF.
fee. Us ,t
His argument from fhe Form Of Govern
ment cannot be produced without references
and quotations beyond the space we have.
It was clear and foIclbie. k~.Ea,sss
Rev. w. W. Houston, who was the chair
man Of the committee that last year, took ex-
cep.ion to the act of the Presbyi ery, spoke
In support of the position then taken. He
maio tsined that the constitution expressly
authorizes the Presbytery 10 withdraw the
power to preach from licentiate, but there
was no such enactment in case Of an ordained
minister. II such power were inter ded to
be conveyed it'Would have been as dis.
timely stated as 10 the case Of lcentiate.
WV. Henry, E.q, said the question was,
Shall we approve or disapproye the action OF
the Lexington Presbytery Is 1t 10 accord
ance with the constitution of the Church as
we now have ii? He was Presbyterian,
not from training, but from conviction. He
held that the theory Of our Church govern.
menl Is that Presbytery cannot do what il
finds no authority for in the constitution.
The General Assembly Is the "supreme
court OF the Church." he quoted to show
that il bad power to decide all "questions OF
doctrine and discipline" This made the &C.
tionrof the Assembly final unless we "se-
cede." The decision Of the highest court Is
the law. It is the Office of the court to say
what the law means.
Now, the question is, Has the Assembly
decided the law In this case? The cases cited
by Mr.. Richardson only showed that the
Synod of New York, that was at that time
in loco of the General Assent ", only
proved that that body had not censured the
Presbytery for doing what it had dissp
proved. The cases already mentioned set-
tied the law Of the Church on this point.
The Synod at 8 O'Clock took recess till
7:3oP. NJ.
NIGHT SESSION. .,s
The Synod resumed its business at 1870
p. NJ. aG
The Rev. C. Fl. Read, D. D., presented the
narrative of the state of religion which was
adopted.
DRMssIoN OF TIE MINISTRY.
By resolution of The Synod speeches
were limited to ten minutes.
Rev. D. c. Irwin said be would speak only
because The point be wished to present had
not been fully stated By other speakers who
had defended the action of Lexington Pres.
bytery.
This was question Of law ; and he was
willing to admit that the decis ions Of the
Assembly are the law of the Church. There
were Two sources of law our constitution
and the Word Of God. 1t deyolyes upon
those who would censure the PreSbytery to
show precept in this book making the
Office Of the minister perpetual, and thus
prohibiting the Presbytery from withdraw
ing authority to preach; or they must show
such o prohibition in The Scriptures. He
was willing to rest it all upon our Book of
Government. The office of cider or deacon
is perpetual; yet such an officer may cease
to act as elder or deacon. The withdra wing
of the right to perform the duties of his
Office is the withdraw 81 virtually of the office.
When the elder cesses to act under the pro-
visions Of the Book he is virtually deposed
If DR.. Ruffner is right 10 ceasing to dis
cAarge the duties of the ministerial office
the Pfesbytery is right in relieving his con-
science as to the matter Of duty; if he Is
wrong, then the only course left is to have
him arraigned for failure to discharge tie
duties of bis office; which our opponents do
not propose.
Rev. Fl. G. Alexander, d. D., said those
who opposed the action Of the Lexington
Presbytery we're Ike the youth with bis
;4S{is tAs- presence of the Phil.istines.
They were here In the bosom Of this Pfesby-
fery boarding the lion In bis deDs -
Hezwould correct misapprehe as to
the effect Of adopting the majority report.
1t would not, as he maintained, return Mr.
Rutfner to the ministry, but only remain
upon our minutes as censure upon the act
of thai Presbytery. s -
BE would disembarrass the question of all
personal considerations. Hewould upon no
account do anything that could in any way
reflect upon DR.. RufIner. Nor had the mat
ter Of ordination anything to do with the
question before us. II all lay in the consti.
tuition. This was constitution of limited
powers. The Presbytery has no power but
that given in this book. Even an elder ca II.
not be Invested of his Office except by for
NAL deposition for crime. f,a.,q1l ,r',l s.s,,
Rev. G. S. NJ. See said there was a
point not yet sufficiently brought out In this
discussion namely, that the Presby terry is
the fountain Of authority In our. Chuich.