The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-10-18
FoR TEE CENTRAL PREsBYrER1AN.
THE ELDERsHIP.


Mr.. Editor:-The relation of ruling ell.
ders to the Church has been so much dis
cussed in newspapers, sermons, pamphlets,
and books; and so frequently in our Presby-
teries, Synods and General Assemblies, that
some of as have been almost led to believe,
as the Revised Book says, that we actually
"possess the same authority in the courts of
the Church as the minister Of the Word )"
while, on the other hand, some ministers
have brought themselves to the belief that
the eldership should be held equally respon-
sible with themselves for the good or bad
management of church affairs.
1t shall not be any part of my purpose in
what am now writing to decide the ques-
ton as to what extent equality between the
ministry and lsity should Be established. My
simple purpose is to show that equality of
authority, and of power and opportunity for
influence as "rulers in the Church is not,
and never has been recognized by the Church,
either in theory or practice.
That such equality has not been part
and parcel of the theory of our organisation
may be shown by simple references to few
of the provisions of the "Form of Govern
ment."
1. Even in the session of which he is
member he is not expected to preside on any
occasion, if it can be aVoided-especially if
"Orgsnized for judicial business" Chapter
TX, Sec. 4, says, "It is expedient at every
meeting of the session, more especially when
constituted for judicial business, that there
be a presiding minister, when, therefore, q
church is without pastor, the moderator of
the session shall be, either the minister sp-
pointed for that purpose by the Presbytery,
or one invited by the session to preside on 3
particular occasion"
2. Ia the Presbytery real equality of min
listers and elders is not recognized. The
very constitution of Presbytery shows this
TChap. X, Sec. s, ANY three ministers
and as many elders as may be present =
shall be quorum, &c." Under this law l
believe that no one contends that more than
one elder is required, while t.rse ministers
must be present to constitute quorum
Whether an elder may be lawfully chosen as
Moderator of Presbytery, so far as know,
is yet an open question. His right to attain
such position Of authority and influence
"as ruler" has not at any rate been gen.
orally recognized /; and when the Presbytery
of Augusta, Ca, some months ago, presumed
to put au elder in the Moderstor's chair, the
act created "nO small STIR among the inter
prefers of our Constitution.
3. If Synod has ssven ministers present,
provided they come from three different
Presbyteries, "with as many elders as may
be present." it has quorum for business -
GAS many elders, some people think, means
more than one. The Revised Book " says,
sat least one" | suppose Synod would
not hesitate to organize with one elder, if nc
more were present. And it is very certain
in this case, that if twenty elders were pre-
sent not one Of them, whatever his qusli6cs
tions, could preside. For at the opening o.
each annual session, " a sermon shall be de
hvered by the Moderator" Now, if mem
Der of deliberative body is disqualified from
being its regular presiding officer, can h'
lawfally preside temporarily Did DR.
Martin transcend bis authority at the meet
ing of the Synod of Virginia in Winchester
when he called Judge Watkins to the chsi
temporarily? Or was DR.. B. NJ. Smitl
guilty of any undue assumption of author
ity, when, during the sessions of the last AS
sembly, he delegated his authority for
time to Hon. Robert Ould Certainly Meth
er of these hOnored laymen could hav
been made the regular Moderator of tn
body over which be presided so well tempo
rarily.