The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-10-25


when it was necessary for all to stand TO
,ether as one body, the stronger helping the
weak. He went on to show that the scheme
lad given aid to more than half the churches,
many had been supported in their time OF
need until they had become self sustaining,
and many of them able to do much for the
rurtherance of the work in other churches.
Statistics we're given hri, fly to support this
position. The Invalid Fund and the Evan
gelistic scheme we're the outgrowth of Sus-
The address was brief and pointed
The Rev. Dr.. Smith, of the committee ap
pointed to consider the propriety of amend
ing the rules relating to the standing commit
tees, reported, recommending the adoption OF
the following resolution:
Resolced, That the rule for appointing standiuf
committees, page g. section g. Manual OF Synod OF
Virginia, he amended so as to omit the clauses
." Three ministers and two elders, and two min
listers aud one elder" wherever they occur and
simply substitute the words FIVE members and
"thrce members" for the omitted clauses
Dr.. Smith, in support of his resolution,
said that he believed that ministers and ell
ders stood on the same footing in our eccles
iastical bodies. he proposed, however,
merely TO alter the rule and leave this cues
ten, into the discussion of which he did not
propose to go, untouched by our rules.
Mr. D Comfort, ruling elder, would ID
behalf of the elders repel the impression that
the disparity of numbers was any imputatiOn
upon the elders. He understood the ap
pointment of three ministers and two elders
on these committees Co be an admission that
two elders were in weight equal to three
ministers. He therefore did not wish il
changed.
Raw. DR.. Bullock was opposed to the
change. One of the three ministers being
chairman, there were two ministers and two
elders constituting the voting portion of the
committee. 10 our Synods and Presbyte-
ries there must be a minister to preside as
moderator, as appears from the fact that the
moderator is required to open the meetingl
with prayer. So in the committees it seemed
proper to have minister to preside. He OBJ
jected, too, to frequent changes, and hopeo
the rule adopted last year would remain al
it stands
Rev. William Brown, D, D., who was 6
member of the committee that drafted this
Manual containing the rules, favored the
change. When on the committee his atten
ton had not been called particularly to THU
point. He believed that elders were equa
in authority with the ministers in all TIT
courts of the Church of which they were
members.
DR.. Bullock called the attention of tht
speaker to the fact that three ministers with
out an elder might form Presbytery.
DR.. Brown declined going into the discus
sion Of the topic suggested, as it was not, ii
his opinion, involved in the point now befor'
the Synod.
Mr.. Comfort suggested that while thre
ministers would constitute Presbytery
three elders would not.
Dr.. Brown, who still held the floor, an
heard these points proposed in reply to hi
position, maintaised that all members Of
Presbytery or Synod who were such unde
the constitution had equal powers. He woul
not 90 into discussion of the reasons TO
having these bodies organized as they are
There was an important distinction between
influence and pOwer.
DR., j. L Kirkpatrick said our Book @
Government had in it some inconsistencies
It laid down the general principle of til
equality of elders and ministers, and yet ha
some provisions in it that were not consisten
With this position. No dsparsgement of tn
elder was designed in the rule. There wer
generally more ministers than elders usual.
in attendance upon the Synod; and from tn
fact of their more frequent attendance the.
are more familiar with It's business.
Elder P F. Howard said there vas no de
sire on the part of the elders to aspire t
donors aud power, but he thought that tn
usages of the Church had not favored thei
training as spiritual rulers. He would favo
change thai would encourage the elders t
take more active part in the discharge o
any proper functions of their cfice. Tn
elders did not complain Of any slight, real o
intended, but he thought more resporsibilit.
should be laid on them, that they might b
trained to greater activity.
Rev. S. w. Watkins said he occupied al
extreme on this question of the eldership.-
He thought that, except in the matter o
preaching the gospel, elders and minister
were equal He believed that the elder
ought to lay on their hands in the ordination
of a minister, end should also give him tn
right hand of fellowship. Yet he was sorr.
that the change was proposed,
He agreed with DR.. Smith in his theory
but ne did not think the change would effec
the end designed; inasmuch as without tn
restraint of the rule it would be 10 the powe
of the Moderator to appoint ministers Oh
these committees to the exclusion of elders
Rev. William V. Wilson said it was cearl,
the design of our Book of Government tina
the ministers and elders should be equal
Where minister is pastor over two churche
only one elder is allowed to sit in Presby
terry or Synod from these two churches. Thi
was meant to carry out the design of tn
book to preserve the equality of the elder
ship and the ministry. As now constitutes
the ministers on these standing committee
are always in the majority, aud have tn
power to bring IN SUCH papers as they please
fill out members on committees, where they
were always in the minority, was to dwar
them.
The Presbyterian Church does not beIiev,
in government by priests. DR.. Pryor
ave have no priests. l am glad We have
not, continued the speaker. Let not our &C
ton, however, tend to that kind of ecclesias
teal power.
Rev. DR.. Hooper asked the speaker if il
was not fact that the minister practically
did all the work in a church session.
Mr. Wilson replied; That depends upon
the kind of elders and the kind of pastor
that constitute your session. He hoped that
this inequality in the rule would be done