The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1876-02-16

From the repeated number OF overtures pre-
sented to the Assembly notwithstanding re
peated failures to secure the object, it i
evident that the rule is felt to be oppressiv
by many. And it must be borne in mind tina
complaint comes not from one quarter, bu
from all parts of the Church
If this be so, why has not the law beer
changed? 1t is assumed that if the Law
proved generally oppressive, general relic
would have been sought. And hence be
cause only bare msjority of the Presby
teries twenty eight out of fifty. five, Vol II
p. 531) took action on the overture, the re-
mainder not taking any action, were regard
ed as opposed to the change. Is this assump
ton just
1t certainly appears, that, Of the Presby-
teries that did consider and reply to the
, overture sent down BY the Assembly, very
decided majority were in favor of the change.
Insomuch that at the first returns, (Vol. II.
p. 377, the Assembly was decidedly of the
opinion that there was pronounced senti-
ment in the Church in behalf of the abro.
CATION of the rule. The returns then from
ten Presbyteries showed six for the change,
three against it, and one for poStponement.
The returns in 1870 (Vol. II. p. 531) from
twenty eight PreSbyterieS showed nineteen
in favor of abrogation and nine opposed
This is, in the Presbyteries that faced the
question, majority of more than tOO to one
no unmeaning indication of what was de-
sired.
Why then the apathy of the PresbyterieS !?
Why did they fail to respond to the Over
ture sent down by the Assembly? don't
know. l don't know why at the last Assem-
bly,, Notwithstanding the repeated injunction
of the Assembly, eighteen PresbyterieS failed
to forward any report on Systematic Benef-
cence, and only twenty-nine of our (at pre-
sent) sixty four PreSbyterieS submitted re-
ports on Evangelistic Labor. There is de-
reelection somewhere. 1t may be that the
Clerks of Presbyteries, or the committees on
the Minutes of the Assembly, failed to call
the attention of Presbyteries to the subject.
l cannot believe that there was wilful mat
tention to the AsSemblyS requests.
Reasons in part may be found in these
considerations
1st. Just about that time the Synod of
Kentucky were uniting with the General
Assembly, and it was feared that the slight
est change in the standards would disafect
that body. In more than one PreSbytery,
as 1 have reason to know. this feeling led to
decision against the proposed change.
2nd. Tic as.tatea tesAho BOoA Of Church
Order, occurring at the same time, so pre-
occupied and absorbed the thought and time
of Presbytery, that this lesser matter was
overlooked.
Sd. There was general indisposition to
tamper with the Constitution, gendered in
part by the union of the Synod of Kentucky
and the hoped for adhesion of the Synod of
Missouri, and in part by a WEAKNESS of the
discussions upon the changes of the Book of
Church Order. Rest, quiet, and stability
were desired. The time was inopportune.
4th. Another point is worthy of note
The General Assembly in 1868 in first COM
mending the subject to the Presbyteries,
acted undecidedly and as if prejudging the
question unfavorably. (Vol. II. p. 275.)
b" ResOlved, That it is not advisable at pre-.
sent to legiSlate on this subject, but that it
be commended to the consideration of the
Pre8byteries." Could that be said to be an
overture to the Presbyteries Yet at the
next meeting of the Assembly it is SO termed.
(Vcl. II. p. 377.) Can zone wonder that
only ten Presbyteries answered it? And
does not the Assembly advise against legis-
lation, while commending the subject to the
PresbyterieS? Again, at the next Assem-
bly,, only those Presbyteries that had failed
to report before were enjoined to send their
reply. AS to the failure to respond to this
pointed injunction, nothing further can be
said in extenuation, except as indicated
above.
From this review, may we not Justly con-
clude that the mind of the Church upon this
subject has not been fully or adequately as
certained? And may we not further judge,
that so far as the Church has Expressed its
opinion, there are decided indications that
the abrogation Of this law is desired !?
Let us see if there is not good reason for
this desire?
Moses AND CHRIsT.-The most successful
mode of preaching iS that which aims at
thorough and radical convictions of sin. The
law must be applied with power to the con-
science, or the preciousness of grace will be
very inadequately known. The superficial
piety of the present day is in large degree
owing to feeble impressions of the malignity
of sin. That complete breaking up of the
fallow ground of the heart, that groaning
i