The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1877-04-04
FoR THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN.
WHO SHALL VOTE FOR PAsToRG

Oeok OtObuoAS ou S1aU w AO"AH VIZ
the Prssbyterias will have the opportunity o
voting for one Of three rules upon this sub
ject, viz:
First. The ''Memphis Compromise" whicl
allows communicates only to vote, but per
uits "GnspirituaI outsider" to express thei
desires tC Presbyteries.
Second. The "Erclusive RulS;" which
allows communicates only any vOice or vOt
in election of pastor.
Third. The " Broad Church Ruls;;" 9Th,
only one now printed in the B1Ok, which al
lows outside paying attendant" to vote fol
pastor.
The first rule was adopted by the Original
Committee of Revision was adopted by the
Memphis Assembly; was approved by ma
jOrity of the Presbyteries. The second and
third, hare only been proposed by the Com
mittee of Revision, and by different Pres
byteries. This comes so near making the
" first rule, - the authorized revision" that
a strong pair of glasses is needed to enable
one to see the difference.
As part of your letter is in advocacy Of
rule three, allow me to remark in rejoinder.
1st. The spiritual court-the Presbytery
sitting in judgment, to decide the ques.
ton of call to the gospel ministry, always
considers, as one vital element in the decision
of the case, the vOice Of the Holy Ghost speak
ing through the people of God. IN whom he
dVslIeth. This outward call of Gods people
must authenticate the inward call of the caD-
dIdste. The Presbytery does not listen to
the voice of the people, as people, but as the
people in whom the Spirit dwells, and through
whom He speaks. To allow the ''non Chris
tian outsider" to vote for pastor is to make
him co ordinate and equal factor with the
saint, in determining one great element which
is decisive of call to the ministry. How is
it possible for one who avows no allegiance
to the King in Zion, one, who has no spirit
ual discernment, to give an authoritative vOte
in determining the question of spiritual quail
6cstion, given to spiritual man, by spir-
ltusl king, to be exercised in spiritual king
dom?
2nd. All parties agree that the "nOn
Christian outsider" may not vote for the rul-
IDg elder. Bat the pastor is only an elder
his of6ce is most emphatically and essen
TALLY that of Psesbyter, elder: nay, he is the
first elder of the cODgregatiOn-aud yet while
the "nOn- Christian outsider" is not allowed
in any case 20 vote for the elder who is wOr-
thy of single honor, he is allowed to vote for
the elder who is worthy of double honor"
Strange inconsistency
81. The "caU' to the pastor must be sign
ed by the "callers - and in that, each caller
promises to the pastor elect 'sll proper sup
port, encouragement and obedience an the
Lord" It is simple impOssibility for the
"non Christian outsider to make this prom
lse-" In the Lord.
Testament where "non- Christian outsiders"
voted in the election of church officers
What right have We to make rule not found
10 the Word of God ?
5;h. No state corporation, institution, COM
pany or partnership of which have kDoWl-
edge has ever allowed any persons, other than
members, to have vote in determining the
policy and conduct Of such orgsnizstiOns.-
Why should the Church be more liberal in
this regard than any other institution? A
foreigner cannot vote for President; a Vr-
giniau cannot vote in Ohio; Trustee in our
college cannot vote in another Board one
bank director cannot vote in ff9rent Bank;
depositors in Bank cannot vote for Bank
ficers; Masons cannot vote in Odd Fellow
Lodges; how much less then should those
whose visible citizenship is in the kingdom of
darkness, be entrusted with the sacred privi-
lege of a spiritual vote in the kingdom Of
Roht? The church from its nature aud mis-
sion must separate the children of darkness
from the children of light. And surely, no
where, can this separation be more important
than in determining s0ho shall be rulers Of
the church, and Where they shall be settled.
| Oh. In Revised Book, page II, sec. ~,
the Revision Committee propose to take from
a member of body the right to vote, when
not engaged in his calling; if you are right
in this, then you must be wrong in proposing
to give the ballot to a person who is not g
member, aud who has not performed the frs
act of Christian, viz, public avOwal o.
His faith in and love for his Saviour.
Any principle that will rghtfully diVeSt &
member of Presbytery, when not engaged il
his calling, of his right to vote in the body
of which he is member, will surely dives
the " non Christian outsider" of his right tt
vote in that spiritual kingdom of which he i
not q member. The very highest equestrian
skill is necessary to enable any one man t.
3 ride at the same time these two horses goini
in directly opposite directions.
L In the one case, the member of PreSbyter.
0 who may be regular an attendance, and VIII
9 may contribute his just proportion of the ex
4 penses of the body is not allowed to vote il
|. the other, the " outsider" who is not mem
: ber of the church, but who is regular in al
f tendance and pays he's part of church ez
d penses is allowed TO vote.
d Attendance and money will get for tn