The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1877-07-11

OF nrss OF secono place. Ibis ulscrlnlu'
tion is due, doubtless, largely. to the abur
dant tried material for such positions in sue
body as the Synod of Virginia, and the q
most unconscious application by the Model
atOr, in appointments, of the old proverb, "
bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
And as titles imply experience and merit
these places usually fall to the lot of, am
keep to the front class. By this conserva
tue policy some of the older members are re
lieved of all responsibility for the measure
of Synod, and the younger ones are told tt
starry at Jericho until their boards bt
grOwn"-and gray too. This policy con
demn as discOuraging and repreSsive-per
nicious and suicidal and diminishing the in
terest of the unemployed members in the
business of the Synod. The simple explana
ton of this result is that stated in the me.
mortal, to wit, that those who are thus ba.
bitually excluded from any participation in
the business of the Synod are not likely, hu-
man nature being as it is, to feel much in
terest in that they have no responsibility for,
or prepare for discharging duties which they
know will never be devolved upon them, and
as they cannot discuss what they have never
thought upon, simply because they have had
little incentive to consider it, they are silent
and inert, when otherwise they might be SER
Viceable. / never expect to see delibera-
tive body, all the members of which are
equally interested in its proceedings. But
l believe that the evil commented on and
exempliaed in pernicious magnitude by the
Synod of Virginia, inheres in that body as
at present constituted, and that division,
instead of aggravating, would greatly di-
minish the vice by reducing, in the Synods
carved out of this, the quantum of tried
material, and SO compel the employment of
new and comparatively unknown men. A
Synod, rather than thus habitually keep q
large portion of its members on the back
seats, had better risk their inexperience and
Ignorance in important positions, and trust
to the good sense of the informed and expe-
rienced to correct any blunder they may
make. For the sake of the Synod and such
members themselves the experiment is worth
trying. It never wiH be, however, an this
venerable Synod.
4. Again: The fact that many of our best
men take no part in the discussions of the
Synod, is due in part to the size of the body.
l know that there are some who have no
taste, and perhaps no talent for such discus
sions, but who does not know many brethren
who, while goOdt alkers in the Presbytery,
when transformed to the Synod are silent !?
Why? will venture reason These men
have some remains of native difidence, are
distrusttul Of themselves, essify embarrassed
by larger and different audience than they
are accustomed to address, and especially
afraid to face body of such gravity and
dignity as the Synod of Virginia, and SO
prefer even the pain of suppressed speech,
than the danger of losing their balance and
enduring the shame aud modification of
public failure. In sncR an assembly, one
unsupported by a previous reputation or
good deal of assurance, would be very apt to
commit as grievOuS and mOrtifying blunder
as did an experienced lawyer who had been
called to preside over an internal improve
ment convention in Virginia, and attempted
to return thanks for the honor. Overwhelmed
by the august presence, he began by stam-
mering out: "lNay itplease yOur Honor, and
gentlemen of the Jury" A smaller body
would be less trying to the diffdent, and sf-
ford many more opportunities for exercising
thti. gifts. A division of the Synod would
develop much more latent talent, and give to
the Church the benefit of opinions worthy
her consideration, but now suppressed.
In concluding this article, will express
the conviction that the number of men in
the Synod Of Virginia who need to be re-
strained is much fewer than of those who
need to be encouraged, stimulated, and taken
kindly by the hand and helped to the front.
MONTGOMERY.