The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1878-04-17
For TIE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN.
THE EXAMINATION RULE.
(CoNCLUDED.)

In addition to these objections there are
others, which of themselves, ought to be fatal
to this article. One is the dSintegratiDg
principle embodied in it. How can organic
unity be claimed for the Church, when its
ordained ministers cannot pass from one of
its Presbyteries to another, upon their Ger.
tifcates of dismissiOn in good standing :"
This 5,h article and the one Immediately fol
lowing (6) prescribe conditions for an or
dained minister passing from one Presbytery
to another, identical with the terms upon
which ministers are received mso our Church
from other denominations. If DR.. Preston
should be called from Richmond to con-
gregation in another Presbytery he would be
admitted to membership upon exactly the
same terms, conditions, and examinations
that would be required of DR.. Curry upon
an application to be received into the Pres
byteriaa Church. When, therefore, we In
corporate in our fundamental law provisions
which establish, in this respect, the same
relations between our PfesbyterieS, that ex-
ist between our Church and other denomina-
tions, have We not made fearful progress in
the process of disintegration
Another grave objection to incorporating
this rule in the fundamental law Of the
Church is its harshly arbitrary character
The minister seeking admission to a Pre8by-
terry, is not subjected to these new and addi-
tional tests of soundneas in the faith, on
account of suggestion that his religious ex-
ercises are not evangelical, or his views
touching Church government and theOl-
ogy are erroneous, but simply because in
duced by sense of duty, or compelled by
necessity, he has removed from one Presby-
terry to another. And this arbitrary char
acter is made more striking by the fact, that
whilst the rule interferes, with, and hinders
the exercise of the functions to which the
minister was ordained with the ''diVine sane
ton, in the Presbytery, it yet leaves him
free to exercise them in the higher courts of
the Church. 1t will require considerable
amount of discriminating ingenuity to show
that a minister who is sound enough on sex
perimental religion, Church government and
theology, to sit in the Synod of Virginia, is
vet too heterOdox to sit in West Hanover
Presbytery. This rule is not only diainte
grating and arbitrary, but it casts an impu
tation as injurious as it is gratuitOus, uPOr
the sincerity with which every minister who
from any cause has to change his Presbyte
rial connection, has adopted and holds oul
symbols of faith. "Men do not gather
grapes Of tbOrns, nor figs of thistles, it Ii
not strange, therefore, that after forty years
experience of this examination rule " VI
fad one of our popular and iufuentia
"monthlies laughing to scorn " the ide'
that the dogmas of the Presbyterian Churcl
are sincerely adopted and faithfully held b!
her ministers. See communication of E. D
j., in Central Presbyterian, July 18:h, 1877
Now as to the practical operation Of thi
rule. Ordinarily, ministers remove from on
Prosbytery to another in response to call
from congregations; the Constitution au
thorizes congregations to call ministers frOr
any Presbytery. The article in quostio
gives no directions to the Prosbytery as
, the course it is to pursue should the exam
nation prove unsatisfactory. The preSumE
ton, however, is that admission ought to b
refused to the minister. In that event whs
f is the Presbytery to do? It can institute
process, for it has refused jurisdiction ov'
e the new minister. And he is no intrude
n he has not climbed up some other way int
It the sheep-fold, but has entered through tt