The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-06-02


consideration, and that their report concluded
that minister can lay down his Office, but an
elder or deacon cannot.
Mr.. Raymond asked whether a session could
relieve an elder or deacon without regular iudi-
cial process
Mr.. Collins was of opinion that a session had
no right to exercise such authority.
The Rev. Mr.. Doke thought the report of the
committee fully covered the case, and that its
adoption would settle the whole question.
The Rev. r. G. Reed said that the Roanoke
Presbytery of Virginia, famous among the
churches for its orthodoxy in all matters of
Church doctrine and government, had declared
that an elder could be }" demitted." The iudp.
ment of that Presbytery is that ordination
means the same thing in the case of the elder
or deacon as in that of the minister and that
they can be divested of their Offices Just as the
minister.
The Rev. Mr.. Rawlings said there was no
provision in the Book of Discipline by which
the rule as applied to ministers could be applied
to elders and deacons. He quoted the follow
section 3:
"a minister of the Gospel against whom
there are no charges, if fully satisfied in his own
conscience that God has not called him to the
ministry, or il he has satisfactory evidence of
his inability to serve the Church with accept
ance, may report these facts at a stated Meeting
AT the next stated meeting if after full delib-
eratien the Presbytery shall concur with him
IN judgment, it may divest hin, Of his Office
without censure, and shall assign him member
ship In some particular church"
The Rev. S. M. Neel knew of an elder who
could not agree upon all points with the Confess
sion of Faith and asked how such case as this
could be reached.
The Moderator said the question turned upon
the Interpretation of the book and the old mat
ter of the spirit and the letter of the law
DR.: Wilson said the committee thought at first
that if minister could be divested of his Office
an elder could in like manner be divested, but
the question came up, can a law, the letter of
which has to be observed, be interpreted accord
ing to analogy.
The Rev. Henry Quigg thought Chapter s,
Section 10, of the Rules of Discipline, efectually
settled the whole, which reads as follows:
Whenever minister of the gospel shall habit.
ually fail to be engaged in the regular dis
charge of his official functions it shall be the
duty of the Presbytery at stated meeting to
inquire into the cause of such dereliction, and if
necessary institute judicial proceedings against
him for breach of his covenant engagement. If
1T shall appear that his neglect proceeds onlv
from his want of acceptability to the Church. the
Presbytery may, upon the same principle upon
which 1T withdraws license from probatoner
for want of evidence of the Divine call divest
HIM OF his office without censure even against
his WILL majority of two-thirds being neces-
sary for this purpose In such case the clerk
shall under the order of the Presbytery forth
with deliver to the individual concerned a writ
ten notice that at the next stated meeting the
question OF his being so dealt with is to be con
sldered. This notice shall distinctly state the
grounds for this proceeding. The party thus
notified shall be heard in his own defence, and
II the decision pass against him he may appeal
as if he had been tried by the usual forms. This
principle may apply, n1atatis nlutdndis to ruling
elders and deacons
Mr.. Evans did not see why heresy should be
tolerated In an elder more than in a minister
DIR. Kirkpatrick thought the passage read bv
Mr.. Quigg was decisive Under the old CON
stitution minister could retire without censure
on the ground that he was not acceptable to the
congregation, and the same principle should
and does apply to elders and deacons. The
same principle applied to all the ordained
officers of the church, and he hoped that
the book would be saved from the absurditv
of making ordination more binding on ministers
than on the ruling elders and deacons of the
church. literal Interpretation of the authority
OF the church upon this subject would divest the
elders and deacons of their Offices Just as in the
case of the clergy.
Dr. Moore said there were two cases in the
book in which a minister could be dvested of his
ofice-when he habitually fails to engage in
the work OF the ministry, and when he fails to
prove acceptable to his people The question is
can Presbytery for the same reasons divest elders
and deacons OF their rights under ordination
The principle in the two cases is the same. and
all the church has to do is to enforce it,
The Rev. Mr.. Martin said there was another
case IN point, Rules of Discipline. chapter 2
Section 3. The only difference between the
ministers and the elders is that the ministers are
ordained by the Classical Presbvtery and the
elders and deacons by the Session or Parochial
Presbytery.
Mr.. Chaney moved that the report be recon
mltted, and the committee instructed to bring in
an affirmative answer
Mr.. Collins thought the subject demanded
specific legislation, and that the question should
not be settled upon the principle of analogy.
The Rev. MIR. Stratton said it had been the
custom Of the Church for fftv wears to divest
elders and deacons Of their Office.
IN Wilson hoped the report would not be re.
committed as 1T answered the case
The Rev. Mr.. Walsh quoted from Cbapter &
9ecuon I, Paragraph 3, TO prove that an elder or
deacon cannot be Invested Of his office but by de
position after regular trial except in cases where
ne may become unacceptable in his official
character to majority Of the church in which he
serves. In such case it is competent for the ses.
sion on complaint and after Investigation TO dis
solve the relation.
Mr.. }. M kirkpatrick hoped the report would
not be recommitted, because it would bring mn
an endless debate, and the Assembly would
never be able to reach that sweet word finally. D"
Dr Glrardeau thought the best way 10 amend
the matter would be to amend the law. He dis
gonted from the dootrir.o q -.-1----- Al .---