The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-08-10

AZ % SnouSn ohdI lue Assembly reIerreQ
the resolution to its standing committee
on the Book of Church Order, having
then no longer any Committee of Re.
vision. The standing committee report
(see Minutes for 1879, p. 54) that it has
considered all the papers committed to it.
and then adds, Your committee under
stand that the Assembly has decided to
revive the Revision Committee, having
voted to appoint as member of it the
Rev. DR.. j. A. Lefevre. Your standing
committee would, therefore, recommend
that the papers and questions named
above, be referred to that Revision Com
mittee.' And then they proceed to saw
that In reviying the Revision Committee
1T will be necessary to reorganize it, and
they recommend the names of parties to
constitute it. And the Assembly ap-
proves and adopts their report mem CON.
Now what is there in all this that war
rants Sigma in his insinuations that
some body stole a march on that Assem-
bly,, and that what was done at Louis
vile In 1879 was dishonesty or unfairly
done?
And yet, after all, "Sigma's'' most Sc
rious error is not any one of all these re-
ferred to, but the error of imagining that
the Assembly must needs ask square
vote from each separate Presbytery be-
fore it may recommend any constitutional
rule for the adoption of them all. The
Assembly is all the Presbyterfes met to-
getheT by representatives. Presbyterian
ism is for these representatives to take
counsel together and not to take sepa-
rat WI nnf NJ, IL IA
is clearly the right of the Assembly to
originate all revisions or other alterations
of our constitution, and the idea that it
must first consult the Individual Presby-
teries separately is simply absurd The
Presbyteries have rights which ought
always to be defended watchfully and
zealously. On the other hand the Gen
eral Assembly also has rights which ought
to be guarded by us all with equal jeal-
ousy.
One very unworthy feature of "Sig-
mas article on the Revised Directory, is
the ridicule he has essayed to cast on the
persons of those who differ from him by
favoring revision. They are formula
tors" hammering away on our stand
ards; exquisites of the pulpit; "rose
water elders associates with high
flyers of another denomination" lean
ing towards church millinery, robes, and
surplices, church decorations and reli-
gious fnery" lovers of prayer furbe-
lowed, and prayer genufections, and
prayer with ruffles on" And he must
even point his argument by an invidious
reference to "Claverhouse and his dra-
goons who tried to put prayer book on
our Scotch forefathers, but it really
couldn't fit" Old as "Sigma" claims to
be-with his forty years experience Of
Church matters, he will probably live to
be ashamed of this sort of augmentation
There is an especial unsuitableness in
all this, when it is considered that the
occasion of these offensive personalities
was not any attempt to impose forms on
those who dislike them, but simply the
proposal to suffer those who approve of
forms of prayer to have their liberty.
The Revision Committee reported to the
Staunton Assembly that in compliance
with the wish of many Presbyteries all
forms of prayer, except one, had been
stricken out of the Revised Revision.
And now the way that our venerable
friend thinks it handsome to meet this
concession on the part of those who have
equal rights with himself, is to utter these
sneers and jeers at his more generous
brethren. OMIKRoN.