The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-08-31
Reply from Rev. DR.. Pryor.

In the Southern Presbyterian RevieeO
| find In an article referring to the Gene
raj Assembly of 1881, the following Ian
guage: "a venerable member amused
the house by saying that Judas, an apos-
tie, was treasurer Of the apostolic family
by the Saviours own appointment, and
denominating him st. Judas, he asked
why he was not as we'll entitled at that
time to the prenomen as st. Matthew ?
If we ascribe to this citation of Judas's
treasurership the value to which alone
it was entitled, that of pleasant Jest,
then it's sufficient repartee would be in
saying, that this jumbling of spiritual and
DIAGONAL functions turned out wretchedly;
as the money was stolen, and the officer
dlsgraced. So that the example weighs
on DIR. Girardeau's side. But If the in
stance be advanced as a serious argu-
ment from precedent, then the answer
will be that Judas, when treasurer of
the Saviour's family, 1OaS not an apostle,
but only an apostle elect. He was only
In training for that high Office"
Though the author of the above Ian
guage evidently regards my humble eff
fort in the case referred to as attaining
to no higher dignity than that of
pleasant jest, yet as he proceeds to re-
flute and repel the force of the example
adduced, | will subject his criticism to a
brief review. First, he denominates the
appointment of Judas to the treasurer
ship of the apostolic family as an in
stance of "jumbling," but who were the
Jumblers? Who were the authors of this
"lumbling" act? Calmet says that the
Saviour himself made the appointment.
In any case whether it We're the act of
the Saviour, or of the apostles, or the
joint work of both, the language which
this writer is pleased to employ in de-
scribing it is hardly respectful, if not abb
solutely irreverent.
The malfeasance on the part of Judas
is by no means an impeachment of the
Office or combination of Offices which he
held, but of the officer himself 1t is by no
means an uncommon thing that man
behaves badly in office, but by so doing he
only degrades and disgraces himself, by
no means however does he in the slight
est oegree impeach the validity or pro
prietatl of the Office
In the second place, the writer asserts
that Judas was appointed treasurer be-
fore he was appointed or ordained as an
apostle. No doubt the author knows
this to be fact, though I confess my in
ability to find any evidence of it in the
Bible. Admit the assertion to be true.
still the argument which I attempted to
make in the case holds good. Which is
that Judas was both an apostle and
treasurer by the appointment and re-
cognition of Christ and the apostles.
The history contained in the twelfth
chapter of John, where, as I suppose it
will be admitted on all hands that Judas
was an apostle, (though there is so much
new light and new learning in the world
that an old man such as 1 am, can hardly
venture to say he knoa08 anything)
plainly represents Judas acting as treas
urer without any rebuke or protest on the
part OF Christ on His apostles. There is
indeed an allegation seriously affecting his
personal character, but not impugning in
the slightest degree his official status or
authority, either as an apostle or treasurer.
THEoDoRIoK PRYOR.