The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-08-10
-- For the Central Presbyterian.
Sigma" on the Late General
Assembly.

ASSOAAOAys
This venerable correspondent of the
Central (and some other) Presby terrain
papers falls into some mistakes which,
with great Difference to his many years
of service to the Church, it may be pro-
per to point out for the information of
all interested. Touching the Revised
Directory, for example, he certainly errs
in what he supposes to be the true his
tory of the movement. The first step, he
says, was in 1872, at the Richmond As
sembly, when an overture was presented
by an elder of the Lexington Presbytery,
praying the Assembly to prepare a
prayer book for our Church. Evidently
"Sigma" is not aware that Col. j. T. l..
Preston (the elder referred toy offered this
very resolution to the Charlotte Assembly
which met eight years before the one at
Richmond, and sought in vain to intro
duce it again the next year at Macon.
So then it is clear, that he is not very
well posted on the history Of this subject.
The chronological error, however, is the
least important. Because it is fragrant
injustice to Col Preston to say that he
wanted committee to prepare a prayer.
book" for our Church. He only wanted
in accordance with the principles and
early usages of the Presbyterian Church, "
with view Ito promote the decorum
and devotional character Of its public
services, that =" a few scriptural and well
considered forms with responses on
the part of the congregation should be
introduced into the Directory for OPP
tional use" on the part of pastors. A
prayer book" means a book of enforced
liturgical forms and is contrary to that
liberty of free prayer which we all value
and for which our fathers suffered. But
Col. Preston proposed no such invasion OF
the freedom of his brethren. What he
wanted was liberty for himself and others
who might agree with him. The cor
straint has now come to be on the other
side-on the side of those who dislike
forms of prayer. The liberty of those
who would like to use such forms is de-
MED them. How often history repeats
itself NTH carnations
But Stigma" is unjust not only to the
elder from Lexington Presbytery, but to
that venerable body itself. He charges
that six years after the Richmond As
sembly this Presbytery, in 1878, sent up
an overture to the Assembly at Knox
vile to get up some forms of prayer for
the Presbyterian Church" which over
ture, Sigma elegantly says, twas like
wise squelched." The injustice to Lex
ington Presbytery appears on the face of
the Minutes for 1878. 1t is said, (p. 611)
AL overture from the Presbytery of
Lexington concerning revision of the
Directory for w orship was referred to the
committee on the Book of Church Order.
And then on page 621, "The following
report was adopted The committee on
the Book of Church Order, to whom YVES
referred an overture from Lexington
Presbytery asking that the Assembly
take steps to prepare revised Directory
for Worship, report recommending thai
the Assembly return an answer to said
overture that it is inexpedient at the pre-
sent time to move in this matter" The
Assembly was at that very time much
absorbed with the final disposition of the
Book of Church Order, and it was evi
IDENTIFY inopportune to move Just then fol
action regarding revision of the Direc-
tory.
So, likewise, "Sigma" seems to be very
unjust to the originators of the Directory
revision when he signifies that their OBJ
lect was to promote Col. Prestons plan
This looks like wholly gratuitous charge
Their movement preceded Col Preston's
At the time the Assembly first moved in
the matter Of revising the Directory, Col
Prestons resolution about optional forms
had not yet been heard Of 1t was il
1864, on the motion of DIR. John H. Rice
that the Assembly directed the committee
on the Form and Discipline to take ur
also the Directory. (See Minutes fol
1864, p. 270)
But our venerable friend errs in regard
to the later as well as the earlier history
of the Revision movement.
l. He says that in 1879 the old Re
vision committee was not done + The
committee was not yet discharged" He
is mistaken. The whole work of revision
was suspended and the committee en-
trusted with the same discharged at Lit
tie Rock in 1878 (See Minutes, p. 329.
2. He says that the Revision of the
Directory movement Originated in the
Assembly of 1879" This is clearly an
other mistake, for as has been shown the
Assembly Of 1864 began it.
8. He says it originated in the Assem-
bly, of 1879 on the oSsunapsH thai
DR.. Lefevres addition to the Committet
on Revision rnaant morL -" nd nh n.