The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-03-29

lected TO as many TRIALS tor ordination as
the teaching elder is required to undergo.
And why should it not be so? The an
swer is very simple and, evident. One
has to teach the mysteries of the king
dom Of God. The other does not teach :
he simply rules. One has to, both teach
and rule And in order that the church
and the Presbytery may know his ability
to teach, the trials named, are required
1t would be entirely unreasonable to de-
iand that the Ruling Elder should un.
dergo the examinations connected with a
work which he is not called to do. II
probation is demanded, has he not been
on probation ever since he confessed
Christ? Every day, for years the eyes
of the church and Session have been up.
on him. And when, after such PROVING.
the time comes for election of Elders, he
is selected and elected because his breth-
rem think he has stood the probation so
well. To catch. him up and put him upon
a second trial would be as useless as un-
reasonable.
Further, (2) what examinations of Pres
bytery can give him authority to rule in
a church court? By being elected as an
Elder in his church, and by ordination Of
the Session, he is already clothed with
authority. When his brethren then
choose him to represent them in Pres
bytery or Synod-it is PreSbyterianiSm
that he shall at once be recognized in
these courts as an equal ruler. Nor can
any further examinations make him more
a ruler than he is. Tile examinations foa.
ordination TO preach the gospel do not
confer authority to rule, but to teach.-
Where is the "Bible authority or Bible
precedent which sets aside these views,
and brands us as fallen ?" 1t is ques-
ton in many minds whether "Bible au-
thority and Bible precedent" demand
such extensive examinations as our church
requires for the teaching elder. The
writer of this article is more and more
convinced that our church would do well
and better if more use were made of pow
er to act in extraordinary cases" But
this is not the point in discussion here
This it is: that neither the Bible nor the
constitution of our church demands the
same fitness for ruling as for teaching
Therefore the same trials are not, and
ought not to be required. The trials as
NJ" oIueIeu are IlSnG anu sufficient IOT
the Ruling Elder-and if more are de-
manded the Bible cannot be made to fur
nish the authority nor precedent.
That Elders and Deacons are called
upon to answer " the same fUe questions"
is not improper, nor contrary to anything
here said. The Scriptures give rules for
the character of Bishops, both teaching
and ruling. And the requirement there
is Likewise let the deacons be" &c. To
hold Office in the church, they should be
all that is comprised by the five ques-
tons. But they are not elected to rule
their Office is not one of ruling therefore
their position, (not their character and
obligation,) is inferior to that of teaching
and ruling Elders. The writer reioices
in all discussions which tend to bring our
Ruling Elders more to The front. They
are too muCh in the rear, and ought to be
brought out" But any changes, such
as the Overture" of al. w. contem-
plates, are suggested, it is honestly be-
lieved, by wrong views.