The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1884-02-06

pages
This work Che author says) was
published without the consent, or even
the knowledge, of General Gordon"
REV. DIR. WrrHERsPooN has written
us a very pleasant letter, published on
the first page of this issue, and there is
no one whose commentator we value
more highly, or with whose views we
are in more general sympathy. But
he has failed to appreciate fully our
kindly Office in calling attention to the
fact that, in his centennial address at
Harrodsburg, he incautiously enumer
ated among the fundamental principles
of Presbyterianism one that is not re-
cognised as such by our Church or by
other Presbyterian Churches, whether
in this country or elsewhere.
He aims to justify his statement by
appealing to the authority of Drs.
Thornwell and Breckenridge, and init
mates that we are on "the wrong side of
this great question of the rights of ruling
elders" And finally he brings forward
as proof that our Church is committed
to his views, the fact that some years
ago he Ur0te a book, issued by our Conn
mittee of Publication, in which his doc
trine is strongly and boldly stated"
and that it was never challenged This
is very good evidence that we acted
prudently, and did the Church good
service by challenging his statement
now made, lest hereafter it might be
inferred that it met with universal ac
ceptance.
But let us seebow this argument will
stand trial A short time ago the Pres
byterian Board of Publication, Phila-
delphia, published that admirable little
book, "Presbyterianism for the Peo-
pie, written by Rev. r. P. Kerr, and
which maintains the same doctrine that
all elders are of one order. Does the
issuing of that book by the Board of
Publication prove that the Presbyte-
rian Church (North) is committed to
the doctrine that all elders are of one
order? or would it justify the bold
statement that the doctrine is a "fun-
ddmentat principle of Presbyterianism pr
The only way to determine what
doctrine Church holds is to 90 to it's
standards. We have the greatest adj
miration for Drs. Thornwell and Breck
inridge, and we have also read with
pleasure the little books mentioned
above, and do most highly commend
them, but when we wish to know what
is the doctrine of our Church on the
subject Of Church officers we think the
proper authority to consult is "THE
Book OF CHURCH ORDER" Let any
man read the fourth chapter of that
book and see whether it will authorize
DR.. Wltherspoon's statement. We said
nothing whatever on either side of the
great question Of the rights of ruin o
elders in the government of the
Church" and so, Of course, said moth
ing on "the wrong side" We did not
affirm in our article that the minister
and ruling elder belong to different
order or to "a different class of the
same order" or, as DR.. Witherspoon
now says, that the minister belongs to
"a higher class" We only aimed to
show that whatever may be the truth
on this mooted question, or whatever
may be the opinion of certain eminent
men, the standards Of the Presbyterian
Churches did not take the position that
ministers and ruling elders are Of "one
order" and that therefore no man was
authorised to say that this doctrine was
a Fundamental principle of Presbyte-
rianism."
There are two theories on this sub
ject, either of which is consistent with
sound Presbyterianism.
/. The first is that ministers of the
word, who are also presbyters or elders,
are Of different order from the ruling
elders, are called in a different way. re
ceive different ordination, hold diff