Year: 1879

ed the hope that the Revised Book of Church


Order would be voted down at the next As


ssmbly. Bot he will be thankful to DR..


Brown for an opportunity to disclsim all
sympathy with some of the objections that
are urged against the work and to express,
not only warm approval, but almost an en-
thusiastic admiration for some of the pro-
posed changes. In common with some 9th
ers who desire these amendments, he deeply
regrets that he cannot vote for them without
bringing into our Constitution regulations
which, with all proper humility and defer
encs towards those who sustain them, are
regarded as unscriptural and dangerous.


By arguments such as some of those which
are presented against the Revised Form, its
popularity will inevitably be increased. The
weakness Of ilLfounS~s opposition -gains Cor
it as many friends as an able defence of it's
merits. If one person can allege nothing
against another more criminal than the In
6rmities common to man, aud is seen to be
trying to prove that to be fault which is
no fault, but rather virtue, observers will
think more highly of him against whom an
adversary can fud nothing more serious to
say. Thus people who read the current dis
cuSsiOns and form their opinions from these,
may conclude the Book of Church Order is
very good thing. For example: one of
the best amendments proposed-the de6ni
ton of offences by the Standards of the
Church-is vigorously asssiled on the ground
that Synods and Councils may err; as if it
were possible, by simply referring to the
Scriptures, to reach any decision except
through the channel of human fallibility as
if it were desirable to remit the Scriptures to
every Presbytery for Interpretation, and by
interminsble confusion Supercede all the reg
ulsrity of law and order; and as if it were
practicable for a visible Church to exist
without an accepted system of faith aud NOR
ais, received and adopted as its standing ex-
position, doctrine and practice. Brethren
seem to forget that in those very churches
which boast that they have no creed but the
Bible, the unwritten creed is as inexorable
as if it were written on tables of stone. Take
the Baptist Church for an illustration.


They seem to forget, too, that this de6ni.
ton of an offence is just one of those, the
most desirable of all constitutional amend
ments, which experience has shown to be
necessary For within our own generation
we have seen the working of that fsnaticism
which rends the Church by the sgitatiOns of
individual opinion against the established
testimony of our standards as to the sense of
Scripture. They seem not to remember that
the Confession of faith, including the Cate
cbism, is an expression of our belief as to
doctrine; the Form of Government and Rules
of Discipline are an expression of our belief
as to administration. If the one is to be re-
iscted because men may err in their inter-
probation of Scripture, the other may be set
aside for the same reason-every man may
do what is right in his own eyes, and for one
fsllible nterpretation-the voice of the
Church's wisdom and piety assembled in SOL
emn council, we will have thousand Varia-
tions from prophets "Who peep and mutter
according to their own fsncies. As We have
no Book of Leyiticus in the New Testament,
the Church, with infinite pains, and after
years of deliberstiOn and prayer to ascertain
the will of God, has elaborated and eStab'
lished its system of comprehensive Christian
morals, deduced from general principles laid
down in the Bible. If this fails US in our
definition of offences what better result can
we hope for if We 20 to the Bible?


Another hypercriticsl objection, as it sp'
pears to me, is that which is framed against
prosecutions BY the Church. Individuals, it
is said, will under such protection 6nd an op
pOrtunity to indulge their malignant prOpen-
sites as accusers of the brethren. But the
objection supposes degree of indiscretiOu in
the Church in adopting the case of a prose-
Gator which no law could restrain. Both the
accuser and the Church are solemnly warned
against a course of proceeding which cannot
be sustained by proof, and it is hard to see
how abuses can arise more easily under the
new law than the old. For as We have re-
Gently seen, in the initiatOry proceedings
against Mr.. Tslmsge, an accuser may, by
calling Presbytery together and securing
committee to investigate common fame, pro-
duee the common fame which is required,
and so escape personal responsibility. Such
at least is the commentary of Mr.. Talmsges
friends on the mode of procedure. Il is ar
gued by those who oppose the New Book
that the Commonwealth never takes up q
prosecution until the Grand Jury finds a
true Bill By singular felicity of express
sion, q reporter for the secular press illus
trstes this argument. The felicity is more
apt and pleasing because it belongs to that
class of blunders about ecclesiastical affairs
among these gentlemen which are often so
ludicrOus. "The Brooklyn Presbytery met
as Grand Jury, Monday, and found an in-
diotmsut against Rev. T. Dewitt Talmage
for falsehood and deceit. "-(New York
weekly World, March 12sh.) 1t is quite Gu
rious to notice the operation of this Grand
Jury. The committee appointed at a pre-
vious meeting say GAS our investigation