Year: 1876

THE ELDERSHIP.


Mr.. Editor In former communication
the effort was made, and IS think success
fully, to show that ruling elders do not, theo-
retieally, "pOssess the same authority in the
courts of the Church as the ministers of the
word" 1t was made evident from the pre-.
sent Form of Government, that the trainers
of that part of our constitution did not intend
that elders should hold equal rank with min
listers in either the session, the Presbytery,
the Synod or the General Assembly. The
position universally admitted to be of high
est authority, and widest influence in de-
Lucrative body is that of presiding officer
He decides rules of order, and selects nearly
all committees. Ii often happens that the
skillful organization of committee may lead
to such report as will turn the scales in
favor of one side OF the other, where opinions
on opposite sides are nearly balanced. Thus
the moderator possesses a strong indirect
power. But elders are excluded from exer-
cising this power, except perhaps rarely in
their own session, and perhaps once in CEN
tury in Presbytery.


Let no one infer that I am disposed to CON-
plain at all of the position given to the ell
dership by the constitution; or that any OBJ
lection is designed to be made to the practice
of the Church in this matter. My purpose
is simply to set forth what seems to me to
be the true state of facts in the case, and to
show the real status of the ruling elder in
our Church courts.


1t will be an easy task to prove that the
practice of the Church sccords well with Its
theory A very limited experience in our
several ecclesiastical bodies, or q very casual
inspection of their published proceedings,
must convince any one that most. if not sll,
of these bodies hold with the Book, that the
ministerial Office " is the first in the Church,
both for dignity and usefulness" and that
elders exercise government and discipline
in conjunction with pastors or ministers. Far
be it from me to detract from the dignity or
responsibility of this important office; but
let it be viewed in the light of the true rela-
ton it sustains to the Church, and be held
responsible accordingly.


if you look into the published proceedings
of any of our church courts, you find when q
committee of three is appointed, teOo are gen.
orally ministers, or if FIVE are appointed
three are ministers. Then in nine cases out
of ten, the chairman of committee is a min
ister. The most ordinary exceptions to this
rule are found in the organization of Audi
ting and Finance committees. But these
committees have very little to do with the
general deliberations of the body, although
their business is important.


Perhaps one of the widest deViations from
the ordinary practice in appointing commit
tees occurred at the recent meeting of the
General Assembly at Savannah, over which
DIR. B. NJ Smith presided, and at which he
appointed elders, Gen. D. II. Hill and
Judges 0uld and Estes, chsirmen of three
different committees over two of which el-
dsrs have rarely, if ever before, presided.


Such is the practice of the Church, and
whether right OF wrong, it is not inconsistent
with the theory which seems to run through
every part of our Form of Government.


In subsequent communication it is my
purpose to direct attention to the teachings
of the Revised Book of Church Order on this
subject.


Then, in view of all the facts thus brought
before US, it seems to me that every one
must come to the conclusion that there always
have been, are now, and will continue to bt
two distinct classes of members in all the
different courts of the Presbyterian Church
the ministerial and the lay members-whc
"possess the same authority" as to speaking
and voting but no further. j. L. G.


LeringtOn, Va.