[Form of Gov., chap. xiii., sec’s. iii–v.—comp. Digest of 1873, pp. 347, 348.]
[Judicial.] Case no. 3. In this case it appears that the session of the Church of Muncy arraigned General —— on three charges. On two of these he was condemned; but on the first charge, the ruling elders of the Church being interested, the case was referred to the Presbytery of Northumberland, who tried and condemned him on the first charge. The Synod of Philadelphia afterwards, on the alleged grounds that one of the ruling elders had not been installed, and also that the session were interested personally in the case, declared the whole proceedings null and void. The Rev. Messrs. Waller and Gibson now complain of the said action of Synod; and Mr. Smalley appeals.
The only point of general interest involved in this case is, whether installation is essential to constitute a man a ruling elder in any congregation. The affirmative was strenuously asserted by several members of the Synod. The negative was as strongly affirmed by several members of the Assembly. Judge Leavitt stated, “that if installation were necessary, he himself was not a ruling elder, and had no right to a seat in the Assembly.” Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, made the same statement respecting his own position. “He had never heard, indeed, the word installation applied to ruling elders until yesterday.” Similar statements were made by others. Mr. Waller stated that “there were five uninstalled ruling elders at his Presbytery last fall. Did that destroy the Presbytery?” The Assembly refused to sustain the appeal and complaint. The vote stood—sustain, 52: not sustain, 100; sustain in part, 14. This might seem to imply that the Assembly intended to sanction the doctrine of the necessity of installation. To avoid that inference, the Rev. Mr. Shotwell moved that a committee be appointed to bring in a minute expressing the judgment of the Assembly in the case. Dr. Humphrey “thought this important, inasmuch as the vote of the morning had placed many members in a very equivocal position. Are these men,” he asked, “no longer ruling elders?” The motion was carried. The committee subsequently reported the following minute, which was adopted, viz.
The Committee appointed to prepare a minute in relation to the action of the Assembly in Judicial case No. 3, respectfully recommend the passage of the following resolutions, to prevent on the one hand the bad effects of former irregularities in the installation of ruling elders, and on the other hand to avoid such irregularities in future.
-
Resolved, That any ruling elder, regularly ordained or installed in one church, and subsequently elected to the sacred office in another church, and who has heretofore, pursuant to such election, served as a ruling elder in such other church, without objection, shall be presumed to have been duly installed therein, and his right to act shall not be now questioned.
-
Resolved, That when a ruling elder shall hereafter be elected to the same office in a church other than that in which he has been ordained, the minister and session are hereby enjoined formally to install him.
-
Resolved, That the Assembly hereby declare that the existing law of the Church as to the mode of installation is as follows:—After sermon, the minister shall speak of the office of ruling elders, as in case of ordination, and shall then propose to the ruling elder elect, in the presence of the congregation, the following questions: “Do you accept the office of ruling elder in this congregation, and promise faithfully to perform all the duties thereof?” “Do you promise to study the peace, unity, and purity of the Church?” The ruling elder elect having answered these questions in the affirmative, the minister shall ask the members of the church whether they accept him, as in cases of ordination. The members of the church having answered in the affirmative, by holding up their right hands, the minister shall declare him a ruling elder of the church; and accompany this act by an exhortation, prayer, and other proceedings, as he may deem suitable and expedient.
Turrettin remarks, that in reference to ordination and the appointment of church officers, we must distinguish between “essential, and accidentals.” To make forms essential is the essence of formalistic ritualism, and utterly subversive of God’s law, and of the best interests of the State and of the Church. What is marriage but the covenant between one man and one woman to live together as man and wife, according to God’s ordinance? Wherever this covenant is made, there, in the sight of God, and in fero conscientioe, is marriage. Different States have enacted different laws prescribing the forms or circumstances which should attend this contract and the modes in which it shall be attested; and it is the duty of all living under such laws to conform to them. But suppose that from ignorance or recklessness any of them are neglected, is the contract null and void? To answer in the affirmative is to trample the law of God under foot. For a long time the laws of England required that all marriages should be solemnized in church by an episcopally ordained minister, and within canonical hours. While these laws were in force, it was the duty of all Englishmen to obey them. But suppose any man was married by a Presbyterian minister, after twelve o’clock, noon, would his marriage in the sight of God be void, and would it be pronounced void by the civil courts, without doing violence to the divine law? In like manner, ordination is the declaration of the judgment of the Church, through its appointed agents, that a certain man is called to the ministry. The Church directs that this judgment shall be signified in a certain way, and with certain prescribed solemnities, such as laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Suppose any of these prescribed formalities are neglected; suppose the presbytery omit the laying on of hands, (as we have known very recently to be done,) is the ordination void? No man but a Papist or Puseyite would answer, Yes. In the case of a ruling elder, the choice of the church, and the consent of the person chosen, is all that is essential. The rest is ceremonial. Prescribed forms should be observed; the neglect of them should be censured. But to make them essential is, in our view, to abandon the fundamental principle of Protestantism and of common sense. It would invalidate the acts of half the sessions in the country.
This matter of installation of elders is very much a novelty. We believe it is unknown in the Scottish and Continental Churches. We have no objection to it. We are perfectly willing it should be “enjoined,” and we think the injunction ought to be complied with; but we must renounce our Protestantism before we can believe that an uninstalled elder is no elder. Some years since, an Episcopalian in Ireland was married to a Presbyterian woman, the rite being solemnized by a Presbyterian minister, whereas the law at that time required that when either party belonged to the Episcopal Church, the officiating clergyman should be an Episcopalian. The man repudiated his wife, and made her children bastards. In some of our States the law requires a marriage license. A young girl, ignorant of that fact, is married without a license, and her marriage is pronounced void. Is this right? Certainly it is, if the neglect of prescribed forms be allowed to vitiate solemn contracts. Mr. Waller asserted “that Mr. Smalley, the ruling elder in question, was unanimously elected, after due and sufficient notice,” and was immediately invited to take his seat in the session, and did so. This was almost a month before the trial. Any principle which would invalidate his official acts would justify the repudiation of a wife under the circumstances just stated. If a man sells an estate, and receives the money for it, and then refuses to recognize it because of technical defect in the papers, it would be universally considered an outrage, because everything essential to a sale had been done, and the failure was in unessential and variable formalities. However, therefore, we may be disposed to insist on certain forms attending induction into Church offices, do not let us do as Romanists do, exalt forms into substance.
← Chapter XIII. Church Officers, § 7. Significance of Laying on of Hands · Contents · Chapter XIII. Church Officers, § 9. The Right of Elders to exhort and to expound the Scriptures →