there must be a considerable measure of similarity of tastes, dispositions, sentiments, habits, or pursuits. When these are not well assorted, association produces unhappiness. So in order to constitute heaven a pleasant residence to us, we must drink into the very spirit of its inhabitants. We must be morally assimilated to them, or we can never be happy in their society, enjoyments, and employments. If we, therefore, desire to know whether a résidence in heaven would make us happy; or in other words, whether we shall be admitted there, for no other will be admitted-we have only to ascertain the charac ters, enjoyments, and employments of its inhabitants, and our own similarity or dissimilarity to them, in order to know whether we shall be received. We need no better rule of judgment to determine the point in a correct manner. We may thus prove our ownselves, and

ascertain our own doom.

Who then are the inhabitants of heaven? Heaven is the presencechamber of the great and glorious God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. There the Triune holds his court, displays his glory, and dispenses his richest bounties. There is the residence of his servants, the holy angels, who have kept their first estate. And there too dwell the redeemed descendants of Adam. All these are holy. They bear the same image. Their union and harmony are perfect. There is no discord, jarring, or strife. They are all of one heart and of one mind. The will of God is supreme, and the rest are all in unison with him, and with one another. All is love-" God is love, and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him." The employments of heaven are all holy. They consist essentially in loving, contemplating, admiring, praising and obeying God, and affectionate intercourse with each other on subjects of the highest interest. Can such society and such employments be other than happy? Every faculty, and thought, and feeling, of every individual are in harmony with each other, and with their fellows; and God approves and smiles. This is most delightful. Can any thing add to the enjoyment? Yes, one thought, one single thought. This society is never to be broken up. This harmony is never to be destroyed. "They go no more out." Nothing which is unclean shall ever enter there. What a gulf-what an impassable gulf is there, between this scene and the corruption and carnality of earth! Well might David ask, "Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? and who shall stand in his holy place?" Christ has answered the question-" Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." The apostle has declared the law of the kingdom-" Without holiness no man shall see the Lord."

No unholy being can be admitted into this fellowship. If God even should, in some unheard of way, by a singular dispensation, pardon the guilt of a sinner's transgression, aad carry him into such society, and subject him to such employments, it neither would, nor could render him happy. How could it be otherwise? We know that sinners take no delight in reading or hearing the word of God on earth. How then could they have pleasure in beholding him of whose mind and perfections that word is only a faint shadow? They do not now love to meditate, even occasionally, on divine things. How then would they relish it to have them continually before their minds in all their perfection and glory? They have now no taste for divine ordinances. How then could they enjoy the God of ordinances? The high praises of God now grate on their ears. How then would they relish them in the perfection to which they have attained in heaven? The work of prayer Ch. Adv.-VOL. XII,

2 Z

is now irksome. How then could they take pleasure in holding more direct intercourse with God, the hearer of prayer? Here they are rebels against God's holy government. Their carnal hearts say, "Who is the Lord, that I should obey him?" How would they feel to stand continually in his presence, and be occupied in doing his will? Here they account it a drudgery-a very weariness, to spend even a few hours in the company of the truly pious, and witness their conversation and conduct. How would they bear it to be confined to such society for ever? Here all their enjoyments are sensual. There they would have all their desires and appetites in vigorous exercise, but be for ever separated from every object of their gratification.-To such a creature, heaven would necessarily be a strange and uncomfortable place, because he has nothing in common with the inhabitants of heaven but bare existence, nor a single taste or disposition to which its enjoyments or employments could give agreeable exercise. This, sinners know; or may know, if they will only examine the subject with some little care and attention. They need not doubt whether they shall be received into heaven or not, if they die in their present state. They have only to ascertain in what companions, objects, employments, and enjoyments, they now take pleasure, to satisfy themselves, remaining as they are, where they shall spend their eternity. God will never mingle together discordant elements. Like will be associated with like.

And now, my dear reader, having laid before you some plain and highly important truths, which nearly concern your best interests, allow me to take with you the liberty of a friend.-Upon what ground do you stand? In the view of these truths, what is the prospect before you? What does your present state indicate? If you were now to die, where are you going? If you die as you are, where must you expect to spend your eternity? You seem to pause and hesitate. Have you not taken for granted what you cannot prove? Have you not been flattering yourself with a mere delusion of the imagination, and rested your hope on the idle wish of a deceived heart? Do you not clearly perceive that you must be essentially changed before you will be permitted to enter heaven; or could be happy there? The happiness of heaven is not local-It is founded on the perfections of God, and the conformity of his intelligent creatures to his moral image.-You need, and must have, a new heart. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Let this be the subject of your constant and serious meditation, your ardent desire, your anxious endeavour, your fervent prayer. Rest not till you have a divine assurance of an 66 inheritance among all them that are sanctified."

C.

Review.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN MAY AND JUNE, 1834.

The proceedings of the Synod of Philadelphia, in November, 1833, which form the first quotation in our last number, exhibit the subject of the long discussion in the General Assembly, which terminated, as we have seen, in retaining a Presbytery and forming a Synod, on the principle of elective affinity. As the Synodical minutes show that the present writer belonged to a minority, when the measure was adopted

for first uniting the General Assembly's Presbytery with that from which it had been severed, and then, immediately, dividing the aggregate into two parts, each part forming a Presbytery by itself-we wish to say a few words explanatory of the principles on which we acted, when we took different ground from that which was chosen by our brethren of the majority.

It will be observed that the majority and minority were equally and decisively of the mind, that the act of the General Assembly in forming the second or elective Presbytery of Philadelphia, was unconstitutional, and as such, ought to be "reprobated and condemned."*-Admitting this, on both sides, the question was-what is the most proper measure for the Synod to adopt, to prevent the injury which this unconstitutional act will occasion, if it be not resisted? On this question a protracted and animated discussion ensued, of which, and of its result, we shall say nothing, further than will incidentally appear in the remarks which we shall offer on the general subject.

We by no means think that an inferior judicatory, except in some extreme case, ought immediately to resist an unconstitutional act of a superior. The very opposite of such an opinion we have always held, and have endeavoured to inculcate, in regard to the interesting concern now under discussion. In reviewing the proceedings of the General Assembly of 1831, in the case of Mr. Barnes, after we had shown the palpably unconstitutional proceeding, by which the cause of the Presbytery, after a formal trial had been commenced, was arrested, and, contrary to the wish of the Presbytery, was put into the hands of a committee, and the whole matter disposed of, as if the General Assembly had been a Congregational Association-we expressly stated, in the close of that review, that the injurious and unconstitutional treatment which the Presbytery had thus received, ought to be met, in the first instance, by remonstrance only. When, in the following year, the Assembly severed the Presbytery of Philadelphia, in opposition to the mind both of the Presbytery and the Synod, invading the constitutional rights of both; and in still farther violation of the plain doctrine of the constitution in regard to the formation of Presbyteries, constituted a Presbytery on the destructive principle of elective affinity -we were still prepared to advise that no measure, beyond that of remonstrance, should be taken by the Synod. We were unavoidably and very reluctantly detained from the meeting of the Synod in 1832, and therefore had not an opportunity to offer the advice we have mentioned. It is also true, that when we heard that the Synod had refused to admit the elective Presbytery as a part of their body, according to the decision of the Assembly, we justified the Synod on the ground of right, although on the ground of expediency our mind had been, that the forbearance of direct resistance should be extended till the next meeting of the Assembly. But when the Assembly of 1833, under the show of settling the whole business by compromise, absolutely refused to hear the remonstrance of a committee, formally appointed and empowered by the Synod to act in their behalf, we confess we thought that direct resistance to such high handed as well as unconsti

There were, we believe, three or four members of the Synod who did not admit that the act of the General Assembly in forming the elective Presbytery of Philadelphia was unconstitutional. But, their votes had, and could have, no-influence in changing the character of the majority or minority. We find that on the final vote, one of these members voted with the minority-He was opposed to the whole proceedings.

tutional proceedings, was not only lawful but demanded; unless we were prepared for a tame surrender of every right which the constitution guaranties to inferior judicatories-For, in the first place, the Presbytery had been injuriously deprived of a constitutional trial; then, both the Presbytery and the Synod had suffered by the unconstitutional measure of 1832-the Presbytery by being mutilated, and the Synod by being deprived of its exclusive constitutional power to divide, or refuse to divide, one of its Presbyteries; and, to crown all, when this Synod had appointed a committee to represent and defend their cause before the General Assembly, the committee was treated with the pointed indignity of being refused a hearing-Even the reading of a written remonstrance, couched in respectful language, was refused. As already intimated, it did appear to us then, and it appears to us now, that if ever the Synod could have a call to stand on its rights, such a call then existed; and that not for a moment should an orderthe third of a series, all unconstitutional, all injurious to both Presbytery and Synod, and the last made with a contemptuous disregard of the Synod-be recognised as worthy of being obeyed-worthy of being treated as if it possessed a binding power. Yet a majority of the Synod were of a different opinion; and for a moment, and only a moment, they treated the act of the Assembly as obligatory; and first united the two Presbyteries, and then divided the mass by a geographical line. We submitted-The result is known-The exclusive constitutional right of Synods to unite and divide Presbyteries has again been denied an event which it did not require the gift of prophecy to foresee and foretell; since the same thing had been twice done before, formally by the General Assembly of 1832, and virtually by that of

1833

In the above statement our design has been, not only to justify the course we pursued in the Synod, but to prepare the way for calling the attention of our readers to two points, of far greater importance than any personal concern. In the first place, our statement shows, we think, the unreasonableness, not only of the outcry raised against the Presbytery and Synod by those immediately interested, but also of the flippant remarks of some peace men, in journals of which they have the control-censuring both the Presbytery and the Synod, as keeping the whole Presbyterian church in a state of agitation about some trifling matters, of a mere local character, which have no bearing on the general interests of the church, and which ought to be frowned into silence. On the contrary, we think that it must appear to every candid and attentive observer of the facts of the case, that the Presbytery of Philadelphia has been treated in a most unconstitutional and oppressive manner by four General Assemblies in succession, and the Synod by the decisions and doings of the same judicatory at their last three meetings; that the complaints of the aggrieved parties have been mingled with much patience and forbearance; and that although the injury inflicted has been local, the cause is one that belongs to the whole Presbyterian church, involving the constitutional rights and privileges of every Synod and Presbytery over which the General Assembly exercises authority. It appears to have been a favourite object to assail orthodoxy and constitutional Presbyterianism in the mother Presbytery at the very source and origin of their existence in this country; and in the place too of the annual meeting of the Assembly; that there might be an embodied corps at head quarters, always at hand to afford aid and facilities to any operations for subduing and subjecting the whole church to the sway and rule of a New Light majority. The plan

has succeeded; and let the judicatories who have not yet apostatised look to it; for what is our case to-day, may be theirs to-morrow.

The second point to which we wish to draw the attention of our readers, in view of the statement we have made, relates to the right, and we will add, the duty too, of inferior judicatories, to resist the unconstitutional acts of the General Assembly-always supposing that there has been, previously, suitable forbearance and remonstrance, and that these have failed, as they did in the case of the Presbytery and Synod of Philadelphia, to obtain redress; and especially if forbearance and remonstrance have been productive, (as was the fact in the specified case) of still greater oppression-if insult has been added to injury.

We find the sapient committee, appointed by the last Assembly to answer the Protest against, the decision by which the appeal and complaint of the elective Presbytery was sustained, avowedly maintaining, that, supposing it "proved that the General Assembly had exceeded their powers in organizing the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, it would by no means follow that the Synod of Philadelphia had authority to rejudge and disannul the solemn acts of the highest judicatory of the church." Here is the doctrine of passive obedience and nonresistance, in all its discriminating features, and in all its extent-Dr. Sacheverel himself could not have expressed it more to his own satisfaction. The doctrine here clearly is, that let the General Assembly exceed their powers as they may, there is no authority, and consequently no right, in any Synod or subordinate judicatory to rejudge and disannul their acts-Of course, suppose the General Assembly to trample on the constitution, and to infringe the rights of Synods and Presbyteries as guarantied in that instrument, to any extent imaginable, their acts are not to be rejudged-submission, quiet submission, is all that is left to the injured and oppressed, till the oppressor shall be pleased, of his own sovereign will and pleasure, to rescind his own acts. We repeat, that this part of the answer of the Assembly's committee to the protest, contains the very essence of tyrannical power, both civil and ecclesiastical. Did not our fathers rejudge the acts of the British Parliament, claiming to tax us without our consent? Did they not do this while yet they acknowledged themselves colonists of the crown of Great Britain? Did they not eventually resist to blood, and obtain that independence, in virtue of which we now enjoy the inestimable blessings of civil and religious freedom? Did not Luther rejudge the decisions of the pope, while yet he acknowledged him to be the supreme head of the church. Did not the whole body of Protestants, before they had any regularly organized, churches, rejudge and disre gard the Popish decretals and anathemas? Did not the English Puritans and the Scotch Presbyterians, rejudge and resist the laws and measures which the acknowledged head of the churches to which they belonged iniquitously enacted? They did; and to this resistance all the Congregational and Presbyterian churches in the United States trace their origin.

The position of the committee, in the point before us, is monstrous in the extreme. We put the supposition-and at the rate in which things are going on, the supposition will not improbably ere long become a fact-we put the supposition, that a minister of the gospel has been clearly convicted, in the judgment of the presbytery to which he belongs, of Unitarianism; of holding and teaching what, directly or impliedly, was plainly derogatory to the proper Deity of the Son of