God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ-suppose that on being under process of discipline for heresy, the case goes up by reference or appeal to the General Assembly-suppose the decision of the Assembly to be as follows:-1. "Resolved that the General Assembly, while it appreciates the conscientious zeal for the purity of the church by which the Presbytery appealed from have been actuated, in its proceedings in the case before the Assembly; and while it judges that the appellant has introduced into a printed publication a number of unguarded and objectionable passages; yet is of the opinion, that, especially after the explanations which were given by him of those passages, the Presbytery ought to have suffered the whole to pass without farther notice. 2. Resolved, that in the judgment of this Assembly, the Presbytery from which the appeal in this case has been taken, ought to suspend all farther proceedings in the case of the appellant. 3. Resolved, that it will be expedient, as soon as the regular steps can be taken, to divide the Presbytery from which this appeal has come up, in such way as will be best calculated to preserve the peace of the ministers and churches belonging to this Presbytery, by putting and keeping together those whose sentiments and feelings have an elective affinity for each other, that they may no longer be controlled or interfered with, by those with whom they have hitherto been connected"-suppose this, and suppose farther, that the Presbytery appealed from remains fully and clearly of the opinion that the appellant is a real Unitarian, and will propagate his heretical opinions as far and as fast as he can do it without personal inconvenience-Then we ask-is a Presbytery, in such a case, to receive the Unitarian as a brother in good standing, and let him, without farther molestation or hindrance, pursue his course, and make as many proselytes as he can to the heresy which he has adopted; and also, show no reluctance to have the Presbytery divided, on the principle and for the purpose specified in the last supposed resolution of the Assembly? We will not answer for the course which some Presbyteries in our connexion would pursue in the case propounded; but we miscalculate sadly, if nine-tenths of the Presbyteries now under the supervision of our General Assembly would not, immediately and most decidedly, refuse a compliance with such a decision of our highest judicatory as that which we have here exhibited. Yet if the doctrine laid down in answer to the protest contemplated, be correct, not a single Presbytery ought to hesitate a moment, in receiving the Unitarian into fellowship; nor show any uneasy feeling at having the Presbytery divided, that Unitarians might act without control or hindrance. Now, let it be well noted, that the only difference between the case supposed, and that which actually exists, is precisely the difference between Unitarianism and Pelagianism. For the toleration and protection of Unitarianisın, our church is not yet quite ripe, but it is ripe for casting a shield over Pelagianism, so far as this can be done by the acts of the Assembly-It has in fact been done by the proceedings of the Assembly, for four successive years. But Pelagianism is as plainly and palpably contrary to the doctrines of our Confession of Faith and Catechisms as Unitarianism; and is in reality its usual precursor, and invariably its companion. Yet the Presbytery and Synod of Philadelphia are condemned for acting in reference to Pelagianism, just as we think a large majority of the Presbyteries would act, in reference to Unitarianism. The principle of resistance is, and would be, precisely the same in both cases; but as yet, our church is not corrupt enough for the one, while it is corrupt enough

for the other-We could easily specify other examples, in which we believe few Presbyteries would yield obedience to an order of the General Assembly, requiring them to do what they conscientiously believe to be contrary to the standards of our church, and the word of God.

It may now be proper to state our views distinctly, of the manner in which a church, constituted as ours is, ought to proceed, so as to secure a proper subordination on the one hand, and the rights of conscience and the demands of duty, of individuals and inferior judicatories, on the other-First of all, it is to be observed and kept in mind, that the constitution of the church, (believed by all who adopt it to be fairly and firmly founded on the word of God) is equally binding on every officer, and every judicatory of the church-The supreme judicatory has no more right than any session, or any individual, to invade or violate the constitution. The inquiry then is, how ought the inferior judicatories to act, when the General Assembly manifestly invades or violates the constitution, by forming decisions palpably contrary to its spirit and letter, or by refusing to perform the duties which it clearly prescribes and enjoins. We answer, that if the invasion or violation contemplated, relate to a point not affecting the vital interests of the church, the first duty of inferior judicatories is to submit to the superior, and afterwards to remonstrate, on the first opportunity that offers, against the unconstitutional act. If the act is repealed, all conflict of course is at an end. If a repeal is not obtained at once, remonstrance should be continued, as long as there is any reasonable' prospect that it will be ultimately successful; and we think there may be violations of the constitution, so little affecting the interests of truth and of the church at large, that inferior judicatories, after proper remonstrance, should submit to the superior, although the unconstitutional act should never be repealed. But if an act be passed, or a prescribed duty be neglected, which immediately affects the essential interests of truth and of the church at large, the inferior judicatory ought not to continue to submit, longer than is necessary to see if remonstrance will not correct the evil; nor ought it to submit at all, if it is required to be active in carrying into effect an unconstitutional act palpably hostile to important truths' and duties; because this would be. contrary to the divine injunction, not to become partaker of other men's sins: and in all cases, when acts of the superior judicatory affect, either immediately or by necessary consequence, the vital interests of truth and godliness, and when suitable remonstrance has proved ineffectual, the inferior judicatories ought to refuse submission, and to abide the consequences. If it now be asked, how an inferior judicatory, or the members who compose it, will, in accordance with this statement, fulfil the engagement they have made to submit to their brethren? Our answer is ready-that engagement was made subject to an essential qualification, which by the supposition has not been regarded by their brethren-The engagement was to submit to their brethren "in the Lord;" but our statement rests on the ground that their brethren require them to do what the Lord forbids; and they have only to choose whether they will obey God or man. On this, they ought not to hesitate; and they may truly affirm that not they, but their brethren, are chargeable with violating the constitutional engagement; for the engagement of their brethren not to require what the Lord forbids, was as sacred as theirs to yield submission, when required to do what the Lord does not forbid, but enjoin.

But it may be asked, and with apparent plausibility, by those who oppose our sentiments, whether the positions we have taken, are not liable to the strong objection that they make the inferior judicatories both judge and party; and whether if the course be taken for which we plead, it will not be utterly impossible to reconcile the claims of inferior judicatories, with those which legitimately belong to the supreme judicatory-in the present case, to the General Assembly? In regard to the first part of this inquiry, we ask the special attention of our readers to the following quotation from a lecture of Dr. Witherspoon, in his System of Moral Philosophy, (Lect. XII. Sect. V.) entitled "Of Civil Society.". He says

"This doctrine of resistance even to the supreme power is essentially connected with what has been said on the social compact, and the consent necessary to political union. If it be asked, who must judge when the government may be resisted? I answer, the subjects in general, every one for himself. This may seem to be making them both judge and party, but there is no remedy. It would be denying the privilege altogether, to make the oppressive ruler the judge.

"It is easy to see that the meaning of this is not that any little mistake of the rulers of any society will justify resistance. We must obey and submit to them always, till the corruption becomes intolerable; for to say that we must resist legal authority every time we judged it to be wrong, would be inconsistent with a state of society, and to the very first idea of subjection.

"The once famous controversy on passive obedience and non-resistance seems now in our country to be pretty much over; what the advocates for submission used to say was, that to teach the lawfulness of resisting a government in any instance, and to make the rebel the judge, is subversive of all order, and must subject a state to perpetual sedition; to which I answer, to refuse this inherent right in every man, is to establish injustice and tyranny, and leave every good subject without help, as a tame prey to the ambition and rapacity of others. No doubt men may abuse the privilege, yet this does not make it void."

Such is the doctrine taught by this eminent civilian and divine. The principle he maintains is applicable, in all its force, to the church as well as to the state: or we should rather say, it must be carried even farther in ecclesiastical than in civil concerns. It is more a matter of mere prudence and voluntary choice, to submit to civil exactions and oppressions, than it is to those which relate to the church of God, and the duty which we immediately owe to him; and this is the case, when the essential doctrines of revealed truth, on the reception or rejection of which the salvation or loss of the soul may depend, are the matter in question. Here we are not permitted either to submit, or to forbear, beyond a certain point. We are to take our stand for the truth of God, with the spirit of martyrdom, if it be necessary, and leave it to Him to order the consequences, as may seem meet to his holy sovereignty. The principles of civil liberty, therefore, apply a fortiori to religious concerns-to the rights and duties of individuals and inferior judicatories, as they stand related to a supreme human power; and they sustain us fully on the ground for which we contend.

Neither have we any difficulty in answering to the objection which arises out of the second part of the inquiry to which we respond. For the claims of inferior judicatories, viewed as we have stated and defended them, will never clash with those which legitimately belong to the supreme judicatory-the General Assembly-in such degree as to injure or greatly disturb the church, so long as this latter body pays a sacred regard to the constitution, and carefully and actively performs all the duties assigned to it in that charter of its powers, prerogatives, and obligations. In saying this we adopt the very principle on which the sages and patriots who issued the declaration of American indepen

dence justified that important act, namely-" that all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." The truth is, resistance to the supreme power is never made, without putting at risk the character, influence, and personal ease and peace, of those who make the resistance; and the present state of our church furnishes a perfect and melancholy example of the extreme reluctance with which opposition is made to encroachments on the constitution-to violations of our standards of doctrine, government, and discipline. It had been comparatively easy to withstand and correct the first violations, if they had been promptly and vigorously met. But from a general backwardness and great unwillingness to attempt a painful duty, the evils were permitted to make progress, increase and accumulate, till they have reached the enormity and extent which we now witness; and to which those who love the genuine principles and order of the Presbyterian church, cannot conscientiously any longer submit. It may indeed be said with truth that the source of all the corruptions which have entered the Christian church from the beginning to the present hour, has been, a reluctance or indisposition, a want of zeal and firmness, to repress the first innovations. We may then safely affirm, as the unequivocal voice of all experience, that while the supreme power, either of church or state, is faithfully, discreetly, and impartially exercised, in a strictly constitutional way, it never will or can be resisted, to any great and injurious extent. There may be partial and temporary insurrection, or opposition; but the public sentiment will sustain the equitable exercise of the supreme power; which may be, and ought to be, promptly and efficiently exerted, in inflicting merited penalties on those who oppose it. The very existence of extensive dissatisfaction, discord, and insubordination, in a church, is proof positive, that its affairs are badly administered; especially if the dissatisfied consist of those whose previous character and conduct should exempt them from the charge or suspicion of being contentious and rebellious, of being demagogues and disorganizers. It is not credible that the Synod of Philadelphia, the oldest in the American Presbyterian church, and countenanced and encouraged by two other Synods, and by individual ministers and elders of the first respectability in various parts of the church, should, for years in succession, remonstrate against, and refuse obedience to the decisions of the General Assembly, if there were not glaring evidence that the supreme judicatory had acted in an unconstitutional and oppressive manner. No plausible reason can be assigned for the existing opposition, other than a deliberate and solemn conviction that imperious duty demands it. Let the General Assembly repeal its unconstitutional acts; let it maintain the doctrinal purity of the church; let it cease to do its business by Congregational instead of Presbyterian measures-by committees, and compromises, and unlawful expedients-let it no longer act tyranically at one time, and with criminal laxness at another -let it, in a word, be what the General Assembly once was, a body consisting of sound orthodox men, who would not tolerate heresy and the palpable dereliction of presbyterial order-let the General Assembly be and do this, and those who are now dissatisfied will be the last to resist or complain of its acts, and the first and foremost to sustain its authority and influence.

For the Christian Advocate.

THE PURITAN DIVINES; in a Letter to the Rev. Dr. Ashbel Green, from Rev. Thomas B. Balch.

Warrenton, July 15th, 1834.

Rev. and Dear Sir,-Several works written by Puritan divines, have lately been republished in this country. This fact is mentioned, not because it is my intention to notice these works individually and in detail, but because a few striking features sometimes recall to memory a whole family. They will, at least, furnish the ground-work of a few general remarks on that class of divines, to whom we have given the name of Puritan, some of whom lived a considerable time after those to whom, as a term of reproach, the epithet Puritan was first attached. The time is fresh in my recollection, when the Presbyterian church was tranquil. This tranquillity has given way, of late years, to serious agitation. This agitation is ascribed by many, to those who have departed from the standards of doctrine, originally established in the church. Our standards were intended to promote unity of opinion, among all who minister in the same ecclesiastical connexion; and this unity is certainly desirable, provided it be not that unity of error, for which Jesuits contend, and which is enforced by the screws of the Inquisition. It is urged on the other hand, that an apostacy from the standards, is the thing to be proved; and that shades of difference may In this exist even with a strong attachment to the bonds of union. state of things, my attention has been drawn to the writings of the Puritans; and after renewed acquaintance with these records, I presume to appear as their humble advocate.

The Puritan divines have not been without enemies in our own times. On the list of these enemies may be found the Bishop of Salisbury, who has acquitted himself towards them as a kind of historical Hogarth. Butler and Southey, Clarendon and Hume, have tried to hold them up to ridicule. But fiery churchmen, sceptical philosophers, and All this will only vacillating religionists, may deride these holy men. strengthen that affection which glows in the hearts of their admirers. The same treatment has been lavished on the Scottish Covenanters; but Old Mortality visited their tombs, to render palpable the rude rhymes, in which their martyrdom was recorded. The same humble office it is my wish to perform for the Puritan divines; though the sound of my chisel is not likely to be heard in the present din of the church. The Westminster Assembly of Divines was composed of Puritans, and a comparison of the doctrines and views of Puritans with the writers of the present day, will show who have adhered to, and who have departed from, the creed of our church.

The Reformation so auspiciously begun in the reign of Henry VIII., turned out to be incomplete. Its promoters, in lopping off the branches from the Upas tree of Popery, felt too much sympathy for its roots. They might have been awed by its antiquity; but a tree which overshadowed Europe with the stillness of spiritual death, and which discharged nothing besides venom, from all its extended and complicated branches, as well as from all its fluted leaves, ought not to have been spared because of its age. England at that time needed the shoulder of the Scottish reformer to heave Popery from its foundations. Many wished the Reformation to have been more radical, and this desire was increased by the dispersion of reformers, under the persecutions of the bloody Mary, into foreign cities. Upon their return, in the reign of