judgment, it had been shown to a moral demonstration, by Mr. Winchester, in his unanswered and unanswerable speech, that according to the plain doctrine of our constitution, there was neither appeal nor complaint regularly before the Assembly-the cause could not be brought there in this form, and it was therefore coram non judice. We are glad to find that Mr. Winchester's speech has been published, and we hope it will be extensively circulated and read. It presents some lucid views of the constitutional doctrine, relative to appeals and complaints, which has been too often overlooked and disregarded. The basis of his argument is this-" That it is only from the decisions of a judicatory sitting as a court for judicial business, that appeals and complaints can constitutionally be entertained; and that from acts of judicatories in their legislative capacity, no appeal or complaint can constitutionally lie." He elsewhere shows clearly, that the constitutional remedy for legislative errors is provided for, in the section entitled "General Review and Control."

It is noticeable how adroit the members of the Assembly's Presbytery are, and always have been, to get every thing before the Assembly under the form of an appeal or complaint. In the memorable Barnes' case, in which this whole controversy originated, we proposed, and a majority of the Presbytery to which all the parties then belonged, agreed, to refer the whole subject to the decision of the General Assembly. We really hoped that this would have been concurred in unanimously; because we knew the friends of Mr. Barnes wished the case to go up to the Assembly. Yes, but they did not wish it to go by reference, but by appeal and complaint, that when the matter came to a vote, not only the representatives of the Presbytery, but perchance those of the whole Synod of Philadelphia, might be put out of the house. Accordingly an appeal was manufactured, at the very time that the Presbytery, as such, referred the whole subject appealed from, to the investigation and decision of the Assembly; and the Assembly entertained the appeal. It is true the Presbytery had had the subjects in controversy before them; but so had every member of the Assembly; for the sermon which kindled the flame of discord, had been disseminated throughout the whole bounds of the church; and the members of the Synod of Philadelphia were no more parties to the trial than the other members of the house-many, if not the most of whom, had been chosen with a distinct reference to their known and avowed opinion of the matter in dispute. The same course, precisely, has been pursued by the same party from that time to the present; and in this manner have come forward all the complaints and appeals which, according to the article we consider, gave to the several Assemblies concerned, from 1832 to 1834 inclusive, "not only the right to decide, but imperiously called upon them to issue the case." We affirm that if the plain doctrine of the constitution had been regarded, not one of those appeals and complaints would have been considered and treated as regularly before the Assembly; and this is shown beyond reasonable controversy in the speech of Mr. Winchester, to which we have referred, which was heard by the Assembly, and to which not even a plausible reply was or could be made.

The second article of the reply to the protest is in these words:

"The minutes of the General Assembly for 1794, 1802, 1805, and 1826, show that the Assembly has, in extraordinary cases, claimed and exercised the right of organizing new Presbyteries, and such Presbyteries have always been regarded as regu larly and constitutionally organized."

The assertion-and it is nothing but assertion-that is contained in this article, was made, after hearing the following complete and unanswered exposure of the irrelevancy, as precedents, of every one of the cases referred to, as bearing on the case then before the Assembly. "We come now, Moderator, said Mr. Winchester, to examine the cases cited by Dr. Ely, as precedents, for the exercise of the power of erecting Presbyteries within the bounds of a Synod. That the Assembly may erect new Presbyteries where the jurisdiction of no Synod extends, we have never questioned. That the Assembly may unite Presbyteries connected with different Synods, is also admitted. But the case before you is wholly a different one. Here the Synod of Philadelphia had undisputed jurisdiction. Upon an examination of the cases cited by the Doctor, not one will be found to be in point. The decision of no one of them involved the principle now questioned.

"The first case adduced was the division of the Presbytery of Carlisle, by the Assembly of 1794. In this case, one of the Presbyteries constituted by the division, took in part of the Presbytery of Redstone, which belonged to the Synod of Virginia: whereas the Presbytery of Carlisle belonged to the Synod of Philadelphia. (See published Extracts from Minutes of 1794, p. 18; also of 1802, p. 7.) Thus it will be perceived, that this is a case where it was impossible for either Synod to act, and where the power of the Assembly is admitted. And it is therefore a case widely different from that now before you.

"The next case was the division of the Presbytery of Albany, by the Assembly of 1802. This division took place under the old constitution, in which no specific power to divide Presbyteries was delegated to Synods. In the year 1820, certain amendments were sent down to the Presbyteries for their adoption, one of which was that of giving to Synods the power of dividing, uniting, and erecting Presbyteries. All the cases, therefore, of a prior date are irrelevant to the present question. And, indeed, before the amendment now alluded to, the Assembly seemed to question its own power in the case, for a part of the report on the division of the Albany Presbytery, which was adopted by the Assembly, expressly forbids that decision ever to be cited as a precedent in any future Assembly, as the MS. minutes will show. This prohibition is strangely disregarded by the Doctor, who now presses it on this court as a precedent; especially, as he is so great a stickler for unqualified submission, and passive obedience to the acts and orders of the Assembly.

"The division of the Presbytery of Oneida in 1805, next cited by the Doctor, also took place under the old Constitution, and therefore is not a case in point.

"The next case was the constitution of the Presbytery of Chenango, by the Assembly of 1826. This Presbytery was composed, when constituted, of members of no less than three different Synods, viz. the Synods of Geneva, Albany, and New Jersey. (See Minutes for 1826, pp. 21, 66, 68, 74, 76.) This was also a case where the Presbyteries concerned, were attached to different Synods, and therefore, not a case in point.

"Another case cited by the Doctor, was the erection of the Presbytery of Detroit by the Assembly of 1827. This Presbytery was made to consist of churches from two different Synods. The churches of Farmington and Potinac, belonged to the Synod of Geneva, and the church of Detroit belonged to the Synod of the Western Reserve. This, also, was a case in which no Synod could act, and in which the power of the Assembly is not doubted.

"The last case mentioned by the Doctor, was the translation of a church from one Presbytery to another, by the Assembly of 1827. Here the Doctor contended, that if the Assembly could translate a church from one Presbytery to another, much rather could they unite and divide Presbyteries. But the Doctor took good care not to tell you that these two Presbyteries belonged to different Synods. Look at the Minute, p. 114. The Committee of Overtures also reported an application from the church of Danville, in the Presbytery of Bath, in the SYNOD OF GENEVA, to be set off from said Presbytery, and annexed to the Presbytery of Ontario, in the SYNOD OF GENESSEE. The above application was granted.' Why did the Doctor read this minute to the court? Did he wish to deceive them? Did he not know it was a case not in point? Are such means to be used to gull this Assembly? Does a good cause need such expedients to sustain it?

"In connexion with the foregoing cases, where no one Synod had jurisdiction, and where the Assembly, therefore, was alone competent to act, let us look at a case, not cited by the complainants, where a Synod had full power to grant the petition preferred to the Assembly. The case as briefly reported in the Digest, is as follows: "The Committee of Övertures laid before the Assembly (of 1808) an application from

the Presbytery of Huntingdon, for a division of that Presbytery. Resolved, That the Presbytery make their application to the Synod (of Philadelphia) to which they belong, being the most proper judicature to decide the case.' (See Digest, p. 44.) In the foregoing cases we see that the Assembly acted where the Synod could not, and that it refused to act where the Synod might; thus clearly settling the question, agreeably to the construction for which we contend.

"Thus it appears that every case, as cited by Dr. Ely, contradicts the argument he has based upon them, and confirms that which they were designed to destroy. I will not say that the Doctor knew these cases were not in point. I do not impeach his veracity. He has entirely mistaken the real point before the court, and therefore did not see the material discrepancy between his supposed precedents, and the case at the bar."

It was in the face of this exhibition of the utter irrelevancy of the cases quoted, that the naked positive assertion in this article was brought forward, as showing that in the case protested against, the Assembly had done no more than what had often been done before; and this is a good specimen of the manner in which the reasonings of the minority were answered in the Assembly, when any answer to them was attempted.

We have, in our last number, as already intimated, exposed the monstrous principle of passive obedience and non-resistance, on which the whole of the third article of the protest is founded, and shall therefore omit further notice of it here-It is a fit companion for its three associates.

The fourth and last article of the reply is in these words—

"In regard to the existence of two or more Presbyteries on the same ground, the Assembly have already expressed their opinion. For sixteen years in the city of New York, Presbyteries have existed on this principle, without those evil results anticipated by the Protestants; yet here the Assembly would repeat, what they have elsewhere said with more solemnity, that except in extraordinary cases, Presbyteries should be formed with geographical limits." "

There is evasion and deception in this whole article. We ask any reader, candid or uncandid, whether this article does not purport that the protest, to which it is a reply, had distinctly objected against "the existence of two or more Presbyteries on the same ground?" Yet if we look at the protest, we find that it says not a single word on this topic. After showing that the act objected to was unconstitutionalnot because it formed two Presbyteries on the same ground, but because it invaded the exclusive rights of Synods-it goes on to say, in the second article, "While we disapprove the act performed by the Assembly as unconstitutional, we solemnly protest against the practice, whether by the Assembly or Synods, of forming Presbyteries on the principle of elective affinity, distinctly avowed and recognised as the basis of this act; being fully persuaded that the tendency of this principle will be, to impair the standards of our church-to open a door to error-and to violate the purity, good order, and peace of the church.". Here we see that the main object of the Protestants was not even the unconstitutional nature of the act, simply considered as unconstitutional. Of this they indeed disapprove, but they "solemnly protest against forming Presbyteries on the principle of elective affinity." What is the Assembly's answer to this? Why, that Presbyteries have existed on the same ground in New York, for sixteen years, "without those evil results anticipated by the Protestants." But is this any answer at all? Does it touch the objection? Not in the least. The objection is to elective affinity Presbyteries-the answer relates to Presbyteries formed on the same ground. "But are not these one and the same thing? No certainly. There might be two Presbyteries formed on the same

ground, and neither of them be an elective affinity Presbytery. Nay, this was precisely the fact in New York, for more than ten of the sixteen years of which this article speaks-it is only within four or five years that an elective affinity Presbytery has existed there at all. Well, but is it not a shameful evasion, or rather a gross deception, to make a statement purporting to be an answer to an objection that was never made? So we think; and so we believe every impartial investigator of the subject will think.

But the curious reader will probably wish to know how this evasive and deceptive answer, made by the committee appointed by the Assembly for the purpose, could obtain the sanction of the house. We suppose it was thus-during the protracted debate on the appeal and complaint of the (Assembly's) Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, those who were opposed to the wishes of the said Presbytery, pleaded among other things, the adverse aspect of the constitutional definition of a Presbytery; namely, "a Presbytery consists of all the ministers, and one ruling elder from each congregation, within a certain district." They insisted that as the very notion of an elective Presbytery was, that some ministers and elders within a certain district should be separated from other ministers and elders in the same district, such a Presbytery could not be formed without a manifest violation of this article of the constitution. This was one of their arguments; but it was by no means their only one, or that on which they chiefly relied. Their main objection, and that which principally excited their zeal, was, that the principle of elective affinity itself was destructive to the very life of Presbyterianism, as consisting of a church in which all its ministers and elders adopt, under the solemnity of an oath, the very same doctrinal creed and form of church government and discipline. If, said the Protestants, the doctrines and government professed to be believed in by all the officers of our church, are the same, what need can there be to provide for a difference of belief? and if some do actually adopt other doctrines and principles of government than those of the constitution, will you put these men by themselves, that they may act in violation of the constitution? Can you do this without violating the constitution yourselves? and can you do it, without organizing a corps for the very purpose of acting in an unconstitutional manner? Do you not see that in such a measure, you provide for the introduction of heresy, and an utter disregard of our government and discipline, by those elective Presbyteries? and is there not great reason to fear that in this way false doctrine and a total disregard of our ecclesiastical order will prevail, to the entire prostration of our church? We do profess to be deeply and seriously grieved and alarmed, when we see the Supreme Judicatory of our church disposed to countenance such a measure as this-Such was the reasoning of the minority, and such the chief ground of objection to sustaining the appeal and complaint. The minority did, indeed, plead the constitutional definition of a Presbytery, as being favourable to their cause: and who will affirm that it is not? But this was not what they most insisted on; it was not that which deeply enlisted their feelings; and it was not that, as we have already remarked, to whch the Protestants made any reference whatever. If there had been no elective affinity principle concerned and contended for, in the question before the Assembly-if the question had related merely to the forming of two orthodox Presbyteries, instead of one, in the same city, as was the case in New York, till very recently-there would have been no ardent controversy. It would probably have been admitted on all

sides, that there might be cases in which the large number of ministers in a city and its vicinity, would render the existence of two Presbyteries within these bounds, more advantageous to the interests of the church than one only; or cases in which the residence of the ministers might be in one location, and the places of worship in which their services were to be performed in another, so that the two Presbyteries might be said to be on the same ground-That therefore the spirit of the constitution would be in no wise interfered with, although its letter might seem to be opposed to the contemplated location of two Presbyteries within the same geographical limits. Now the answer of the Assembly to the protest says expressly, that "for sixteen years in the city of New York, Presbyteries have existed on this principle." On what principle, we ask? On that of elective affinity? If this be affirmed, it is a palpable misrepresentation. There has not been an elective Presbytery in New York, as we have seen, even for six years, to say nothing of sixteen; and if Presbyteries covering the same ground be intended, it is nothing to the purpose, for the protest says nothing about them. But every person reading the article will naturally think that by the words "this principle" must be understood the principle on which the Protestants chiefly relied, and in this he will certainly be deceived. Such then is the result when the answer to the protest is scrutinized. But we verily believe the Assembly did not scrutinize it; but as there had been a good deal said in the debate about the unconstitutionality of forming two Presbyteries within the same limits, the report was adopted without examining its relevancy to what was stated in the protest-That is, the Assembly did not wilfully sanction evasion and misrepresentation; they only suffered them to pass by careless inattention. For the committee, however, we cannot make the same plea. They had the protest before them, and were bound to answer it fairly, or plausibly, or else to refuse to draught any answer at all.

We have yet to remark on that part of the article of the answer to the protest, which affirms that-" For sixteen years in the city of New York, Presbyteries have existed on this principle, without those evil results anticipated by the Protestants." Although, as we have repeatedly said, it is not true that Presbyteries have existed in New York on the principle of elective affinity, for any thing like the period here stated; yet since an affinity Presbytery has existed, something that we consider as evils certainly has resulted from its doings. To say nothing of ordaining eight young men without charges, and sending them into the Presbyteries of the West, to preach New School doctrines; and nothing of accrediting a well known Doctor as a Presbyterian minister in good standing, without his ever appearing before that PresbyterySetting all this down for nothing-we should be glad to know whether an occurrence which took place about six months before the last meeting of the Assembly, did not exhibit something exceedingly like some of the evil results, to which the Protestants referred. The occurrence to which we allude was briefly this-The church and congregation of Hanover, in the bounds of the Presbytery of Newark, New Jersey, made out a call for a licentiate, who had been preaching to them for some time; and the Presbytery were convened to take the usual steps preparatory to ordination and installation. The candidate was put on his examination, and was found to be deficient in literature, and so radically unsound in his doctrinal sentiments, that the Presbytery, by an unu sual majority, absolutely refused to ordain him; although his friends in the congregation urged it importunately, and were greatly diso