sions. Truly, it was no great boon to recommend to those who choose it, to co-operate willingly with the Assembly's Board, when it is notorious that the principal co-operation of the recommending party, is with Voluntary Associations, who mar and distract the measures of the Assembly's Missionary Board, and interfere most injuriously with the whole order of the Presbyterian church. The 7th resolution, as first reported by the committee, stood thus“The Assembly do not deny the right of any Presbytery, when it is deemed proper to do so, to examine into the qualifications of persons applying for membership; yet a due regard to the order of the church and the bonds of brotherhood, requires, in the opinion of this Assembly, that ministers dismissed in good standing by sister Presbyteries, should be received by Presbyteries which they are dismissed to join, upon the credit of their constitutional testimonials, unless they shall have forfeited their good standing subsequently to their dismissal." That this is a bungling and self-contradicting resolution, as thus expressed, is undeniable; for if any Presbytery has a right to examine, then a due regard to the order of the church, and the bonds of brotherhood, cannot be violated by the exercise of this right. The committee manifestly felt that they were treading on slippery ground, in getting at their favourite object. in the latter part of the resolution; and they certainly did hobble sadly, in making for their mark. But when the resolution came before the Assembly, they found members less timid than themselves. On the motion of the permanent clerk, the Rev. John M'Dowell, who had voted against the first resolution, the first part of this resolution, which we have marked with the Italic character, was stricken out. Had a motion been made and carried, to strike out the second part of the resolution, instead of the first, a fundamental principle of Presbyterianism, in place of being violated, would have been asserted and sanctioned; and the decisions of former Assemblies,* instead of being contravened, would have been confirmed. But this would have been giving some little countenance to the memorial, which the majority of the Assembly were determined it should never have; and they were no doubt highly gratified, to find a member who had voted against the first resolution, bold enough to take the lead, in doing what the committee had wanted courage to propose. The reply of the protest, to the resolution now under consideration, is irrefragable, and renders many additional remarks unnecessary. We wish, however, to call the attention of our readers for a moment, In the year 1816 the General Assembly, in disposing of a complicated case, sanctioned the report of a committee, in which there is the following statement, going directly to the point in view-" It is clear that the right of deciding on the fitness of admitting Mr. Wells a constituent member of the Presbytery of Geneva, belonged to the Presbytery itself." [Digest, page 325.] In 1825, the Assembly decided, on a reference from the Presbytery of Baltimore-"That it is the privilege of every Presbytery to judge of the character and situation of those who apply, to be admitted into their own body, and unless they are satisfied to decline receiving the same. A Presbytery, it is true, may make an improper use of this privilege, in which case, the rejected applicant may appeal to the Synod or the General Assembly." [Printed Minutes, page 265.] If the memorialists knew of these decisions, they could have had no other object in bringing this subject before the last General Assembly but to ascertain whether the supreme judicatory of the church in 1834 would sustain the decisions of former General Assemblies-The answer was, we will not-We will formally and unceremoniously reverse those decisions. Yet this is the Assembly who introduce their decision on the memorial with saying, "that this Assembly cannot sanction the censure contained in the memorial, against proceedings and measures of former General Assemblies"!!! But why make notes of admiration? Who expects consistency in the followers of New Light? to the case mentioned in our last number, as demonstrating, practically, the propriety of the principle for which we contend-the principle that every Presbytery has the right to determine on the qualifications of all who apply to be received into its fellowship-We refer to the case of the individual whom the Presbytery of Newark, (N. J.) refused to ordain and install as the pastor of the congregation of Hanover. That individual came from the elective, or 3d Presbytery of New York. He was not then, it is true, an ordained minister, but a licentiate; still, the principle we advocate applies to the case of licentiates, as well as to that of ordained ministers. Suppose, then, that this man, before he was permitted to act as a supply, or to receive any appointments in the Presbytery of Newark, had been put, as we say he ought to have been, on his examination; he would unquestionably have discovered his ignorance and unsoundness in the faith-for we have been well informed that he has the merit of not disguising his sentiments, like many of his fraternity-and thus he would, of course, not have been permitted to supply the vacant congregation of Hanover, and that congregation would have been preserved from evils, which many years are not likely fully to remedy. Is it not obvious from this case, that it is infinitely better to meet heresy, or disqualification for ministerial usefulness of whatever kind, at the threshold of the Presbytery, rather than to permit it to enter, with a view to correct it afterwards-in many cases, after it has produced irremediable mischief. Only take the conjoint influence of the two principles sanctioned by the last Assembly— let there be elective Presbyteries, and let their members be entitled to claim a good standing in other Presbyteries, simply on what the resolution before us calls "their constitutional testimonials," and you put it in their power-and assuredly they will use all the power they possess-to change the character of any Presbytery at their pleasure, and to pour a flood of error over the whole church. They will manufacture, license, and ordain ministers, and throw them into any Presbytery where they lack a majority, with a rapidity that will soon give them the command of the Synod, and a representation in the General Assembly of every Presbytery which the Synod embraces. This is no imaginary case. The Synod of Kentucky, in the years 1806, and 1807, found that the Cumberland Presbytery, then a member of their body, were licensing and ordaining men at such a rate, that, if not arrested, they would soon have the Synod to themselves. Nor had they any other means of putting a stop to the evil, but by dissolving the Presbytery entirely, and rejecting all its members from their communion. With exemplary fidelity to their Master, and zeal for his holy truth and cause, they took this decisive step-a step so decisive and bold, that the General Assembly of 1807, not yet corrupt, did but half approve the proceeding. But in the following year, having in the mean time obtained a full knowledge of the facts of the case, the records say-" The Assembly think it due to that Synod [the Synod of Kentucky] to say, that they deserve the thanks of the church, for the firmness and zeal with which they have acted, in the trying circumstances in which they have been placed." Alas! when shall we again see a Synod that will act with the same unshrinking fidelity; and a General Assembly that will sustain and applaud them, for thus nobly acquitting themselves of their sacred obligations. The protest justly remarks, that in the eighth resolution the Assembly do the very thing they condemn in the memorial-they pass a censure on a former General Assembly that condemned the work of W. C. Davis in thesi, before he was tried and condemned by his Presbytery. This, it is perceived, is the second instance of the same thing, in the resolutions under review. The protest also, with great truth and propriety, intimates that the whole scope of this resolution is to afford 66 protection to those who are unsound in the faith." Now that the majority of the last Assembly should feel a peculiar sensitiveness on this subject, creates no wonder in us. Provident men, when they see danger coming, always make use of precautions to ensure their own safety. We must be allowed, however, to examine a little the concluding position of this eighth resolution. The position is "that the fair and unquestionable mode of procedure is, if the author be alive and known in our communion, to institute a process against the author, and give him a fair and constitutional trial"-Very well-" if the author be alive and known in our communion-give him a fair and constitutional trial"-But the author of a book, containing the most pestilent heresy, may be alive and in our communion, and his style of writing, train of reasoning, and other circumstances, may make him as well known to be the author of the book, as if his name were on the title page. But in the mean time, his name is not there; and you have no legal evidence, and can obtain none, of his being the author of the book; so that if you arraign him and give him a fair trial, you must acquit him and his acquittal will enable him to do fourfold as much mischief as ever. Now this is so far from being an imaginary occurrence, or one not likely to happen, that the supposed case points to the very course which is usually pursued by men who make publications that they know will subject them to discipline, or to some other punishment of a serious character, if their authorship is known. We could mention a case in Scotland, in which deposition from the ministry hung over the head of a minister for several years, if legal proof could have been obtained that he was the author of a certain publication, which was widely circulated and produced a powerful effect. But such proof was not, and could not be obtained; and yet scarcely a doubt existed in the mind of any one, as to the real author of the offencegiving book. The book, in this instance, was, in our judgment, a good book; but the safety of its author from the anathemas of the ruling powers of the church, depended on the want of legal proof to convict him. We mention it as a striking instance of what a publication may be, and do, when it is impossible to bring the author "to a fair and constitutional trial." But we would now seriously ask of any candid and upright man, who is capable of looking through and judging correctly of this matter, what reasonable objection can be assigned against the examination of a book, bearing the author's name on the title page, and in regard to which there is a rumour that it contains unsound and dangerous doctrines or speculations. It appears to us, that on the supposition that the author of such a book is really innocent, he ought to be the first man in society to desire and demand, that his book may be submitted to an ecclesiastical court-that on their verdict of the falsehood of the rumour, he may be able to suppress it effectually. Do not all men of conscious innocence act in this manner, when rumours to their disadvantage, relative to moral character or civil concern, are circulated and believed? Do they not, whenever the nature of the case will permit a legal trial, ask for it, solicit it, and demand it speedily? But suppose the book in question is not innocent, but of dangerous tendency. How are the judicatory to ascertain this fact? Surely they ought not to prosecute or try a man for writing a bad book, unless Ch. Adv.-VOL. XII. 30 they have some good evidence that it is bad; and what method so proper to settle this point, as to examine the book itself, in their character as a judicatory? This may be done, in the way in which it was done by the General Assembly, in the Davis case-by appointing a committee to inspect the book carefully and thoroughly-to extract passages supposed to be most exceptionable-to read each passage in its full connexion before the judicatory-to discuss it calmly, and compare it carefully with the standards of the church-and then to take a formal vote on the passages severally, by putting the question on each-is this passage in conformity with the standards, or not? This is, in substance, the method in which publications supposed to be libellous, are treated in our courts of civil jurisprudence; and can we devise a better method for the treatment of publications supposed to be heretical, in ecclesiastical courts? We think not; for a better definition of heresy can scarcely be given, than to say that it is a libel on the truth of divine revelation. If a publication is decided to be of this character, an ecclesiastical court, at least in most cases, ought to take one step, which is never taken in a civil court; that is, to endeavour to convince the offender of his error, and engage him to renounce it: And if he appear really and honestly to renounce his error, all further proceeding should be stayed-if not, discipline ought to follow. Now, invert this order, and begin with putting a man suspected of heresy immediately on his trial. Then a judicatory, it is evident, must prosecute very much at hap hazard; for some of the members will, in most cases, be almost wholly ignorant of the true character of the publication in question; or the process must be grounded on a general rumour, or fama clamosa, which on examination may prove wholly erroneous; or on the allegations of the personal enemies of the writer; or of hasty and over-zealous individuals, who are willing to risk the responsibility of a prosecution, which, after causing infinite trouble to themselves, to the accused, and to the judicatory, may be found to be altogether unnecessary and improper-Or what is much more probable than any thing else the anticipation of the trouble, or the fear of an unsuccessful issue, will operate to prevent a prosecution altogether: and is it uncharitable to believe that this is the wish of those who so strenuously insist on a mode of procedure at variance with what takes place in analogous cases in civil courts, where every thing is settled, as the result of much reasoning and long experience? a mode of procedure, too, which cuts off almost all hope of reclaiming a party, when found to be in error; for put an errorist on his defence, in a formal trial, before you have dealt with him by friendly reasoning and tender admonition, and you take the readiest method to fix him immoveably in his false conclusions and dangerous tenets. The protest takes no notice of the tenth and last reason of the committee; and we are disposed to take as little. We do not see its design; unless it be to intimate that the memorial, and all things of a similar character, ought to be kept away from the Assembly; and this counsel we think is likely to be followed, till the General Assembly shall be composed of different materials from those of which the majority consisted, at the last meeting; at least, if our advice were of any avail, we would give it decisively in favour of this course. The answer to the protest is, we believe, a perfect unique, in compositions of its kind. We have been accustomed to think-but we know that the march of mind has made great improvements-that an answer to a protest was intended to stand on the records, for the purpose of showing to all who should inspect them, in future times, that the allegations of the Protestants were unfounded; and to prove this by short, but substantial reasons. There is not even an attempt at this, in the Assembly's answer. It does not look forward, but backward. Its appeal is not to posterity, but to those who had heard the debates; or rather it appeals to its authors; and it asserts that the "assumptions" of the Protestants were fully refuted in a long and thorough discussion." "Yes" -some future reader of the minutes may say-" you doubtless thought so, or you would not have passed the resolutions themselves. But I did not hear the discussion, and should be glad to know what reply you did, or could make, to the powerful reasons of the protest. Your assertion that you answered them was easily made; but to me it is a mere gratis dictum, and I must conclude that you made this declaration, for answer it is none at all, as a mere formality; and that you did not answer the protest, because you found that you could not." (To be continued.) Literary and Philosophical Entelligence, etc. Discovery of Interesting Manuscripts. -From the August number of the New Monthly Magazine, we learn that M. Ruppel, an accomplished traveller, now on his return from Abyssinia, has discovered, and brings with him, a number of manuscripts of great value. The most remarkable of these is a copy of the Bible, containing an additional book of Esdras, and a considerable addition to the book of Esther: none of these augmentations of the Bible have yet been heard of in Europe. It contains also the book of Enoch, and the fifteen new Psalms, the existence of which has been for some time known among the learned. Another curious manuscript is a species of code, which the Abyssinians carry as far back as the Council of Nice, when they say, it was promulgated by one of their kings. This code is divided into two books; the first of which relates to the canon law, and treats of the relations between the church and the temporal power; and the second is purely a civil code. M. Ruppel has also with him some Abyssinian church hymns, which display the only indication of poetry which has been found to exist among the Abyssinians.-N. York Com. Adv. Education in Russia.-The whole number of pupils of schools in Russia is 75,586, out of a population of 56 millions -i. e. two to every 1495 inhabitants!-A cruel mockery upon the liberties of a people whom their despotic Autocrat wishes to keep enchained in the bonds of ignorance and servitude. No foreign teachers are permitted in any of the schools or universities, private or public; and no masters or professors are permitted to give instruction but such as consent to become, at the same time, spies of the government in the bosom of each family. Such foreign professors only are permitted to teach who are not imbued, as the Berlin Gazette expresses it, with the political cholera of liberalism, which has brought Europe to the verge of ruin! And these also must undergo a probationary quarantine of five years, before they are legally authorized.-N. York Star. In the year 1832 the amount of Agricultural productions in England was eledollars-Manufactures, ven hundred and eighty-three millions of seven hundred millions-Mines, one hundred and four millions-Fisheries, sixteen millions of dollars-Two hundred and forty millions pounds of Wool were raised in that year. The population of London in 1790 was 720,000 Increase in 40 years, 755,000 England contained do. do. do. in the year 1700, 5,134,516 |