of the periodical for this month, we are saved the necessity of inserting here any outline of the matters contained in it.* After it was read, it was moved by Mr. Ewing, and seconded by Mr. Gibson, that the Declaration be now received for consideration. A discussion took place on this proposal, which was continued during the whole of the forenoon session of the Synod, this day. Drs. Heury and Paul, with Messrs. Alexander and C. Houston, offered various objections against. the Synod entering upon the consideration of the Declaration; such as that time was requisite to deliberate on a subject of such grave importance; that several aged members of Synod were not present, and, after the matter was under discussion for some hours, it was alleged, that other papers, which had passed the Committee of Bills at the late meeting in Moneymore, should have been taken up before the Declara

Dr. Henry proposed,-"That the Declaration should be sent to the sessions of the different congregations in connexion with the church, for their consideration." This was the view which those who joined with him in opposing the consideration of the document by the Synod, wished adopted, and in support of which they resorted to a variety of modes of reasoning. In opposition to these views, and in favor of the Synod considering the Declaration at present, it was shown by several members, that the Synod must generally have expected a document of this kind, since, in 1836, a committee had been appointed, with an express injunction to have a Declaration, on the subjects to which the petition referred, in readiness at the last Synod in Moneymore; and, moreover, that owing to the discussions that had recently been ging on in the church, the members of Synod generally must be familiar with these subjects; that as the expectation had been excited throughout the church, that, at the present meeting, there would be full discussion on the topics embodied in the Declaration; and as members had collected from various quarters to be present at such a discussion, this would be a most favorable opportunity;—that obviously, it would be better to discuss the subject in dispute on a paper which exhibited general principles, that personalities might be avoided-and that memorials which were on the Synod's table could be easily disposed of, if the members had come to an agreement on the Declaration. An elder (W. Gibson,) justly remarked, that it would be unreasonable to defer the consideration of the document, because some members of court were not present, since it could not be expected that the business of Synod would be delayed because some few members absented themselves. It was likewise shown, that the Declaration properly took the precedence of all the other unfinished business, since the matter on which it was founded had not only been before the Synod at Moneymore, this year, but that it had also been noticed in the Synod's proceedings of 1836-and that it was contrary to all order, after the court had agreed to take up a subject, and had actually taken it up, as in this instance, then to stop short on the pretence that it was disorderly to enter upon the matter at all. And in favor of then considering the Declaration, it was argued, from a reference to the procedure of ecclesiastical courts, that the only proper course, after receiving such a paper, was to take it under consideration; and that it was contrary to all precedent, and tending to manifest confusion, to send it down at once to sessions and congregations without any consideration.

* This Declaration may be given in a future number of the Monitor.-Ed. Rel. Mon.

It was moved by William Gibson, elder, and seconded by James Oliver, elder, that the court now enter upon the discussion of the paper. Within a few minutes of the hour of adjournment, the question was put, and the motion was carried by a large majority Drs. Henry and Paul, and Messrs. C. Houston and Alexander, dissented from this decision. At 2 o'clock, the Synod adjourned for three quarters of an hour.

It was gratifying to witness the interest taken by the members of court, and by the numerous assembly present, in this preliminary discussion, and the cordiality manifested by the Synod, with the excep tion of the dissentients. As the Declaration was not of the nature of a new law, but simply an Act declaratory of the principles of the church's testimony on a particular subject, the Synod might have at once enacted it, without sending it to the inferior courts as an overture. The plan adopted, was. however, pacific and judicious; and, besides nullifying various specious objections which might have been urged against the Declaration, had it been at once proposed as a law to the church, it will afford a good opportunity for the sessions of the various congregations to give a public expression of sentiment in favor of the church's testimony. The consideration of it by the eldership will, we doubt not. be productive of much advantage, as there is no body of men in the church whom it is more important to have fully informed on the article of principle, and whose efforts have generally contributed more to the purity of the church, and to the vindication of her tes. timony.

On resuming business after the recess, Dr. Henry stated, that he and those who had joined him in the dissent, designed to take no part in the consideration of the Declaration, as they disapproved of the course that had been adopted by Synod, and he wished it to be understood, that their silence should not be construed into either approbation or disapprobation of any thing in the document. Mr. Ewing, and some other members of Synod, endeavored to bring the dissentients to take part in the discussion, but without effect. The clerk then read the Declaration again, and afterwards it was submitted, paragraph by paragraph, the members of court offering remarks and proposing altera

tions.

In answer to the remarks by Messrs. Toland and Ewing, respecting the law of nature" as the foundation of magistracy, and the proposal by the latter to substitute the "law of creation" for the "law of nature," Mr. Dick said, the phrase employed in the Declaration is one that is in general use. It had been adopted by us in the "Resolutions regarding the American question." By the expression, the committee meant that law which was impressed on the heart of man at his creation. The expression in the first paragraph was preparatory to that in the second. He considered it necessary to state this point clearly, inasmuch as covenanters had been considered as holding that magistracy is founded in grace. Against this supposition the Scottish brethren had lifted their voice. It is laid down explicitly in the new testimony of the Reformed Church in Scotland, that magistracy is founded in the very nature of man. Let the friends of correct principle say what they liked, enemies would misrepresent-but the truth was not to be sur rendered, nor the received inodes of stating and defending it given up on this account.

Mr. Gibson would distinguish between the law of nature, on which

he regarded magistracy as founded, and the light of nature. The law of nature he regarded as the moral law imprinted on man's heart at his creation; the light of nature he considered merely as the knowledge of that law possessed by mankind.

Mr. Hawthorne said, the foundation on which civil authority rests is the will of the Creator. This will, he added, was made known to man in two ways-1st. By its impression on man's mind, as was done at his creation. 2d. By means of Revelation. This will, when known to man without revelation, is called the law of nature. He (Mr. H.) regarded civil government as founded on the will of God, impressed on the human mind at creation, and still more fully developed by means of re

velation.

Mr. Ewing said he thought there was in the Declaration too much descending to details, with respect to the exercise of the magistrate's authority. There is difficulty in pointing out the different parts of the magistrate's duty. It was going into details on this subject, he thought, that had given rise to all difficulties contained in the papers which were at present on the table of the court. He was of opinion, that when we would have such a magistrate as was pointed out in the scripture, and when the nation would acknowledge his authority, it would be easy to determine his duty in particular cases. It was the duty of the church, at present, to avow the principle, that magistrates should use their influ ence in advancing the interests of christianity; but they (the church,) should refrain from stating the particular exercise of authority of the christian ruler. It was with respect to these details that there was the greatest diversity of sentiment. For example, there were different opinions with respect to the nature of that support which the magistrate is to afford to the church, and also with regard to the manner of that provision. He thought the magistrate must receive from his subjects whatever he gives to the church, in his character of magistrate. Here there might be a difference of opinion with regard to the amount of taxation levied for the church's support. We also come to the question which has been so much agitated-how is the magistrate to treat those who do not belong to the church? Are they to be compelled to pay for its support? At present, he thought there was difficulty connected with the answer of this question. The difficulty he regarded as arising, not from the principle itself, but from an evil heart of unbelief. He believed that when Christ would be acknowledged as universal Head and Lord, then this difficulty would vanish,—then would all people willingly come forth to support the religion of Jesus, and the kings would lay their crowns at the feet of the Redeemer.

Mr. Hawthorne said that, in a preceding paragraph, they had declared for Messiah's Headship over the nations. They now asserted the necessity of scriptural qualifications in magistrates-that they should take the word of God for their rule in governing nations-that they (magistrates) should embrace, profess, and support the true religion. He could not agree with Mr. Ewing, that we should not enter into details. We have the same rule to guide us now in stating the magistrate's duty, which nations will have when Christ is received as universal Head and Lord. This rule, he stated, is the law and the testimony. He regarded all details as depending on the grand principle stated in the Declaration.

Mr. Dick felt under obligation to Mr. Ewing for his remarks. In drawing up documents of this kind, there is one rule which ought to be VOL. XV.

9

observed. We should not depart from a testimony which is definite, and adopt one that is indefinite. It was not advisable to make statements of principle too general. He admitted there might be circumstances in which a nation could not avail itself of the advantages that flow from a scripturally qualified magistracy. He did not wish to go into minute and intricate questions, nor to make the testimony of the church more particular than it was formerly. He referred to the Larger Catechism, Quest. 191, where it is stated, that the church should be " countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate." He said, the paragraph under consideration was also supported by the New Scotch Testimony. He had endeavored to guard against what Mr. Ewing disapproved of. The expression in the paper was that the representatives of the nation should support the Church of Christ. He did not, nor would he specify the particular support which they ought to afford, nor the manner in which it was to be extended to the church. He did not wish to go farther than the church had already gone, nor did he wish to stop short of former attainments.

Mr. Ewing felt satisfied when support was taken in this general sense. He had referred to pecuniary support. He was aware that magistrates could support the true religion by their moral influence, and various other means, as well as by pecuniary aid.

On Thursday, the Synod was occupied, during the whole of the forenoon Session, with the Declaration. In reply to remarks made by Mr. Smyth and Mr. T. Houston, respecting the magistrate's giving "civil sanctions" to the church's standards, and concerning the civil ruler giving his official power and strength to the Prince of the kings of the earth," Mr. Dick, on the part of the committee, referred to the "Explunation and Defence of the Terms of Communion," p. 22, and p. 31; to the Testimony of the Original Seceders, prepared by Dr. M'Crie; and to the New Testimony of the Covenanting Church in Scotland, p. 99. In these days of voluntary agitation, he said, some individuals assert that certain passages of scripture, which point out the magistrate's duty, refer to him in his private, and personal, and not in his official character. The committee were decidedly opposed to this view. He (Mr. D.) referred to a statement of Dr. M'Crie on this subject. He says, that as magistrates, in their official capacity, opposed the Messiah, so when the nations become evangelized, and their rulers embrace christianity, they shall not only personally, but also officially, seek to promote Christ's kingdom. On this subject reference was also made to the "Resolutions of the Scottish Synod on Popish Emancipation," to those on the "American Question" adopted by our Synod, and to the "Act and Testimony."

On the paragraph in which it is declared to be the magistrate's duty to reform the church when corrupt, by removing impediments, &c., Mr. Smyth wished to know what is the line of conduct which the christian civil ruler should pursue, for this end? Mr. Gibson, in reply, referred to the example of the godly princes of Judah, and said that magistrates were limited in the exercise of their authority with respect to the church of Christ by the word of God.

Mr. Ewing, suggested a change of phraseology, as, in his opinion, it was difficult to say how barriers could be removed, and not easy to state what means were to be employed for promoting the true religion, even after impediments had been taken away. He suggested that the paragraph should be worded-"It is the duty of the magistrate to

employ his influence in the extension and promotion of reformation, and of the religion of Jesus Christ." This praseology, he said, would, in his opinion, prevent the very supposition that the weapons to be used by the magistrate are carnal and not spiritual.

Mr. Dick remarked, that the proper exercise of civil authority is not a carnal weapon; for this reason, that magistracy is an ordinance of God, and no ordinance of God can be a carnal weapon, provided the word carnal be taken in its obnoxious sense. The language employed had been that of the New Scottish Testimony, p. 99, where it is stated that the magistrate ought to remove external impediments to christianity. He did not regard the whole conduct of the godly princes of Judah as imitable. Some of them had the spirit of inspiration and prophecy. The language employed in this part of the Declaration is that used by the renowned Guthrie, who, rather than yield to Erastian supremacy, laid down his life: the godly Livingstone had also used similar language before his judges. Guthrie speaks of this power of the magistrate, as the ordinary power of the godly princes of Judah. The same sentiment occurs in the Larger Catechism, and in the New Testimony. Persecution might be instanced as an external impediment to the spread of christianity, which magistrates should remove. It was also a part of the magistrates duty to awaken holy zeal in the ministers, and, in some cases, to call Synods. He must not, however, interfere in their deliberations. On these topics, reference was made to the Second Book of Disciple-to the Explanation and Defence of the Terms of Communion-p. 22,-to the Acts of Assembly of 1642-p. 127,and to the Assembly's approval of the King's Letter, in which he had declared his intention to carry forward the work of reformation. In 1647, also, the Assembly in Scotland speak of the necessary service which should be rendered by the Parliament in promoting the same glorious cause. Reference was likewise made to the works of Thorburn and Stevens, to show that magistrates should officially render assistance in promoting true religion: these might be regarded as inferior authorities.

Inquiry was made by Mr. Toland, whether in any case an appeal was to be allowed from the church courts to the civil magistrate; and, af terwards, whether if the case were one of heresy and not of flagrant immorality, there could be an appeal? To this, Mr. Dick, on the part of the committee, replied. Independent jurisdiction is in the Declaration allowed to the church. The power of the church and of the State is co-ordinate, not collateral or dependent on one another. The church has no power over the State in State affairs, nor has the State any power over the Church, in Church affairs. The State, in this point of view, is not superior to the Church, nor is the church superior to the State. No appeal with respect to worship, doctrine, &c., can be made from the Church to the State. He (Mr. D.) furthermore admitted, that there are difficulties connected with this part of the subject, inasmuch as persons who are church members may also be civil rulers. The same cases inay also come under the cognizance of ecclesiastical and civil courts in different conditions. He referred to a minister's character, and to disputes respecting houses of worship, and showed that they might come before an ecclesiastical court, as cases of scandal or complaint, and before a civil court, as matters in which civil rights were affected. The government contemplated in the Declaration, is a scriptural government. When the law of God wonld be embodied in the