seats in Presbytery." It is difficult to account for the inconsistencies of this step in a man not destitute of sense, except on the ground of extreme eagerness to accomplish a purpose. It is not only inconsistent in a member under process to accuse those who are to be his judges, except in the way of objecting to their sitting upon his trial, but still more so to accuse individuals of what was the deed of the court. If there were an offence at all, the court, as such, was the offender; and if the real offender had been named, then the motion of Dr. B. was that the Presbytery should sit in judgment upon itself, and that the criminal should be his own judge and executioner. The Presbytery was called to judge that by their own acts they had forfeited their seats, and so to turn themselves out of doors. But taking the motion as it stands, it proceeds on the supposition that the members of a court may be proceeded against by the court itself, for the votes they have given in answer to its call, according to their judgments, which would be one of the greatest outrages upon liberty. And if that common maul, the "pope," with which all our modern martyrs of discipline assail their "persecutors," had not been so plentifully used of late that it has become in a great measure harmless, we might in our turn take it up, and lay a few blows about the head and shoulders of the above resolution. Messrs. Martin, Campbell and Milmine endeavored to check these proceedings by protests. This privilege was refused. They endeavored to reason with their brethren, but the liberty of specch without constant interruption could not be obtained. Perceiving that their brethren had plotted against them to exclude them without cause, they chose rather to withdraw and act by themselves. Of this Mr. Martin gave notice, and accordingly he and Messrs. Campbell and Milmine withdrew.These three, together with an elder from Albany who had not arrived previously to this step, met and constituted in another place. Now the question is which party is entitled to be considered the true Presbytery of Albany. The Synod decided in favor of those who withdrew, and their decision may be justified by the following reasons: 1. The great precipitance with which those who met at the precise time constituted, and proceeded to business. At the most, according to their own admission it was but fifteen minutes after the hour when Messrs. Campbell, Martin and Milmine arrived. As Mr. Martin examined his watch, his statement is entitled to the most credit, that it was scarcely ten minutes. They could hardly have constituted with prayer, and attended to all the business recorded in their, minutes, in less than eight or ten minutes. If then they waited at all after the hour, it could not have been over six or seven minutes; the probability is, they did not wait one. If they had not known of other members in the city intending to meet with them, and within a few doors of the place of meeting, their haste had been more excusable. But this excuse they did not and could not plead. Or, again, if the business to be transacted had been of little consequence, or relating to things wherein no disagreement was anticipated, such haste though not courteous to their brethren might not have been regarded as particularly censurable. But neither could this be said in their favor. Measures contemplating the reversal of former deeds of Presbytery, the restoration of an excluded minister to his seat and of a refractory congregation to communion, were of the first importance, and difference of opinion might in any cases of this kind be anticipated; in this instance it was known to exist. What if the Synod had sustained this precipitation in their meeting? Would it not have been saying to the members of other Presbyteries, "Go and do likewise? If you have any favorite scheme to carry, and fear the opposition of your brethren, you have nothing more to do but to meet at the precise moment, and if your brethren be a few moments later, you can easily carry your measures before their arrival, and if you choose, you may also gather in excluded members, or by other means enlarge your number, so that when your brethren arrive you can exclude them from seats, and shut the door in their faces, saying, we are six against three; we have made up a majority, and must unquestionably be the true Presbytery." It is evident that the approbation of such proceedings would tend to the destruction of all confidence among brethren, and lay a foundation for endless intrigue and confusion. It is not at all uncommon for members of Presbyteries to wait not only one or two minutes, but quarters of an hour, and sometimes even hours, for the arrival of others who are expected; and to postpone to future meetings business of importance, in consequence of the absence of some members. This is especially done when it is known that the absent members are much interested in any proposed measures, either as advocates or opponents. Every principle of honor and religion commends this course, and condemns the taking advantage of a few moments delay on the part of brethren to carry measures against them, and especially measures tending to their exclusion from the church. Such precipitate meetings may possibly consist with the letter of the law, though we are not sure even of this; but we are sure that they contradict the spirit of the law, and overturn its very foundations. 2. The Synod were justified in their deed on the ground of the illegal admission of Mr. Stark and his elder to seats in the Presbytery. This was the main ground occupied in defence by those who withdrew; and it appeared also to be regarded in the same light by the Synod in their decision. It was pleaded on the floor of Synod, and the argument was not then, and has not since been answered nor even contradicted, that the admission of illegal members vitiates the court admitting them. This principle is extensively, and probably, it is universally acted on in civil proceedings. If one man were allowed to sit on the bench as a judge without legal authority, the whole court would be vitiated, and their deeds made null and void. If one man be admitted into a jury as a member, or even allowed to be present with them without being a qualified juror, the whole jury is vitiated, and their verdict set aside. In an election, where the electors do not hold office, but only stand in a remote relation to it by the choice of others, illegal voters vitiate the election and the officer elected. The same principle has been acted on in ecclesiastical bodies. It was distinctly avowed by the first Seceders, and the violation of it was assigned as a chief ground of their secession. They regarded the judicatories of the Church of Scotland as vitiated, so as no longer to be lawful judicatories of Jesus Christ, because of the intruders or ministers settled by the violence of patronage, who were allowed to occupy seats as members in these courts. They could not regard these men as legal ministers of Christ, and thus pronounced the courts not legal in consequence of their admission. Even in cases where the persons acting are regular office-bearers in the church, but not entitled to seats in that particular court which admits them, the proceedings are vitiated by their votes. Members of sister courts may be invited to sit and deliberate, and may aid their brethren by their counsel, but how could Sessions or Presbyteries be safe, if, at any time, a host of neighboring ministers and elders might be brought in to vote down the will of the majority? No farther back than the year 1836, the Associate Synod set aside a deed of the Presbytery of Cambridge on this very ground. The following are the words of their act: "Resolved, That the proceedings of the Presbytery of Cambridge in this case be set aside, in consequence of their irregularity in admitting a member of another Presbytery to act as a judge, and vote, contrary to the acknowledged rules of Presbyterian Church Discipline." (See Rel. Mon. vol. xiii. p. 41.) This decision may be considered as founded on the very definition of a Presbytery, as ordinarily given in books on government and discipline. These books say, that a Presbytery consists of all the pastors within certain bounds, together with a ruling elder from each congregation; and they define the correspondence of Presbyteries by commissioners to each other, as intended for mutual advice. (See Stewart's Collections, book 1, title 12, sec. 1 and 8; Overture of a Book of Discipline of the Associate Church, chap. 4, sec. 3, &c.) If, then, lawful rulers in the church vitiate the proceedings of courts in which they have no right to act, the same effect must follow from any person's acting who has been unlawfully admitted. And that Mr. Stark and his elder were unlawfully admitted, we think has been made sufficiently evident.* 3. It adds to the weight of this reason that the character of the court was changed by these illegal admissions, so that a majority was gained by those who had been, and would otherwise have still been, a minority. The brethren constituted under Mr. Blair pleaded that they would have had a majority independently of Mr. Stark-there would still have been five of them against the three who withdrew. But it is to be remembered that exception was taken against Mr. Stark's elder on grounds even *It appears to be taken for granted by Mr. Stark, in the Associate Presbyterian Magazine, pp. 21, 22, that Messrs. White, Goodwillie, and Pringle, were illegally excluded from seats in the Presbytery of Cambridge, in the trial of Dr. A. Bullions, and that this illegality was admitted by the Synod. This he supposes occasioned great difficulty and perplexity in connexion with his case; for if the Presbytery of Albany were vitiated by the illegal admission of Mr. S. and his elder, this would go equally to prove that the Presbytery of Cambridge was vitiated by the illegal exclusion of three of their members. This difficulty, however, has no existence except in Mr. Stark's own mind, if it even have existence there. The question about the exclusion of these members did not come before the Synod at all, as those who had protested against it, had fallen from their protests, and were, therefore, to be considered as acquiescing in the decision. Even if the question had come before Synod, there was no evidence produced to show that the Presbytery were not warranted in what they did. Two of these men were excluded because of near relationship, the one being the brother-inlaw, and the other the son-in-law of the accused. This is recognised in books of discipline as a warrantable ground of exclusion. Stewart says, Book iv., Title 5, Sect. 9, "There is likewise a warrantable declinature which may be made against particular members, who are related to the party by consanguinity or affinity, nearer than a cousin-german, or who have behaved themselves as parties in the cause." This rule is not imperative, so that proceedngs would be vitiated where no objection was made against such members, but it suppose that relationships may lead to such evidences of partiality that exclusion will be warrantable. In this instance the Presbytery judged that their decision was warranted by both these reasons. As to the other individual excluded, the former of these reasons did not exist. What the judgment of the Synod would have been, if the case had come before them for examination, it is impossible to tell. From the statements incidentally made before them. Some who had no doubt as to the correctness of the Presbytery in excluding the others, expressed doubts as to this step. It may be that a full and fair examination would have removed these doubts; it may be it would have confirmed them. And if this decision of the Presbytery had been brought before the Synod by an appeal, it may be that they would have reversed it; and though the exclusion of this one man did not change the character of the court, if it had been pronounced illegal, it may be that the Synod would, on this ground, have set aside the proceedings of the Presbytery as, on this ground, null and void. It is a hard matter indeed if church courts must not only be reproached for what they do, but for wrong steps which they might have taken, in cases supposed, but never existing. more clear than against Mr. Stark himself, for nothing had been done either regularly or irregularly to remove the objection against him as belonging to a congregation placed by their own act, and declared by the act of the Presbytery out of the jurisdiction of the church. It is also to be remembered that though only the three had arrived who afterwards withdrew, there was an elder from Mr. Martin's congregation who was on his way to the Presbytery, and who afterwards met with them. The true proposition of members, without those illegally admitted, would have been four against four; and as Mr. Blair was Moderator, there would have been on the floor of Presbytery only three of Mr. Stark's friends against the four who afterwards constituted separately. And besides, as Dr. Bullions was under process for scandel, and to be tried that day, it was not probable that he would have been allowed to take part in any business affecting the standing of other members. It is evident, therefore, that the illegal admissions did change the character of the court, and that if they had waited a few minutes for the arrival of their brethren, they would not have been able to carry their measures. 4. In connexion with the foregoing reasons, another consideration must not be omitted, though it may be regarded rather as an inference from the preceding, than a separate reason: I mean the profane and disorderly character of the proceedings of these brethren. Was it not profanely prostituting the ordinances of prayer, of a solemn constitution as a court in Christ's name and of discipline, to employ them for the purpose of carrying out a measure, which, to say the least of it, and this is what their friends said of it, was full of intrigue. And were not their disorderly proceedings such as might have been anticipated from this profane beginning? If men ask the presence of Christ, and his blessing upon underhand plots; if they seek his Spirit as a Spirit of judgment when they are devising mischief, for what else can we look, but their being left to foolishness and confusion in their counsels? It was not, perhaps, the mind of some who voted with the majority of Synod in this case, that each one of the foregoing reasons would, by itself, have warranted the decision which was adopted. It was, I think, the opinion of a considerable number, perhaps of most of them, that the Presbytery, though much to be condemned, was not vitiated by their hasty constitution. The majority, however, appeared to be all of one mind as to the court's being vitiated by the above-mentioned illegal admissions. This, therefore, may be regarded as the main ground of defence; the other circumstances noticed, add, however, to the weight of this. After all, supposing that the decision of the Synod was wrong, it was a mere measure of administration involving no relinquishment or change of our public profession. And what church would not soon be broken into fragments, if all measures of administration supposed to be wrong were resisted and made grounds of secession? At the meeting of Synod, at which it was agreed to review the deed convicting Mr. Stark, many of the members felt deeply aggrieved by what they considered wrong acts of administration. But did they therefore cry out that our profession was abandoned, and popery substituted in its room? Did they put themselves into the attitude of rebellion, and withdraw or threaten to withdraw from the church? Did they say in regard to matters of this description, "We will obey God and not man," and as we consider Mr. Stark restored contrary to the will of God, we cannot sit with him without a renunciation of our principles and our liberty? They adopted no such divisive measures, and employed no such canting language. If the principle on which these brethren proceed be correct, and every one in matters of discipline and administration is to do that which is right in his own eyes without respect to the decisions of church courts, then these courts might as well be dissolved finally and forever. For to what does all their deliberations and judgments amount, if, after all, every man is to be his own judge in al! matters, and to act with as perfect independence as if there were none under God whom he is to obey, and to whom he is to submit himself? If the ground taken by these brethren be not ecclesiastical radicalism, and radicalism run mad, then we have yet to learn what radicalism is. These men were not put on trial for any offence, they were not subjected to any censure, they were not required to own any guilt. They were not so much as required to own that their procedure had either been wrong or irregular. The Synod judged it to be such and if there were sin in this judgment, they took it upon themselves; and did not require them to bear any part of it, On the contrary, the door was expressly opened for them to exonerate themselves by a protest. In this way, they might have vindicated themselves before the church, the world, and their own consciences from all approbation of this deed. But they refused to take this peaceful course. When they could not be sustained in their efforts to exclude their brethren of the Presbytery of Albany, they chose to exclude themselves by withdrawing from the church. The sentence of suspension afterwards past was not for their conduct in the Presbytery, but for their obstinacy and contempt of Synod. Their secession is their own act, and on their own head is the responsibility. It is true that two of the individuals, Dr. P. Bullions and Mr. Stark were under process, and might be afraid that they would fall under the censures of the church; but so far as relates to the decision respecting the party to be recognized as the Presbytery, all that was required of them was to return and act with their brethren as before. To perceive how this could be a giving up of their profession, or involve any matter of principle, requires more penetration than is possessed by A TRANSYLVANIAN. Note.-Upon a review of the preceding remarks, I find that in speaking of the minority in the late Synod, they are sometimes called the friends of Mr. Stark and those who took part with him. It is not intended to characterize any as friends or enemies, except in reference to the cause which they advocated or opposed. Mr. Stark labors under a great mistake, if he thinks that the measures of the Synod were the result of any provocation or personal ill will; and under an equally great mistake, if he suppose all those who voted in his favor to be believers in his innocence. On the contrary, if he would now acknowledge himself guilty of the things laid to his charge, it would produce no change of sentiment, except that some might have a more favorable opinion of his honesty. ART. IV. Family Government.-By Dr. Humphrev. It has always been a question, how early children become the proper |