characterized its advocates. Such were unhappily tolerated in this community. Christ hates sin in every form, but especially when he sees his commissioned servants receiving into his holy and beautiful house such characters, whose only or chief recommending quality is the pomp of worldly riches and honor. Such carnal policy every christian should reprobate. And all church courts should testify against such a course, as an evil which, in the language of their divine Head, they "hate.”

The mind of God is so plainly expressed in this portion of sacred writ, that "he who runs may read." Any one, unbiassed by prejudices in favor of some popular system, must admit this doctrine, taught in the plainest terms, in the 14th and 15th verses,-that

A pure church should maintain a distinct separate communion. We have noticed the severe reproof administered to the religious community of Pergamos, for having in its embrace such as the Balaamites and Nicolaitans. Lax professors always abhor restriction. And the voice of public sentiment now sounds loud and long the enchanting words of "benevolence, charity, universal love," &c.; the pious aim of which seems to be to extol God's mercy, so that the lustre of its glory would conceal his holiness and jealous regard to his sacred truth. According ly, the chief emulation of noted man is to excel in decrying creeds and confessions, used by the church in reforming times as tests of purity, as being of too contracted a spirit for this age of improvement.' And those are now held in estimation in proportion as they throw contempt upon lifting faithful testimonies for the truth, and against error. syren voice of fame now greets such as are most successful in devising schemes for amalgamating distinct societies into one, for removing all the "old land-marks," and walls of separation, and for making the house of God a city of refuge for modern Balaamites, Socinians, Arminians, and Hopkinsians. And in the exercise of this brotherly love, they throw the broad mantle of their charity over the corruptions of these, and literally hide a multitude of their sins. They endeavor to build the house of God out of all kinds of materials, and to make her a great temple, in which all people may congregate.

The

But should their endeavors be crowned with seeming success, this capacious house might be great indeed, like the "tree" in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, "under which the beasts of the field dwelt, and upon whose boughs the fowls of heaven, clean and unclean, had their habitations," but like the image in his vision, composed of materials of different natures, the "iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold" thereof shall be "broken to pieces. Truth and error can never cement in any modification. By such measures many may be added to the church; for carnal motives will prompt many to unite with an association so numerous and popular. Multitudes will be found say. ing, "we will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel, only let us be called by" this respectable "name, to take away our reproach." By the present improved system, we are not required to "deny ourselves, and do "violence" to our feelings, and be "hated of all men;" nor need to incur the wrath of man by protesting against fashionable errors and

vices.

Such latitudinarian schemes may build up a great common asylum almost in a day, but, alas! "with untempered morter." They are more liberal than any ever suggested by the Holy Spirit. Inspiration teaches that the church is "a peculiar people," whom God "hath chosen out of eworld." And, when heresies prevail, he calls upon her as a "wit

ness," and requires her to "display her banner because of the truth." His character of her is " my love, my dove, my undefiled, is but one,' of one heart and one mind. Unity in the church is desirable above all things; but this must be a unity, not of persons, or different denominations merely, but of doctrines and worship. And unless different branches of the church can form a union of spirit, a oneness of sentiment, in a way of faithfully maintaining the whole truth, a separate stand in defence of the faith is more honorable to Zion's king, who ever abhors those unhallowed compromises, in which union and peace are obtained at the sacrifice of truth. Rather let Judah be against Ephraim; and if iniquity be found in Benjamin, let the tribes of Israel contend with their brother, and wipe off this stain, that they be not participants of their brother's sin.

The admission of corrupt professors, or corrupt denominations into the pure church, is like setting up Dagon in the temple of God. This temple is holy, and will not permit any idol of false doctrine to remain within its sacred precincts, without the testimony of God's wrath against it, any more than Dagon which was prostrated before the ark of the Lord. And those who congregate in this temple must all "speak the language of Canaan." The Philistine, and "they who speak the language of Ashdod," are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. Jeho vah was made to "abhor his own inheritance," because his people mingled among the heathen, and learned of them their way."

Christ says to his flock, "I will not that ye should have fellowship with devils," and again, "if any man defile the temple of God," which is done by admitting those who corrupt its doctrines and worship, "him shall God destroy,' And if men of perverse minds infect the church with the leaven of error, this must be purged out as the only remedy; for every error in doctrine or practice is at war with heaven makes God a liar, and is dishonoring to all his perfections. She cannot therefore hold communion with such as arc thus infected; "for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness!" Every error is darkness, and originated from the prince of darkness, while truth is the pure light from heaven. What communion, then, can this divine light have with darkness? "And what concord hath Christ with Balial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? Or what agreement hath the temple of God with idols ?" Here is restriction-imposed by divine authority. (See 2 Cor. vi. 14-17.) Here the popular schemes of free communion with all respectable societies are in direct opposition to the command of God, given verse 17th, "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." And when the majority of any religious society becomes corrupt, and refuses to reform by works of righteousness, the injunction upon his faithful few is, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sin, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Rev. xviii. 4.) And a pure church can not be faithful to her Lord but by excommunicating heretics, and refusing to unite with such denominations as remain defiled with corruptions. She must promote his honor, by maintaining her own purity, or else he will himself purge her by sore judgments; as in Zach. xiii. 8, 9. "And it shall come to pass that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third part shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined." Should any of our religious communities, even those esteemed most rigid, expunge one-third of her mem

bers, as corrupt, their course of discipline would incur universal censure, as being too censorious, and a milder policy would be recommend. ed, fearing lest they might lose some of their remaining members; but that policy sanctioned by Jehovah, is to carry on a purifying, reforming process, until two-thirds are exscinded, and then continue the remaining third in the refining ordeal.

Zion is required by Jehovah to maintain her character as "the pillar and ground of truth." And when by her firmness and integrity, when the watchman on her walls sound an alarm at every invasion of error, and use the key of discipline for the appointed purpose of casting out the stranger, and the leprous, when she thus gives evidence of her purity and devotedness to the honor of her Head, he will establish her "on the top of the mountains, as the joy of the whole earth, the crown of his glory." And when her enemies, strong and mighty, "go to with axes and hammers, to break down the carved work of his sanctuary," if then she be faithful in unfurling her banner, because of truth, and remain firm in its support, the glory of the divine presence shall beautify her, heaven's approving countenance shall light up her path like the smiles of the morning, and she shall at last be presented faultless before the throne of God, "adorned as a bride to meet her husband."

HONESTAS.

ART. V. Misrepresentations Corrected.

It is sometimes difficult to determine whether to reply to a slander or to let it pass unnoticed. A portion of the community may understand the case and count the correction a mere waste of time and labor; yet another portion may wish to understand it more fully, and may have a just claim to be gratified. Experience teaches that in a defence against personal attacks, we should draw but sparingly on the patience and sympathy of the public; but in defending a public body, and especially an important cause struck at through that body, we may use more liberty. I have lately had access to the 4th and 5th numbers of the Associate Presbyterian Magazine, in which I find so many misrepresentations of the proceedings of the Associate Presbytery of Cambridge, that I might well despair of obtaining the patient attention of the reader in even noticing them particularly; and such a particular notice I trust is unnecessary. There are, however, a few misrepresentations which many readers may have no opportunity of understanding, and which may need some explanation, in justice both to the Presbytery slandered, and to the public imposed upon; and these may be taken as specimens of the whole.

A committee appointed by the Presbytery of Cambridge, prepared and published a Narrative of the proceedings of the Presbytery in the cases of Dr. A. Bullions and Mr. Stalker. In the Associate Presbyterian Magazine, the grossest misrepresentations of these proceedings are given, and yet to gain credit to these misrepresentations, they assert before their readers, who may not have access to that Narrative, that it verifies materially all their statements. (p. 108.) Now if this were so,

the Presbytery must have been shamefully wicked, and their committee infatuated.

In the Magazine, page 110, the editor represents the Presbytery of Cambridge as requiring Dr. Bullions to retract as unfounded and slanderous what they at the same time knew to be true. He adds, "There

can be no doubt about this, for they themselves attest the fact. They say they required Dr. Bullions to commit the sin of denying the truthwe content ourselves with placing their own account of this iniquitous transaction before our readers, and we add no comments, for it needs none." Now instead of this being the Presbytery's own account of the matter, and without comment, the Presbytery gave no such account, and it is wholly comment and perversion. For the Presbytery to have required Dr. Bullions to deny the truth would have been hard; to have done so knowing the truth in question, would have been sinful indeed; and still more sinful to have required this as a condition of restoration. But what is the state of the case? The Presbytery's requisition as stated in their minutes and in the Narrative which the editor pretends to quote without comment, is "That Dr. Bullions either retract his declaration as unfounded and slanderous, that four members of this Presbytery are unfit to sit as members of this court, on supposition that certain reports in possession of Messrs. Peter Gordon and George Mairs, are true; or on the other hand, that he pledge himself to Presbytery to produce those reports for Presbytery's judgment-and in the latter case, that he remain under suspension till he produce them to Presbytery." Now, was this requiring Dr. Bullions to retract his former assertion? It was a proposal of alternatives, giving him his choice. Dr. Bullions had made an injurious assertion but pertinaciously refused to furnish the means of investigation. Order required him either to retract or furnish those means; and this was proposed by Presbytery. The one alternative was fair, just and easy: Was this requiring him to choose the other? And what is more common than this procedure? A civil tribunal proposes to the accused, however innocent he may be, to plead guilty, or stand his trial. Is this requiring him to plead guilty? A church member found guilty on trial, has his choice to submit or be cast out. Is this requiring him to choose the latter? Who but this writer could say that it is? Can any one, even in charity, believe that he thought he was treating the Presbytery fairly, or that he was not of purpose perverting the truth in order to slander? From this specimen let the public see the spirit of our opponents; and let them judge whether such a writer is likely to lead their views correctly in matters in debate; or give them a fair view of the controversy. Is he conscious that his cause is just, or does he depend on divine guidance or protection, when he uses such means of offence or defence? We do wish our opponents to defend themselves if they be injured, but we have a right to demand of them whether as christians or as men, that they do it honestly and honorably.

In the Magazine, pages 108-9, the Presbytery of Cambridge and their committee are ridiculed for pleading that a Presbytery may reject an appeal, proceed with the trial, and still allow the appellant to carry up his cause to a superior court, but that he ought in the mean time to submit. Yet the first part of this plea is founded on our own Book of . Discipline, part iii. art. 12: "When a protest and appeal are offered, the judicatory is to consider whether they will admit or reject them: If they admit, the cause is to be left to the judgment of the superior court; but if they reject, they may proceed in the trial of it. The

party may protest against the rejection of his protest; and if this is sustained, he may still bring the cause ultimately before the superior The latter part of the plea is justified by our Overture, which this writer quotes with approbation; Book II. chap. 9. § 9: "When the appeal is taken from a sentence of suspension, deposition, or excommunication, which sentence shall be considered as in force till the appeal is issued." The Book of Discipline of the Presbyterian Church Chap. vii. § 3. item 15, is substantially the same. Thus the whole argument of the Presbytory's committee on this point is fully justified; for if a sentence of suspension, &c. shall be considered as in force till the appeal is issued, it does require submission in the mean time. But to render the committee's argument ridiculous, the editor of the Magazine construes it thus: (p. 109.) "The Presbytery means, that if one of their members appeal to Synod from a sentence of rebuke (?) and they should reject the appeal, he may still carry it up by an additional appeal, only in the mean time he must submit to the rebuke, and sometime after, the Synod will decide whether the Presbytery ought to have inflicted the suntence to which he has already been compelled to submit." Now all this construction is made by slipping in the little word rebuke, which the committee did not use in the passage criticised. Did the Presbytery mean that Dr. Bullions should submit to the rebuke and yet appeal from it to Synod? They did not ask such a submission, and they would not have accepted it, had it been offered by the Dr., as they showed when he did so offer it at Salem. (See Narrative, pp. 14, 15.) The committee was speaking of all the Dr.'s appeals together, p. 43. Their meaning was, that Dr. Bullions should have submitted to a rebuke without appealing, but when he did not submit to this sentence, and was suspended, even with an appeal from the latter sentence, he should have submitted till the case would be issued in the higher court. That is, he had his choice of submission to a rebuke without an appeal, or to a suspension, with an appeal, if he chose to make it. This was the submission spoken of. Why then did the editor of the Magazine slip in the word "rebuke" in his construction of the committee's argument? Not because the committee used it so, but because it required this word to make it ridiculous. But why did he not introduce the word suspension instead of robuke? (For this was the very sentence to which the Presbytery did require Dr. Bullions to submit under his appeal.) No doubt, because it would have appeared reasonable and just, and founded on acknowledged rules. Thus the true state of the case must be concealed and perverted by the editor of the Magazine, lest the public might see it and justify the Presbytery. Still, perhaps, to some, it may not be clear what the difference is between submission to a rebuke and submission to suspension, with an appeal in either case. The difference is this. Submission to a rebuke is usually in order to restoration, and involves an acknowledgement of the justice of the sentence and a confession of sin. An appeal in such a casc, is therefore absurd; and a reversal of the sentence by a superior court, is not only a condemnation of the judgment of the inferior court, but also of the man's confession of sin. Submission to a sentence of suspension with an appeal does not involve such acknowledgment, and a reversal condemns only the judgment of the inferior court.

In page 109 of the Magazine, the editor says, "The Presbytery (of Cambridge) suspended Dr. Bullions for no other offence, than using this undoubted constitutional privilege (of protest and appeal.) This is ut terly false. Dr. Bullions had uttered an injurious slander against mem