important committees, especially on committees to consider questions involving constitutional principles of the Presbyterian churchthose who have done this, have "made appointments in a high degree improper, if not absolutely unlawful," which are the precise words of our charge against the late Moderator, for his appointment of Mr. Bacon. And for this judgment, we rely on the reason assigned when we made our charge, and which we have repeated above -We offer no other reason; we are confident we need no other. But who sees not, that all the cases mentioned by Dr. Beman, in regard to the Connecticut delegation, antecedently to the year 1830, when the right of that delegation to a vote in our Assembly was surrendered, are just so much of nothing at all to the purpose? Till that period, the Connecticut delegates had a conventional right, though we think it was never a constitutional right, to vote, and did vote, as well as deliberate, on all subjects that came before the General Assembly; and therefore we humbly think, that the editor's reasoning does not return on himself, to make him a culprit, because he placed a member of this delegation on the Committee of Overtures, in 1824. Then, such a member had a conventional right to be there: but at the last General Assembly, Mr. Bacon had no right of any kind, to be where Dr. Beman placed him. The difference, therefore, between right and wrong is the difference between what the editor did, and what Dr. Beman did: and hence it follows, in the Moderator's dialectick, that the editor is a culprit, and that Dr. Beman is immaculate-Quod erat demonstrandum.

In the civil community, no subject that comes before a representative body for disposal, is, we believe, ever committed, except to its own members. Other individuals Ch. Adv.-VOL. X.

than members may be requested, and may consent, or be summoned, to attend a committee, for the purpose of giving information, or answering inquiries; but to make them members of the committee, is never thought of. But on subjects not involving constitutional principles, or important interests, in the Presbyterian church-such as those that relate to a Bible Society, a Temperance, Tract or Colonization Society, a Sabbath School Union, a Concert of Prayer, or an Association to preserve the Sabbath from desecration-we would never object to any of the delegates from other bodies to the General Assembly being placed on its committees. The subjects mentioned, relate to the general interests of religion, as regarded by almost all denominations of Protestant Christians, and we I would not therefore refuse them a representation on the committees of the Assembly. Nor do we object to the usage of referring to a selection of ministers and elders of the Presbyterian church, not members of the existing Assembly, some important subject, to be considered and reported on to the Assembly of the following year. But Mr. Bacon, a Congregationalist, and not entitled to vote in the house, was placed on a committee to which was referred the consideration of several most important constitutional points and principles of the Presbyterian church, both in doctrine and government;

points and principles in relation to which his attachments and habits would naturally lead him to oppose strict Presbyterianism: and that they did so lead him, he, in his published letter to us, openly avows, and boasts of it in a strain of triumph. In his vindication, he pleads that he was placed on the committee by the Moderator, and that he supposed the Moderator knew his own Y

duty. But we think he also knew -and indeed his letter shows it -that his feelings had already enlisted him decidedly against one of the parties, whose cause was to be decided, if equitably decided, by the standards of the Presbyterian church, and by nothing else. We think, indeed, that the Moderator was far more blame-worthy than he, in this whole transaction; but did he not, after all, consent to act where he might have refused, and where delicacy and propriety should have dictated a refusal? Do not men who are called to a jury in civil causes, and who know that they have prejudged the whole case, often state this frankly to the court, and in consequence are removed from the panel? Was there not, in this trial, in the highest court of the Presbyterian church, so much analogy between the committee on which Mr. Bacon was placed, and a jury in civil courts, that the principles which have influence on those courts, should have had such influence in our ecclesiastical court, as to make Mr. Bacon absolutely decline this appointment? Let an impartial publick decide on these questions, and we have no fear for the award.

We proceed to make a few remarks on the two following positive assertions, in the 10th and 11th articles of the Moderator's summary "The Allegation of the Advocate that 'a large proportion?' of the Low Church approve' of admitting 'mere church members' to a seat in the Assembly, is so far from being correct, that it has not one particle of evidence to support it-The Low Church did not vote' against an act of the last Assembly-as the Advocate says they did the object of which' was to prevent committee men and mere church members, from hereafter having any claim to seats in the General Assembly for no such act was passed or proposed."

con

A considerable part of the Moderator's seven numbers consists of quibble and evasion; but there is rather a larger portion of them than common in the foregoing affirmations. Let us examine his first assertion, taken in connexion with that part of his second number, of which it is given as an epitome, where he says, "But that a large proportion' of the New School in the last Assembly, expressed in any shape or manner, their approbation of admitting men who are merely church members,' as stituent members of that body, I have yet to learn. Let the editor name one man who uttered such a sentiment, and I consent that this solitary instance shall stand as an apology for this sweeping declaration." Now this surely seems, in the reading, to be not only plausible, but imposing and conclusive. Yet it is, in fact, nothing more than an evasion, serving to keep a just state of the case entirely out of view. The facts are theseBefore the election of a Moderator, a question was raised, whether " standing committee" man should be allowed to vote. In favour of his voting, Dr. Beman was earnest, eloquent and successful—It was determined that the committee man should vote; and no doubt he voted for his advocate. Afterwards, sixty-seven members subscribed a protest against the lawfulness of admitting this man to a seat in the house; and an answer to the protest was ordered, and brought in by the New School members-This we have noticed in a preceding number. Subsequently to the decision of the case of Mr. Barnes, and the settlement of the business in regard to the Board of Missions, so many of the New School members obtained dismissions and left the Assembly, that their opponents were able to carry a resolution, by a majority of 81 to 54, "That in the opinion of the General Assembly, the appoint

a

ment of some Presbyteries, as has occurred in a few cases, of members of standing committees to be members of the General Assembly, is inexpedient and of questionable constitutionality, and therefore ought not, in future, to be made." Against this resolution the New School members protested; and assigned as a reason, that "this Assembly, on the first day of its session, when full, did, by a large majority, decide this question, by admitting a member of the Standing Committee to a seat in the house." Here are the facts-And now, because mere church members are not specified in the records, and were not, as we are ready to admit, pleaded for, under this designation, by the New School members in debate, we are charged with making a statement, "without one particle of evidence to support it," in say ing that "a large proportion" of the Low Church, approved of admitting them to a seat in the Assembly. But there are two undeniable facts, which will show that we had many particles of evidence to bear out the truth and correctness of our statement; and that what the Moderator says, is nothing better than an evasion. The first fact is, that an unknown number, yet certainly a considerable number, of mere church members have come up to the Assembly, commissioned as ruling elders, and have taken their seats accordingly. One case of this kind is on record, in the minutes of the Assembly for 1826. Nor let it be said, that this is a solitary case. We have evidence, to which, if necessary, we can refer, that two individuals, now ministers of the gospel, and worthy of their office, have stated, since the last meeting of the Assembly, that while they were yet mere church members, they came to the Assembly commissioned as ruling elders, and took their seats accordingly. From this, and other

indications of a similar kind, there is good reason to believe that this practice has been pretty general, for a number of years past; and that there was a number-although none but themselves can tell what the number was-of mere church members, on the floor of the last General Assembly. Again: It cannot be denied, that all the mere church members who ever came into the Assembly, entered it under cover of "The Plan of Union between Presbyterians and Congregationalists in the new settlements, adopted in 1801, [See Digest, p. 297] by which it was agreed, that a Committee man 66 may have the right to sit and act in the Presbytery, as a ruling elder of the Presbyterian church." This right of a committee man to sit in a Presbytery, was construed to extend to. the right of such a man to sit also in the General Assembly; and for the equity and propriety of such a construction, the New School men did contend most earnestly, and when they were overruled, they protested as earnestly, against the resolution of the Assembly above recited. Now we ask, if men plead, and vote, and protest, as if their dearest interests were at stake, in favour of an arrangement, through which mere church members have notoriously come into the Assembly, for years in succession, and some of whom, in all probability, were then on the floor of the house-can it be said, because they were not mentioned by name, that in no shape or manner" there was manifested an approbation of admitting" them? The New School men would have acted with a stupidity with which we have never charged them, if they had avowedly pleaded for the right of mere church members to sit in the Assembly-this would have ruined their cause at once. But it was in their usual course to plead for something more plausible, which they knew would quite

66

66

we greatly mistake, if it does not exhibit a spirit in the writer, that will prove an effectual antidote to the mischief he intended to effect. It is not for us to tell how any honourable man, any man of conscious integrity, any man that feels himself incapable of base design and sinister action, could have put the construction which the Moderator did, on what he says was said and done by us, on the occasion to which he adverts. We shall not make a long defence. The whole occurrence to which he refers had completely passed from our mind, till we read his review; nor can we now say that we recollect the half of what he affirms took place: we could not, if our life depended on it, tell, otherwise than by conjecture, a single name that was on the paper which he says we presented to him. But let his statement stand for an accurate exhibition of facts: and then Dr. Green declares most unequivocally, that if he ever performed an innocent action in his life, and one too of very little importance, he thought he did so, when he handed the paper and uttered the words, which the Moderator affirms that he handed and uttered. What he did he knew was of the same character with what had been done in scores of instances, without any suspicion, ever known to him, of an attempt to corrupt the Moderator, or to use any improper influence with him. It has always been perfectly understood, that the Moderator would use his own judgment in appointing committees, whatever suggestions might be made by others and hence suggestions have been often and freely made. Hence Moderators themselves have often solicited them-The writer certainly did it, when he was in the chair; and a member of the last Assembly told us, a few days since, that Dr. Beman wished and even urged him to nominate a part, or the

whole, of a committee. But I would not, said the member, for I knew him too well. Dr. Green did not know him so well then as he knows him now, or he too would have been on his guard. But he did know him well enough then, not, consciously, to do even a questionable act in his presence. For the same reason that Dr. Green would not put his head in a lion's mouth, he would not then, or now, knowingly, put it in Dr. Beman's power to stain his character. But in the alleged transaction, he had no conception that what he did was capable of any construction to his disadvantage. If he had done, what was done by the Moderator's friend, the Stated Clerk, and when not a member of the house

if, after the Moderator had formed a committee, and written down the name of every member, he had urged the Moderator to withdraw one name, and to insert another, there might have been some colour for the charge of obtrusive interference; but even in this case, a corrupt motive ought not to be imputed. But what Dr. Green did, was only what he verily believes has been done, as to the substance of the thing, at every General Assembly that has met for many years past; and done without any imputation of a sinister design. But then it is to be remembered, that the Assembly never before had such a Moderator as it had at the last meeting

May it never have such another!-As to what the Moderator has thrown out about promptership, we have only to say, that if Dr. Green, in his whole life, has prompted Moderators half as much as Dr. Beman, from the Moderator's chair, prompted his friends on the floor of the house, at the last Assembly, it must be acknowledged that Dr. Green has done a very improper thing-But this he does not admit.

We have now done with Dr.