never had. One of the parties, at least, never did understand that they were even asked to depart from that constitutional mode of bringing this case to a final decisión, which had been commenced and proceeded in, till the cause was submitted without argument. It is believed that the representatives of the Presbytery had not power, under their instructions, to do any such thing; and that if they had done it, the Presbytery would have had a right to refuse to abide by their act, as being one that was done, not only without authority, but contrary to instructions. And surely, if there was an understanding that a thing so entirely novel as settling an important controversy in a mode not pointed out in the constitution, did now take take place, there would have been a very particular minute made of the transaction-at least, the explicit consent of parties would have been distinctly recorded. Nothing of the kind appears, and nothing of the kind did take place in fact. The parties consented to submit the cause to the court without argument, and to nothing more. We think we never before saw the General Assembly in such a state of mental confusion, as seemed apparent for a few minutes after the report of this committee was made. One or two attempts to speak were arrested, by intimations that any discussion of the report would open the whole cause anew -that it must be taken or rejected as it stood: and taken it was, not only without calling the roll, to give every member an opportunity to deliver his opinion deliberately and in detail, but without such an opinion being given by any one member of the house. If it be asked, why did not the old school members rise, and stand on their right to the call of the roll?—we say, although we cannot affirm it as a fact, that we really believe that in the hurry of the moment, they did not recollect that they had the right. There had been an interval of nearly three days (one was the Sabbath) since this concern had been in the hands of the committee. Much interesting business had occupied the attention of the house in the interval; and when the committee reported, attention was absorbed by the report itself; and it seems not to have occurred, perhaps to any one, that on this case the Assembly was still sitting "as a court of Jesus Christ." The great error was, that the court did not proceed with the trial as it began, and without a committee; but it certainly was an additional error, of no small magnitude, to adopt the report of the committee without allowing every member of the house, on the call of the roll, to state his views, give his reasons in detail, propose amendments, or alterations, or a substitute, and then to take the vote containing the award of the court, as the concluding act. The report of the committee passed the house with fewer negative votes than we perhaps ever heard on an important question, where there was a real difference of opinion. There was, we know, the appearance of great unanimity; but the truth was, all parties were dissatisfied; and so equally so, that that there seemed to be a kind of tacit agreement to let the matter go-as being about equally balanced, in the way of disappointment, to the sides that were in conflict. A leading member of the committee said to us with emphasis, a short time after the vote was taken, "not a single member of the Assembly is satisfied with our report." And, we ask, is this the best way of settling, or rather, of leaving entirely unsettled, an important ecclesiastical controversy? Is this right in itself—all constitutional considerations out of the question? We think not. The manner in which the Assembly has treated this concern, has, among other evils, opened a door to re proach our Supreme Judicatory and we cannot deny that the reproach is just-as not only hesitating, but absolutely refusing, through fear, to carry into effect its own constitutional order, when called to the trial in as plain a case as can be supposed. The Rev. Mr. Bacon, a delegate to the Assembly from Connecticut, has addressed to us, through a religious newspaper, a long letter, the professed object of which is, to justify himself for consenting to act as a member of the committee, in the case of Mr. Barnes. This letter is to us personally, as respectful as we could ask or wish; but it has mortified us severely, by what it contains in the following quotation from it, in reference to our church order and proceedings. Yet, on the whole, we rejoice that he has spoken so plainly. And if any Presbyterian-we mean one who is so in truth and not merely in name-can read it without emotions in which shame is not an ingredient, we shall resign all claim to understand the nature of Presbyterian feelings. The quotation is as follows: "I supposed that the committee on which I was named, was appointed, not to try the case on Presbyterian principles, but rather to act as a council for the settlement of the controversy, as we dispose of difficulties in our churches. I confess myself unskilled in the peculiarities of Presbyterian discipline; but if I understand your book, your way is, to try such a case by hearing, not only the documents, but the parties, and to decide it, not by proposing terms of reconciliation, but by giving a direct, distinct, and conclusive answer, to every question involved in the reference, complaint, or appeal. This I supposed would have been the Presbyterian method of proceeding in the case of Mr. Barnes. But this course was not adopted. There was a reluctance, in a part of the Assembly, against a regular trial and decision of the case. I was not very well acquainted with members or parties; but this I know, the men who feared the result of a trial, were some of them men of great respect ability. Not even the venerable editor of the Christian Advocate, will charge the venerable professor on whose repeated motion the Assembly at last consented to waive a regular trial, with being engaged in any conspiracy against the purity of the Dr. Miller did earnestly deprecate the Presbyterian church. Yet the fact was, evils which would follow a regular trial and decision; and on that ground persuaded the parties to forego their constitutional rights, and to submit their case without a trial; in the expectation that the Assembly would endeavour to find some ground on which the parties might be at peace. I was disappointed at this, and yet I rejoiced in it. As a curious observer, I was disappointed, because I had expected to see the practical operation of your system of judicatories and appeals, in a case in which, if it has any superiority over our system of friendly arbitrations, that superiority would be manifest. As a Christian brother, I rejoiced, because I verily thought that the proposal was a wise one, and that peace could be better secured thus, than by a judicial deGeneral Assembly disposed to learn what cision after a regular trial. I came to the are the actual advantages of that towering system of ecclesiastial courts which constitutes the glory of Presbyterianism, and sies which is supposed to reside in the suof that power to terminate all controverpreme judicature. Of course, I could not but be, at once astonished and gratified, to see that unconscious homage which was rendered to Congregational principles, when Presbyterians of the highest form, pure from every infection and tincture of Independency, untouched with any suspicion of leaning towards New England, strenuously deprecated the regular action of the Presbyterian system in a case which, of all cases, was obviously best fitted to demonstrate its excellence. I was astonished. I had indeed expected that the voice which was to answer the complainants and the Presbytery of Philadelphia, would answer out of the whirlwind; but I had supposed that consistency in those brethren would constrain them to acknowledge that voice, even speaking from the whirlwind, as the voice of the only legitimate arbiter. I could not but ask within myself, what is this lauded system of power and jurisdiction worth-these judicatures, court rising above court in regular gradation, what are they worth, if you are afraid to try your system in the hour of need? yet when I heard those brethren arguing in favour of referring the matter to a select committee which should endeavour to mediate between the parties, and to propose some terms of peace and mutual oblivion, in other words, to act as a Congregational ecclesiastical council would act, in attempting the adjustment of any similar controversy, I was convinced that they were in the right. And when the Assembly and the parties at last acceded to that proposal, I supposed that the general conviction was, that it was best to go to work, on that occasion, in something like the Congregational way, rather than in the Presbyterian way. "Taking this view of the object for which the committee was appointed, and entering, as I did, very heartily into the design, I never suspected that my not being a Presbyterian disqualified me from serving. I supposed that being a Congregationalist, and therefore not wholly unacquainted with such methods of proceeding, I was only the better fitted to assist in the labours of such a committee; and accordingly I took hold of the work with a disposition to assist in the humble measure of my ability." From what is now before the reader we think it is evident, 1. That a Congregational interest did in fact govern the last General Assembly; so that in the case of Mr. Barnes, the decision made, was not in accordance with the constitution of the Presbyterian church, but in conformity with the principles of the Congregationalists. We are truly glad that the very statement made by Mr. Bacon, in all its length, and breadth, and plainness, has come before the publick. For although, as we have said, it mortifies us severely, yet, as it is substantially true, we think it of high importance that the truth should be known; and that it should have been told from the quarter whence we have received it.' Had we made the same statement, before this document was published, we are persuaded that not only would the truth of our representation have been denied, but we should have been denounced as slanderers, both of our New England brethren and of the last General Assembly. We therefore view the communication of Mr. Bacon as containing a potion for our church, bitter indeed in the taking, but which we hope will be salutary in the operation. It will be for Presbyterians to consider, whether this eastern influence is to continue; and if not, what means ought to be taken to arrest or control it. It is manifest that something must be done, unless we are prepared to become Congregationalists without a struggle. 2. We think it entirely consistent with having said we rejoice that the statement of Mr. Bacon has been published just as it stands, to say that there is in it, according to our judgment, the manifestation of a spirit which ought not to have been indulged. For the same reason that we are glad, on the whole, that the mortifying condition of our church should be publickly known, we are glad that the existence of feelings on his part, which we think wrong in themselves, should be known in the same manner-The knowledge of both these evils may do good in the same way. If there is not the language of triumph-of the triumph of Congregationalism over Presbyterianism, in this communicationwe mistake egregiously. Nay, if some of this language is not directly calculated to give provocation, we certainly do not understand it. He speaks in a manner that strikes us as contemptuous of the institutions of our church-as giving answers out of the whirlwind," and of having courts rising above courts," and then asks repeatedly," what are they worth? what are they worth?" We answer, that while we agree with him entirely, that there was in the last General Assembly a refusal, which we think shameful, to try what our institutions were worth in the case of Mr. Barnes, and to which refusal he contributed, as he confesses, all that was in his power; yet we are well satisfied, nevertheless, that if our ecclesiastical order had been permitted to have its regular course, and had been administered in the genuine spirit of our standards, doctrinal and disciplinary, we should have seen something that was worth a hundred fold more than the mawkish, evasive, and trimming report of the committee, of which he was a member. We must also remark, that this ¢ triumph of Congregationalism over Presbyterianism, is all in direct and extreme violation of the fundamental principle of intercourse between the churches. That principle was certainly understood to be, that each of the corresponding churches should retain all its doctrines, usages, and forms of government, without any influence or interference, one with the other. We may be allowed to speak with confidence on this point, because the original motion for the intercourse was made by the present writer, in the year 1790, without any consultation, as far as he can recollect, with another individual. Little did he think that he was to live to see such a General Assembly as he saw last spring; in which Congregationalism was to triumph over Presbyterianism, and the subversion of the very basis of the intercourse, to be afterwards made the subject of publick exultation.. To this issue things have been tending for a considerable length of time; but this tendency was denied, till the fact has demonstrated the reality of its existence. 3. After the publication of the foregoing quotation, and the letter from which it is taken, we think it cannot be plausibly denied, that all the institutions of the Presbyterian church are in danger. An influence sufficiently powerful to cause the constitution of that church to be set aside in our highest ecclesiastical court, may reasonably be dreaded in its operation on our Theological Seminaries, our Missionary and Educational establishments, and on the funds and endowments destined to their support. That those who may effect all this may truly believe that they are doing God service, and that they may make the General Assembly itself the instrument that shall be employed in the work, we shall not question. But that those who deprecate such changes as are here contemplated, should not think there is some real danger that they may take place, appears to us absurd-the effect of blindness, or of an indifference to the Presbyterian church, worse than blindness itself. 4. If the Old School Presbyterians had formed the majority of the last Assembly, we think there is no reason to doubt that the things of which we have complained, both in this and in our preceding numbers, would not have occurred.* Still, it may be asked and we will put the questions and leave the answers to our readers-would it not have been better, if the members of the Old School who were on the committee in the case of Mr. Barnes, had permitted his devoted friends to make a report to suit themselves in all respects; and that the minority should have made a separate report of their own—as is sometimes done in Congress, and other legislative bodies? Ought not the Old School Presbyterians to have recollected, when the report of this committee was brought in, that the Assembly, at that moment, reassumed the character of a court of the Lord Jesus Christ; and to have stood by the constitution of our church, in that hour of its need and its peril? We have already admitted that it may be questioned, whether the representatives of the Presbytery of Philadelphia acted wisely, and did all their duty, in permitting the case, with the management of which they had been entrusted, to go to *It is a curious fact that the last General Assembly, in the course of its session, changed its character. At first, when no leave of absence had been obtained, a committee-man was admitted to a seat, by a considerable majority, and the minority protested. But after the case of Mr. Barnes had been decided, and the affair of the Board of Missions had been disposed of, many of the new school, who had probably been drawn to the Assembly only or chiefly by the interest they took in those concerns, asked and obtained leave of absence; and then, on another question about committee-men, the former minority became the majority, and the new school members became the protesters. the court without argument. But with the report of the committee itself, they had nothing to do. They could not say a word; they were virtually out of the house; and the moderator had taken care to remind them of it, and to magnify his office, by letting them know that they should be out of the house in fact as well as in form, if they did not recollect and keep to their proper position. 5. We fully believe that if a Presbytery or a Synod had proceeded in a judicial trial, as the General Assembly did in the case of Mr. Barnes, the court of review above-if not composed of a majority of Congregationalists-would have declared the proceedings to be palpably unconstitutional, and therefore utterly null and void. The proceedings of the General Assembly are not reviewed by a higher court; but that body has no more right or power to violate the constitution, than any church session in the Presbyterian community; and when such violation takes place, the violating act is a nullity. Yet, except in an extreme case, we think the inferior courts should yield to the Assembly, even when they question the constitutionality of any act of that body—at least, till they have made a full and fair trial, whether they cannot obtain redress by sending to the Assembly a better representation, than that which did the act or acts that they believe to have been done without constitutional power. In this way the Old School Presbyterians will, we trust, seek, if not the redress of past wrongs, a prevention of their repetition and increase. We believe they can do it, if they will be careful and firm in the choice of their commissioners; and if the commissioners, when chosen, will suffer nothing but insurmountable hindrances to prevent their attendance, from the beginning to the end of the sessions. Here, in our humble judgment, is our church's last hope, in its present organization, and fearful will be our responsibility, if it be lost through our neglect or want of exertion. NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS. ANECDOTES, RELIGIOUS, MORAL, and EnTERTAINING, BY THE LATE REV. CHARLES BUCK, AUTHOR OF THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY, ALPHABETICALLY ARRANGED, AND INTERSPERSED WITH A VARIETY OF USEFUL OBSERVATIONS. New York. Published by J. C. Riker, Franklin Buildings. In the month of August last, on an application from the republishers of this work, we wrote for it the following short PREFACE. "The Rev. Charles Buck was a dissenting minister of South Britain, who died a few years since; a man of considerable erudition, of an inquisitive and discriminating mind, and of fervent piety. His most elaborate work was his Theological Dictionary, which has passed through several editions, and is still held in high and just esteem. Besides, this he published several volumes of Miscellanies, all of which have a considerable degree of merit, and have had a pretty extensive circulation. But of all his works, that which is here offered to the publick, and which forms a part of his Miscellanies, blends the useful with the pleasant in the greatest degree. Of his 'Anecdotes, Religious, Moral, and Entertaining, alphabetically arranged, and interspersed with a variety of useful Observations," I hesitate not to say, that I know of no work, which more happily unites instruction with entertainment. It requires no effort of the mind to be understood, and can weary no one by a long demand of attention to a particular subject. It cannot be read without interest, and it is, in every part, calculated to leave an impression on the mind favourable to virtue, piety, or benevolence. It instructs by example. It can be taken up at a leisure moment, and laid down at pleasure, without leaving a subject unfinished. All who read serious books at all, I am ready to suppose, would like to have in their possession such a book as this. It is a book of amusement for the scholar, and |