editors of the Associate Presbyterian for publication." The remainder of the article consists in the comments of the editor on the case above described. I suppose that the editor who wrote these commentaries was one of the leading members of the so-called presbytery (for it was constituted without a quorum being present). First, some remarks on the above preamble and resolutions, which give the judicial act of the Presbytery in the case of the writer. I. They specify no charge against the writer. 2. They are not official-are not signed by either of the officers of the Presbytery. 3. It is only when the pastor of a congregation is deposed, that the congregation is declared vacant. Suspension from the exercise of the office of the ministry does not dissolve the pastoral relation. How did the Presbytery know but what the suspended would "acknowledge his offense, and give evidence of repentance?" Then until the Presbytery was ready to suspend from the office itself, it was not ready to declare the pulpit vacant. Was not the Presbytery a little too fast that time? See Book of Discipline, page 63, also of the Reformed Presbyterian, page 89.

Secondly, some remarks on the comments of the editor on the above case. 1. Of his representation of the case before the Synod. He says, page 130, the Synod "proceeded to try M'Auley for throwing obstructions in the way of Synod's commission. He plead his unpreparedness for trial, * * * and requested that his trial be postponed until the meeting of Presbytery." This does not represent the facts in the case as it passed through the Synod. This and what follows conveys the idea that the case was taken up, but not tried by the Synod, but referred to the Presbytery that was directed to meet Sept. 11th, ult. The minutes of Synod for 1867 show, in part, the facts in the case as they transpired in the Synod. Page 11 it is said, "a resolution was offered calling Mr. M'Auley to answer for laying obstructions in the way of Synod's commission, performing the duties assigned them by Synod at its last meeting (1866). A point of order was raised in reference to jurisdiction. Against the decision arrived at on this point, Mr. M'Auley protested." Pages 23, 24 and 25 show how this point of order was disposed of by recommending in answer to reasons of protest, "that Synod, if time permit, issue it at this meeting.' That is the case referred to on page 11, "The question on the adoption of the recommendation of the report was, on motion, laid on the table for the present." Page 41, it is said, Page 41, it is said, "agreed to take up the case of Mr. J. M'Auley, which had been laid on the table at a former sitting. It was agreed that the Synod refer the adjudication of the case to the Presbytery of Clarion, assisted by the additional members provided by a former act of Synod, &c."

This last minute states only a part of the facts in the case. It is a fact that the Synod agreed to take up and refer the case to the Presbytery for adjudication; but it is also a fact that the Synod first tried the case herself, before she referred it to the Presbytery. It is also a fact the case was taken up and tried in the absence of the writer, he and the company that went to supper with him not arriving until ten or fifteen minutes after the Synod convened, we having farther to go than most of the members of the Synod. In this short space of time

the case was taken up and issued, and when the accused arrived the moderator rose to his feet and informed him that his case had been taken up and issued, that he was judged censurable, and was ordered to submit to an admonition in the presence of the Synod; the minute issu ing the case was also read, and the condemned was then asked if he was ready to submit to the censure. He answered that he was not, this he did emphatically; stating, at the same time, that before he submitted to censure he had a right to know the charge for which he was censured. It is true, that the resolution on page 11 involves a charge, but it specifies no part or parts of the letters as evidence of the truth of this charge, and such a charge, without specifications, is properly no charge, because when documents are adduced as evidence this testimony must consist in specifications of particular parts of those documents, the documents taken as a whole cannot constitute either the charge or the testimony; and if there are the grounds of a charge in the documents, and also the testimony to prove it, it is the duty of the court, before trial, to specify those grounds of charge, and also the testimony for its proof. No court skilled in ecclesiastical jurisprudence will venture to appoint time and place for trial until these specifications have been made, much less will they take up, and try a case without letting the accused know either time or place-much less will they seek for an opportunity to try the accused in his absence, as was manifestly done in this case. Again, the accused stated tha tafter a charge, accompanied with testimony or specifications, is put into his hands, he has a right, according to the law of the Church, to ten free days to prepare for trial. This statement was not made before but after the trial. There is no truth at all in the allegation that the writer requested that his trial be postponed until the meeting of Presbytery.

How could he make this request, when he knew nothing at all either of the taking up or trying of the case until it was all over? Again, the accused stated that he had a right to be heard in his own defense, before he is censured, and before he would agree to submit to censure. Again, it is a fact, that after the accused had refused to submit to the censure inflicted on him, in the above described disorderly proceedings, Mr. Hindman rose and moved a reconsideration of their act, at the same time stating that the Synod was too fast. One of the editors (Mr. Ballantine) made the same statement, and I believe seconded the motion to reconsider. The case was reconsidered, or the act issuing it, and the entire record relating to their act blotted out. And now, it is a fact, that after the case had been taken up and tomahawked in this style, in the superior, that it was referred to the inferior court for adjudication, hoping, no doubt, that the result would be more satisfactory in the inferior than in the superior court. Again, after the case was referred to the Presbytery, it was proposed to prepare a charge against the accused, for the Presbytery to meet September 11th. This was opposed by the accused, and finally abandoned. Again, the accused asked a copy of the letters supposed to contain the grounds of charge. This was strenuously opposed, on the ground that the letters contained the testimony in the case, and that the accused had no right to have the testimony in his possession until the day of trial, and as there was no charge

prepared for the use of the Presbytery; and as the letters contained both the grounds of charge and the testimony, the accused would be deprived of the use of both until the day of trial. The Synod, however, finally yielded the point, and the request was granted. This is the history of the case in the Synod. The writer feels certain that this is a correct history, and that it is necessary to prepare us for forming a right judgment on the sequel. There is abundance of testimony to prove all these statements. The editor and the Synod would, no doubt, be glad that this history could always be kept in the dark.

If

The editor says, page 130, October number, "in the appointment of this commission both members of Presbytery (Mr. Sawyer and myself) acquiesced. This was especially done by Rev. John M'Auley.' he means by the word acquiesce that we approved of the measure, it is not true; we made no particular opposition to it at the time, but the longer we thought of the measure the worse we thought of it. The writer has been strongly opposed to commissions for more than thirty years. But he had sometimes to acquiesce in them.

Hear what Mr. Sawyer says in a letter to me two months after the appointment: "The appointment of the commission that is soon to meet to settle all matters in the bounds of the Clarion Presbytery, I look upon as a despotic exercise of ecclesiastical authority, and altogether of a piece with the riding commission of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. A synod has no right to send a commission into the bounds of a presbytery to act independent of the presbytery. Such tyrannical proceedings as these cannot but create disgust and disaffection among the best friends of the Associate Church."

JOHN M'AULEY.

A SUGGESTION.

MR. EDITOR-At several meetings of Synod, temperance resolutions of a most radical character have been brought forward. Not merely are the selling and drinking of intoxicating liquors as a beverage opposed, but their use in any case is condemned. "It is only a poison," say they, "and a poison without any medicinal properties. To use it then, under any circumstances, is, of course, wrong. the papers, if adopted by Synod, would have forbidden, as was remarked at the time, a member of the Covenanter Church using any intoxicating liquors, even though prescribed by the most eminent physicians as a medicine indispensably necessary to life.

One of

Now, as a church, we are not ready for such action. Very few persons have had their attention directed to this phase of the temperance movement. Still fewer have the time and opportunity to examine and see if there is reason in it. The friends of this theory do not act as though in earnest. They have not attempted to bring the members of the church up to their position. The subject is never discussed in the Magazine. Those guilty are allowed to go on unwarned in the evil of their way. Nothing is heard of the movement except on the floor of Synod. Then, without being told why, members are asked to adopt a new theory, which to be adopted intelligently requires careful

examination. No doubt the majority believe that spirituous liquor is a medicine and can be used with good results as such, yet they are called upon, without either explanation or reason-for the time consumed in the discussion in Synod is not sufficient for either-to condemn it as a poison and oppose its use as a medicine. The result is, temperance resolutions are postponed, and those outside of our church who do not wish us well, say we are opposed to the temperance movement.

The question in all probability will again be brought before Synod. As a church we are so much opposed to intoxicating liquor, that if it can be shown its use under any circumstances is wrong, we as a church will accordingly so condemn it. What is needed is light. Let the advocates of this theory now show why they believe in it, and why they ask the church to adopt it. Let them open the way for discussion. The progress of all reform is slow, so let them agitate and agitate this, until, if found to be a reform, it is so acknowledged and accordingly adopted. This is a duty they owe to themselves and the Church. Otherwise why bring such questions before Synod, and have members vote annually upon that upon which the great majority cannot vote intelligently?

*

CHURCH EXTENSION.

Ir is admitted by all that the burdens of weak congregations should be borne by the strong, and that earnest efforts should be made to lengthen the cords and strengthen the stakes of the church. By what plan shall this be most readily and effectively accomplished? The old way, long tried by our own and other denominations, of leaving each congregation to devise and execute their own plans, has been found a failure and is generally abandoned. Under this mode the burden of helping the weak falls upon a few congregations, who were wearied by the frequency and extent of the calls made upon their liberality. Atleast one-third and often one-half the amount collected was expended in the salary aud expenses of the collector. The congregation was left weeks and often months without ordinances while the pastor ("Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?") was begging money from door to door. And at last the relief obtained was so inconsiderable that the congregation staggered under the burden it was forced to carry; or as has been too often the case, borne down by debt, unable to keep a pastor-died!

The plan of a Board of Church Extension is now adopted by nearly all denominations. It does not propose to build houses of worship from a common fund, nor to relieve congregations from a special effort to raise among themselves the necessary amount. But the design of such a Board is to relieve congregations from debt, when they have done all they could to erect a house for the worship of God.

How has this plan worked among us? The first year eighteen congregations contributed $795, from which the Board gave to Oil City congregation, the only applicant, $500. The second year, thirty congregations forwarded $1,744, in some instances doubling the contributions of the former year. The Board had two applications for help,

viz., Kossuth congregation, to which they gave $600, freeing them entirely from debt; and Indianapolis congregation, to which they gave $1,000, relieving them and their earnest pastor from all indebtedness except $750.

Thus far in the third year thirty congregations have sent us collections amounting to $1,266. Of this, $451 was given by one congregation, $143 by another, and $81 by another, or more than half by three congregations. A number of the larger congregations which contributed in former years have not as yet taken up collections.

Now consider, the scheme was new and not well understood, many forgot entirely its claims, and others, uncertain of its success, did nothing; and yet thus far the requirements of all applicants have been satisfactorily met. In inaugurating the scheme and publishing circulars to bring it before the church, $74 were expended. In collecting and disbursing the money there has not been one cent of expense to the church. Every dollar contributed goes to the relief of weak congregations, without any waste of precious time by the pastors; without any congregation being deprived of ordinances a single Sabbath; without any money spent in traveling; and without any burden being felt by any one, all contributors giving voluntarily without any influence compelling them to give more than they are able.

This year we have applications for aid: from Baltimore, for $1,500; from Monongahela, for $1,000; from Slippery Rock, for $500; and from Elliota, Minnesota, a promising missionary station, under the care of Rev. J. S. Buck, for $600, making a total of $3,600. To meet these demands we have only $1,600 in the treasury, and must have $2,000 more before the first of March, or else disappoint the hopes of brethren who look to us for aid. There are eighty-six congregations in the Church. If the fifty-six will do even as well as the thirty have done we can meet all demands.

Will not the whole Church give us their earnest co-operation in our effort to extend the Reformation vine by providing comfortable sanctuaries, wherein perishing sinners may assemble to hear the word of God? Let our pastors and sessions faithfully comply with Synod's direction and take up the collection, presenting our urgent claims. Let all our members observe the apostolic rule, 1 Cor. 16: 2, and give as God prospers them to this and the other schemes of the Church. Then very soon all our congregations will have good church buildings, free of debt; and as new stations are planted buildings can be erected, and our beloved Zion will do her part in securing for Christ that precious promise of his Father, "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.' J. C. K. MILLIGAN, Secretary Board of Church Extension.

YOUNG MEN'S PRAYER MEETINGS.

MR. EDITOR-The readers of the R. P. & C., it is to be hoped, were greatly edified by the perusal of an article in the November number, entitled as above. That ominous silence which so long has been