our distinctive position that we can surrender to effect a union. It would be granting that we had "some wood, hay and stubble" to throw into the fire. We do not admit that we have any such worthless materials in our building, and if there is to be a bonfire of denominational debris, made by the proposed Convention, we have nothing that we can contribute to the making of it.

Were it even so that there may be some rubbish along with our gold and silver and precious stones, a Convention such as proposed is not the place to test it. Rather let us institute an inquiry in our Synod, and have the united wisdom of the members of that body in drawing the line between the precious and the vile. The good feeling, as it is called, that gets up at conventions, is not favorable for giving due weight to points of difference. We say this much on the general question, reserving a more definite reply to the proposal if it shall appear that we are

meant in it.

We find in the proceedings of the Steubenville Convention the following resolution, offered by Rev. J. B. Johnston, which was recorded in the minutes without any expression of opinion in regard to it:

Resolved, That this Convention propose, as a Basis of Union, on the subject of Psalmody, that a faithful metrical version of the Book of Psalms, and also versions of all the parts of the other Scriptures, appropriate for. praise in worship, shall be the approved Psalmody of the United Church."

This resolution, which seems to have met general approbation, yields the whole ground on the question of Psalmody. Go beyond the Book of Psalms in the matter of praise, and there is no stopping place on this side of hymns that are scriptural in sentiment. Our Presbyterian brethren will say that all the songs in their Hymnal are versions of parts of Scripture appropriate for worship. The line of demarcation between versions and no versions will then have to be drawn, and in the light of the present tendency of things it requires no special foresight to tell that it will include all evangelical hymns on the side of versions.

THE CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE IN REGARD TO MINISTERS. BALM, MERCER Co., PA., Dec. 20th, 1867. MR. EDITOR-The following by Dr. George Junkin, taken from the Christian Statesman of Nov. 15th, deserves a place in your pages: "As in his civil dominion, the election, selection, appointment of its officers may be in different ways; but each must express the assent or consent of the people to be ruled. Within the church, the officers have no more right to appoint others to bear rule over the people without their consent, than within the state. In both and equally, it seems to me, this would be a usurpation, and lead to tyranny and despotism without end. This produced the man of sin and son of perdition. We must, therefore, insist upon the people's-the church-members' right to be and to act as an agent in the creation of church officers. No officer, board of officers, conference or presbytery, has a right to ordain

rulers in the church, without first ascertaining and securing the vote or assent of the people to be ruled. And this in a general way as well as particularly, i. e., existing officers, may not ordain at large any more than ordain and place a ruler over a particular people without their consent. For if ordination gives power to rule, the individual or body vested with ordaining power is irresponsible, and may rule the church arbitrarily by his own creatures. If priest can make priest, church government is a despotism."

Oh, that we had such champions to defend the rights of the people. Why will a presbytery ordain young men at large while the church has unsettled ministers by the dozen at her disposal? If Mr. B. may be thus sent out, why not Mr. A.? If one may, so may ten. Where such a spirit is, reason will not be wanting. The end will justify the means. A presbytery may next attempt placing its creatures over congregations, or dictate. Let the people refuse aid and comfort to such ministers, receive them not into their houses, neither bid them God speed, and the thing will end. We have been warned against the (moonshine) tyranny of deacons. Boy and girl singing, church music, fast tunes, continuous singing, &c., have brought out "faithful men." Even our young men praying together satisfies some that we are packing up for Egypt. Ministerial support has had so much attention that the people are brought to examine Is. 56: 11. Will any come forth and sound an alarm against this "usurpation" tending to "tyranny and despotism?" SAMUEL ALLEN.

We cheerfully give a place in this No. to the extract from Dr. Junkin's article, and the endorsement of its sentiments by our ardent correspondent. But, while we do this, we say that we have no sympathy with either in the views presented. We hold Dr. Junkin's dogmas to be at war with Presbyterianism. If carried out, they would leave no court in the church higher than a session. If Mr. B., because not elected by a congregation to be its pastor, has no right to rule as a member of presbytery, neither has Mr. A., though a pastor, because he has not been chosen by all the congregations under the presbytery's jurisdiction. We presume it will be admitted, that one congregation has no right to choose rulers for other congregations. Yet on no other ground than this can the choice of the people give a right to rule in courts above a session. The analogy between the creation of civil and ecclesiastical officers fails; because in the latter case the office is conferred

by a court after the people have chosen. The office comes, not through the people, but through the presbytery. In the case of civil offices the office comes through the people. The choice of the people is an element that should have due weight by the presbytery, to prevent men from being inducted into office who would not be acceptable to the people.

SUPERANNUATED MINISTERS' FUND, &c.

YORK, January 14, 1868. DEAR MR. EDITOR-I had thought you were publishing a religious magazine, and not a comic monthly. But you have, for a religious editor and a Doctor of Divinity, perpetrated the hugest joke of the season. I refer to the following sentence in the number for December, 1867: "Let the people ask themselves the following questions before acting. What support should our pastor receive? Not how much will keep soul and body together, but how much is necessary for him to have, that he may live comfortably, and lay up a little for the future?" "Lay up a little for the future," that is where the laugh comes in. The idea of a minister in our church laying up for the future out of his salary is irresistibly comical. What a funny man your † correspondent

must be.

But does he not know that a minister is to live by faith? Does he not know that it is the business exclusively of elders and private members of the church to lay by money—that a minister by virtue of his office ought to be above all these things? Has he never learnt that it is one of the specific duties of a congregation to keep their minister poor, and look to some body else to keep him humble?

But I must stop criticising your dagger correspondent, lest he turn upon me with his sharp weapon and make as much fun of me personally, as he has of the cloth generally.

We will therefore come at once, without further prefatory remarks, as the preachers say, to the subject of our discourse. It may be remembered that at the last meeting of Synod I gave notice of a motion to establish a Fund for superannuated ministers, and for the families of deceased ministers. I have little faith that the joke of our dagger friend about "laying up, &c," will ever become earnest, else there would not be much need to press the matter that I have proposed for the consideration of Synod at its next meeting. The plan suggested is, that each ministerial member of Synod shall bring with him to the next meeting of Synod at least $10 to be devoted to the establishment of such fund; and that hereafter all ministers shall at the time of their ordination give at least $10 for the same purpose. The idea is, that such an amount must be given in order to entitle any minister of the church to draw out of the fund in case he become superannuated, or his family in case of his death and their own need. It is not designed at all to confine the privilege of giving toward the establishment of this fund to the clergy; we shall expect our rich elders and private members to bring or to send out of their abundance toward the same purpose. The great difficulty is to get the scheme started with sufficient funds at the outset. The principal is never to be invaded, but is to continue accumulating at the ordination of each minister, by bequests, donations, &c. Only the interest is to be used. The whole matter has been suggested to me by a minister of the Irish Presbyterian Church, Rev. W. Hart, who is on a visit to this country at present. He tells me that in the church with which he is connected, each minister at his ordination gives £2 ($10)

to what is known as the Ministers' Widows' Fund, and that the Fund has attained such proportions already, that it affords nearly $200 per annum to each minister's widow. In this country the rate of interest is so much larger, that the accumulation should be more rapid. In the Irish Presbyterian Church there is no Superannuated Ministers' Fund, for the reason that a pastor there, when he becomes disabled, continues to draw the bounty, and the assistant is supported by the congregation. With us, I suppose, it will be necessary to combine the two objects, as we receive no favors from the state.

If the scheme prove a success, as it will, if proper efforts are made, it will be like the establishment of a mutual life insurance company among ourselves, with no risk, and no expenses for management. I think it would be well for congregations to do here as they frequently do in Britain, insure their pastors' lives; or failing this, let ministers insure their own lives. But where congregations do not feel disposed to do this, or ministers do not feel themselves able, the plan proposed above will at least furnish some relief where a minister leaves, as not unfrequently he does, a comparatively helpless family.

Yours very truly,

THE DUTY OF NATIONS.

S. BOWDEN.

MR. EDITOR-Does the church believe that it is "The duty of Na tions to acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ in their national capacity?" I have heard it stated that this is the distinctive principle of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the U. S., and that "Christ's headship" over the nations was the present truth; but, certainly, there must be some mistake about it; what a church believes to be THE truth, and the essential truth, they always put prominently before the people and labor to have others so believe and act.

The Baptists and Campbellites are always talking about baptism; the Methodists, about Methodism; the Second Adventists, about the coming of Christ in person; the Catholics, about the supremacy of the Pope, &c., &c.; but the Covenanters are "wasting their sweetness on the desert air," if this is their principle. In the South new constitutions are being formed for the reconstructed States; are there any Covenanters there helping and advising, endeavoring to have incorporated the principle before stated? In the Territories that are knocking at the doors of every session of Congress, to be admitted as States, are any of the ministers or prominent men at work for the same purpose? No; they are teaching a b c to the colored people; therefore, I conclude that there must be some mistake about what I have heard in this matter about distinctive principle. Or is it beyond the calibre to undertake the great work, and, of necessity, find work more congenial and better suited to the talent of the church?

I wish you would inform me in this matter, for I do not wish to be lieve anything that would reflect discredit on a church; and if people have been slandering the church, by saying that your church believes such doctrine, I would like to have it authoritatively contradicted.

There is so much misrepresentation in this world (and even churches have to bear their part), that I felt it my duty, as a lover of fair dealing, to give you a chance to show that you do not believe that dogma. MEDICUS.

PRESBYTERIAN UNION-OUR POSITION.

INFORMATION has been given, through the columns of the Christian Instructor, that a large and enthusiastic meeting was held, lately, in the Madison Square Presbyterian Church, New York, in accordance with the recommendation of the Philadelphia Convention. The ministers who conducted the meeting were, principally, Old and New. School Presbyterians, besides a few others, including Rev. J. R. W. Sloane, of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. The last mentioned is reported as saying, "the Reformed Presbyterian Church would cast away the non-essentials, the hay and stubble, for the sake of union." Now, Mr. Sloane either did or did not use the language specified by the reporter. If he did not, he will, of course, have the opportunity to make the correction. If he did, then it follows some explanation is needed, before the language can be endorsed, at least, by some whose convictions run in the direction that the whole Westminster Standards are "founded on the word of God," and that it is needful for us "to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." Good old Athanasius spent forty-three years of the best of his life urging an essential" point in theology, which turned on the change of a single letter of the Greek alphabet. The "crown-rights" of the Saviour, and the testimony of the martyrs, have cost too dearly for Reformed Presbyterians, at this late day, to accept them as "nonessential." "Hay and stubble!" What can Mr. Sloane possibly mean? He knows what he is speaking about well enough, not to deal in rhetorical flourish at the expense of the sober convictions of his own judgment, often most solemnly expressed on other occasions.

66

There are many who will not believe he uttered the expression until they hear from himself. Indeed, a private letter might have answered the purpose as well as this public communication, so far as the writer is concerned; but Mr. Sloane owes to the church to define his position, since he has spoken so publicly, and assumed to speak, perhaps unadvisedly, for the whole Reformed Presbyterian Church.

Our

Leaving persons, however, out of view, two or three remarks may be allowed from one who rarely troubles your readers. Others may differ from us, in the meantime. The Philadelphia Convention was composed of men uninspired. A casual reader of their proceedings might fail to discover "the Pentecostal influence" claimed for it. Saviour declares, "Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth." If there was an influence of this kind, it certainly does not appear in the record. On the contrary, there was a deliberate effort to keep out all discussion of great and important principles. For a deliberative body, met to settle, for the whole church, those great fundamental truths which should underlie a Christian pro