Its grade and punishment has been left to the provisions of the common law, which treats it as a misdemeanor, and punishes it with fine and imprisonment in the common jail. The court are of opinion that your liberty ought to be made to answer for the liberty of Morgan.'

The above sentence of the court at Canandaigua and the remarks of Judge Throop, in anouncing it, we leave to confront the mockery and insult of masonic papers, and those under masonic influence, who represent Morgan's departure as voluntary, and that he is at this and the other place drawing beer, and enjoying his liberty, and that all this has been a trick to serve electioneering purposes, or to promote the sale of his book. Numerous meetings are still held in the west, and every exertion is making to discover his fate. All has yet been unavailing. It is said the last traces of him to be found are, that he was kept a night in the Jail at Niagara. There is now little doubt but that he has been murdered. A bill is now before the legislature of this state to prevent man-stealing.

View of Public Affairs.

Our space being nearly all occupied we must satisfy ourselves with a very brief notice on this head. The most important intelligence from

EUROPE,

Is the breaking out of war between Spain and Portugal and the prompt assistance rendered to the latter by Great Britain. We cannot do better than give the brief abstract of the event from Niles Register.

It appears that Spain has levied war against Portugal, chiefly employing the disaffected Portuguese who had fled into Spain, and that Great Britain, with astonishing promptitude, has extended her powerful arm for the defence of Portugal, as bound by treaty; and in three or four days from the first information of Spanish hostilities, had dispatched 5,000 men for Lisbon, a considerable part of which was cavalry, evidently designed for active duties in the field. These decisive proceedings appear to have met with almost universal approbation in parliament and by the people; the latter cheered the soldiers as they marched to take shipping. Indeed, it would seem to us, that England is in honor bound to defend Portugal, and "John Bull," who is always honest if left to the operations of his own feelings, is quite willing to have a quarrel with the bigot and despot of Spain.

Mr. Canning's speech on moving the order of the day on the king's message, is an uncommonly able one. He presented a historical view of the relations with Portugal-noticed the proceedings of other countries in respect to this ancient ally of England, and clearly showed that the latter was bound, by every rightful principle, to support the former in its sovereignty, disavowing any thing like a design of interfering at all in the government of the country. He expressed his firm opinion that France had not participated in the assault of Spain on Portugal; but said that if the war should extend beyond the compass of those countries, it would be a war of the "most tremendous nature." He dwelt with much pride on the "giant's strength" of England, but would "not use it like a giant," if to be avoided without the loss of reputation-but the national faith and national honor should be maintained. He was cheered repeatedly, and by all sides. Mr. Brougham deprecated war, but felt himself constrained to say, "that no alternative was left to government but the one adopted"-he warmly complimented Mr. Canning for the part that he had taken in this trying affair, and pronounced his speech to be "the best of all his best." We shall wait impatiently for further advices---accounts a month later, will probably be very important.

THE

Religious Monitor,

OR

EVANGELICAL REPOSITORY.

No. 10.

SIR,

MARCH, 1827.

Original Communications.

To the Editor of the Religious Monitor,

VOL. III.

I thank you for having given the few Remarks, which I sent you, a place in your last No. I herewith send you a few more, and I fear I shall have to trouble you again, because I have not yet been able to notice all the statements made in the Evangelical Witness, on which I wish to animadvert.-Yours, &c. A.H.

REMARKS ON STATEMENTS MADE IN THE
EVANGELICAL WITNESS.

"Nil de mortuis nisi bonum,” that is, say nothing to injure the reputation of the dead, was the favourite maxim of an ancient author. Perhaps that writer thought it was hardly fair dealing, to make any attack on the character or principles of those who had departed this life, because they had no longer an opportunity to say any thing in their own vindication. This would be something like fighting with the dead: a species of warfare in which, it is true, no great honour can be acquired; but then it has this advantage, that it may be carried on with great safety. A living ass can kick a dead lion.* Now although I do not carry my ideas of respect for the dead quite so far as this author did, yet I cordially agree to the proposed improvement of this sentiment by a modern writer, viz-"that we should say nothing but truth about the dead." I do not mean to say that we should not speak the truth about the living also, which is indeed a most incumbent duty, but that we should if possible be still more on our guard against misrepresenting the sentiments and principles that have been held by those that are dead; not only because they can say nothing in their own defence, but also from our knowledge of the fact that we shall soon be in the same state ourselves. "There is no device in the grave whither thou goest."

*Vide_Esop's Fables.

VOL. III.

38

I am sorry to think that our friend, the editor of the Evangelical Witness, seems to have lost sight of this excellent maxim when writing about those faithful ministers of Christ, who were the Fathers of the Secession Church in Scotland, and who have long since been called to their rest. In the following passage, extracted from the Evangelical Witness, there are some insinuations altogether unfounded indeed, but very injurious to the wellestablished reputation of those eminent mẹn. "When the Erskines seceded from the Scottish Establishment for a part of the errors that had induced Mr. McMillan before them to abandon the same communion, a hope was entertained by the Reformed Presbyterians, that they would accede to the good old cause. In this hope, however, they were disappointed. The Seceding ministers had large congregations, in which there were many members, and those the most wealthy, whose only or chief objection to the Established Church, was patronage. They were not willing that some opulent laird or nobleman, who was often the most ungodly man in the whole parish, should choose their minister, and force him on them by an armed soldiery, as frequently happened. This was patronage, and this they opposed; but here their opposition ended. Such men were not likely to abandon all unholy connexion with the government, and attach themselves to the Reformed Presbyterian Church. The Erskines, Moncrieff, and Fisher, who formed the Secession Presbytery, availed themselves of other corruptions of the Establishment, besides patronage, in their opposition, and in vindicating their Secession. In many of their sermons, and in a Testimony which they publisbed, they exhibited a body of sound evangelical doctrine. At first, they were in principle Covenanters; perhaps in all points; but their congregations, at least many of them were not, except in their opposition to patronage." Vol. iv. p. 505.

In remarking on this passage from the Evangelical Witness, I shall begin by acknowledging the candour of the editor, so far as it goes, in allowing to these men the credit of being at least sound in the faith. "In many of their sermons, and in a Testimony which they published, they exhibited a sound body of evangelical doctrine." This is saying much in favour both of their preaching and profession. So far as I can gather from the article from which this extract is taken, the only thing alleged against them is, that they did not attach themselves to the Reformed Presbyterian Church. This "one thing" they lacked; and nothing else is laid to their charge. Now I find no fault with the editor of the Evangelical Witness for thinking they ought to have attached themselves to the Reformed Presbyterian

Church. This, in fact, is only to think that they should have done as he himself has done. But I do complain of him for reflecting on their motives, when there is so good reason for believing them to have been perfectly disinterested and pure.

The candid reader will observe, that in the above-mentioned extract, the principles of the Erskines, Moncrieff, and Fisher, the Fathers of the Secession Church, are represented to be of that accommodating character, that they made them yield to their own convenience. It is even insinuated that they would have attached themselves to the Reformed Presbyterian Church, had they been able to carry their congregations along with them; and that regard to the wealthy members of their churches hindered them from abandoning all unholy connexion with the government. But, sir, that person must be ignorant indeed of the history of these excellent men, who does not know that they were remarkable for their firm and unyielding adherence to what they believed to be the truth of God-that few men have ever manifested more firmness of mind and consistency of conduct, and that few men have ever given more satisfactory evidence of their sincerity. Had the Fathers of the Secession Church been men of such principles as they are here represented to have been, truly it would have been a most absurd thing for them to become Seceders at all. They had nothing to induce them to become Seceders, but a sense of duty and their attachment to truth. They were men of talents, and of high standing in the church: they were highly respected in the community, and their stipends* were nearly as good as any in the country. By seceding from the national church, they knew they would suffer reproach and become objects of suspicion to the civil authorities, and that they would be expelled from their respective churches and deprived of their stipends. One would suppose that had they been men who could make their principles yield to convenience, they must have found it wonderfully convenient to remain in the Established Church, and enjoy their livings. Truly it manifests great recklessness of mind to hazard such conjectures, and it is something too late to throw out such insinuations against such men.

The Erskines are also brought into comparison with Mr. McMillan. They are said to have "seceded from the Scottish Church for a part of the errors that had induced Mr. McMillan before them to abandon the same connexion." Now Mr. McMillan did not abandon the Scottish Church, but was deposed from the ministry by the Presbytery of Kirkcudbright, to which Stipend is the technical word in Scotland, for clergymen's salary.

sentence of deposition he for some time submitted, and which was also confirmed by the General Assembly.* It was in these circumstances that he was called by the Societies, when contrary to the sentence to which he had submitted, he resumed the exercise of his ministry. The case then stands thus: Mr. McMillan accepted a call to exercise his ministry among the Societies, after he had been deposed, and was no longer permitted to exercise it in the national church. But the Erskines voluntarily renounced all connexion with that church, and absolutely refused to return into her communion, unless the Assembly would retrace their steps, and do something to vindicate the cause of truth, which they had injured. This moreover they did at the very time (in 1734) when the Assembly passed an act empowering the Synod of Perth and Stirling to restore the Seceding ministers to the communion of the church and to their respective ministerial charges. Notwithstanding all this, I will not use so much freedom as to insinuate that Mr. McMillan's principles were of such a yielding character as to lead him to accept the call from the Societies merely because he could do no better. This would be to imitate a practice of which I cannot approve. But I think the facts just mentioned, and they are facts that cannot be called in question, render such a supposition much more reasonable, than that the Erskines, Moncrieff, and Fisher, were men of such principles as they are represented to have been in the Evangelical Witness.

Among our Reformed Presbyterian brethren, it has been a favourite method of accounting for the conduct of the first Seceders, in not attaching themselves to Mr. McMillan and the Societies, (for there was then no Reformed Presbytery,f) by representing them as afraid of giving offence to the civil authorities, and perhaps of exposing themselves to persecution. Thus, in Reformed Principles Exhibited, it is asserted, that "The Seceders knew, from the history of the suffering Covenanters, that it was less dangerous to their worldly ease and comfort to despise the censures and disown the authority of the church, than to dissent from the civil constitution, by condemning its principles and disowning its magistracy." Part I. p. 112. Now who, on read* Vide Act against schism and disorders, and anent Mr. John McMillan and Mr. John Hepburn, dated Edinburgh, 30th March, 1704.

+ In the above article taken from the Evangelical Witness, Mr. McMillan and the Society people are called Reformed Presbyterians, by way of anticipation otherwise there is a slight anachronism; for the Reformed Presbytery did not exist for many years after the Secession took place. The Reformed Presbytery was constituted by Mr. McMillan, who had been minister of Balmaghie, and Mr. Thomas Nairn, who left the Secession Church about the year 1743.