malic application for admission (o their bodies, not. cx neptinj: ministers coming from other Presbyteries, is null and void.” {Minutes of 1838.) The case stands thus —that in 1801, the right for satisfaction of Presbytery was affirmed. In 1825 this was reaffirmed. In 1834 there was a resolution which seems to take the opposite ground. This is neutraliz ed by later action. But our Assembly in 1838 didn’t touch anything but the imperative part of the rule and didn’t interfere with the inherent right. This Dr. Stearns called “ the New School law,” and therefore held that the Joint Committee affirmed neither more nor less than the New School position. He spoke moreover of the doctrinal article, and mentioned the fact of the 4th article cutting off ob noxious precedents. It had been objected that the re used doctrinal basis is not so good as the one before, but this he did not concede. He bore testimony to the fact that Dr. Patterson had labored faithfully and sin cerely to accomplish this union. He was finally disap pointed, greatly, grevously, painfully, when that mem ber of the Committee dissented. He had written to Dr. Patterson almost on the .very minute he got to his Btudy, telling him how rejoiced he was over the basis and now he felt badly in that he was disappointed. This present basis presented points of advance over last year: ,(l.j By including the Scriptures directly. He had once taken the liberty (“one too great for very young men ” as an old Elder said,) to take his stand on this Scripture basis. On the statement of that rule of faith and practice he had voted to acquit Albert Barnes. ; It was the wisdom of liberal Presby terians to look well to this point. Therefore he was glad to include this and he should have voted against it, if it had not been there. (2.) As to the Confession of Faiths 'VVe had advanced much in the last year. The Philadelphia Convention prepared a doctrinal ba sis. One article of the basis is known as the Smith amendment. Public opinion had preceded it, for our , men went for it instantly there and it was our own amendment. He spoke of the sub-committee and its complications and how they had for our side determined to have that amendment in any new basis. Our men were ready to propose to the Old School: fl.j The basis of last year pure and simple, or [2.] the old basis with the Smith amendment, or [3.] the Philadelphia basis with that clause inserted. At first it was feared that this was stioking for too much, but the Committee finally sustained the sub-committee. The temper of the other side became somewhat differ ent and Dr. Gurley said that if they had known what we wanted it could have been easily settled. He then proposed in substance the amendment bearing his name In a private session the two sub-committees arranged it—in order to obviate all objections. He himself pro posed the insertion of the word “freely.” In all this there was no design of doing other than what Bhonld grant to the New School the largest liberty. Dr. Stearns then read the article and commented on the whole of the doctrinal basis, expressing his opinion that it was sincere and entirely satisfactory. _ One of the committee who dissented last year criticised it carefully but at length all 26 voted for, it. Dr. Fowler bad led.prayer in .the general thanksgiving afterwards and there was a sobbing among those strong men over the happiness of the result. He did not think such men and at such a time could be hypocritical. The Providence of God made this basis. (8.) The third point of satisfaction is the Smith amendment. (4.) The fourth is the liberty of freely “view ing, stating, illustrating, and explaining” the Con fession of Faith. With this in the constitution of the Church, Albert Barnes would never have been tried. Each word waß significant —we may preach as we see fit and no one can call us to account. (5.) The fifth point of satisfaction was that of the views .being allowed as in the separate bodies. (6.) The tenth article wouldn’t be enforced except in extreme cases. He hoped no dissent would be registered. He would like to see the basis adopted without a break. It had been said “there is no harm in delay"—-but here he thought there was. It plays into the hands of the enemy. He longed to see this union. We should then have no difficulty about Old School and New School. What a grand chance to put the right men for once into the right place. What a grand front we should present, to the enemy of our souls. Dr. Patferson said he had hoped it would notjbe necessary to. say more then to register his mere dissent during the vote. Yet he was, obliged to have some reference to the first article, This and,the 10th were so intimately connected that he could vote for one Without the other, but not for both together. Why ■ should we go over the ground again and again? But he must say what he felt, might not be so well said hereafter. If the 10th ‘ article affirmed, what He could see was the truth, lie could vote for it—but it did not. He proposed then the inquiry, why was this'article inserted and we compelled to adhere to it? Why settle here what is settled by Church precedents? There must be a peculiar reason. The design must be to affirm a principle for practical use on questions between the two schools., Otherwise it seems impossible,to account for it’. The practical use is this—ato’d it 1 is the only satisfactory solution—“not for the ex treme cases so much as for employment in scrutin izing ftew School men’s opinions.” He claimed the right to produce from a member of the. Q. S. por tion of the Joint Committee a statement on this point. Dr. H. B. Smith here raised the point whether this was allowable. The Moderator asked for the name, which Dr. Baiterson reftised. The Moderator eaid he wouldn’t rule it out of order but he held it out of courtesy. This was he considered a “joint committee,” and as such any man in it on the 0. S. was liable tp suspicion after this statement should hare been read. Dr. Patterson then gave the substance of this statement, and in that connection said the names of three former Mdderators of this body [Barnes, Beman, andDuffield? —Reporter] were used as those whose views were to be especially investigated. Dr. Patterson went on to argue that a large part of the Presbyteries would be overwhelmingly O. S., and the result would be disastrous if this principle were allowed. Towards Mason and Dixon’s line this would most frequently be the case. He showed that tlita article makes O. S. the current and N. S. the spurious coin. The true N. 8. men here in this As sembly were the only ones who have donbt about the tenth article, as he perceived. Those whose views assimilated to tJieO. S., he perceived, were not concerned. This tenth article would Jose us any how, good men whose individual cases he knew. Those who refused to submit to examination would not appeal up when the right was conceded. It will throw out men of distinctively Njew . School views, and keep out men from New England, &c., and so the balance of the Church would be changed. We shall in time become very much like what the 0. S. body is to-day. There is no protection where the spirit which dictates this 10th article is abroad.' This seemed to him a just view of the result which would come. It would revive and kindle, info'’flame the old controversies. He should have no- fears if this did not reveal.snspicion of us—but how he did not feel it unchristian to be anxious especially when our brethren so defined the purpose of the article. He then proceeded to state that a Presbytery can examine into rumors and remand an applicant back. This has always been provided,and und is in the Constitu tion. This is nbt,the7quest>9 B - ,Nor is the ques tion about ope openjy ’ or unworthy. There is a case on record, where a lettey was given to one such, and in suoh a case issue can be taken with the Presbytery which, gives the letter. It must be Presbytery against Presbyteryappealed to Synod and not Preßbvtery against thempn who applies. But the question is, can, there be an examiuation of a man who has no charge against him?> Now the Remand is of the broadest kind, even,as interpreted in their Church. It covers everything and goes through everything. t. =. - ' The hour for adjournment having arrived, Dr. ifylterson said that he would give way with the un THE AMEBICAN PRESBYTERIAN, THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1868. derstanding that at the next session he should have the floor. This was granted and he took his seat. Where upon Dr. Fisher moved that Dr. Adams be allowed five minutes to explain his views as to the purpose of the 10th article. Passed. Dr. Adams said he should never cease to regret that brother Patterson hadn’t stayed until the close of the late meetings of the Joint Committee— but he himself didn’t think he would have pre ferred as Dr. Patterson did ‘Jerusalem above his chief joy.’ He did not blame liis brother’s wish to get home after his long absence. The spirit of the meeting was what he looked at, and in that spi rit lie could not consider that there was any pur pose of the character feared. Could any man who feared to have his name made known be the right exponent of the purpose designed ? Dr. Adams said he was a New England man. Thisreport was the child of providence. . Two years ago he had had no zeal on the subject. He had pitched his first tent like Isaac's herdsmen at Esek, that is “ con tention,” and his next was at Sitnah, that is “ ha tred,” and now the third was at Rehoboth for the Lord had made us “room” in the land. But of late there had been no doubt or difficulty in this matter. We can’t go back thirty years. We can’t turn back the current. Dr. Beatty, from Albany, writes to him, “ Oh that we could have confidence in each other.” This we must reach if we would ever make much advance. Dr. Adams called at tention to the exegetical report added by 0. S. as well as N. S. His honest conviction was that the vast majority of both Assemblies were going to advance together. We were before the world. There is no divided interest, and if we can’t, have a flexible administration of Presbyterianism he wouldn’t go into this thing at all. He should be ashamed to go back to his own church in N. Y., which had last year given $15,000 to Home Mis sions and Church Erection, —and say they were de feated. Why can’t we act with magnanimity. He was troubled about this parvanimity. Paul’s thorn in the flesh was not in his foot or his eye It was in the contact with, mean, low, small-minded men who crossed his purposes, and who went nosing around aftertestimony. He hoped wcshoulddo better. Dr. Adams sat down amid intense sensation of the mcSSaraßed character. DrMfßKmon at once rose and protested calmly againstthe personal allusions in the last part of the gentleman’s speech. (Applause.) Dr. Adams disclaimed all such allusions—saying he would sooner take off his right hand and have his tongue cleave to the roof, of his mouth, before he would say, anything to wound the feelings of his dear brother Patterson. He had alluded wholly to the spirit of the public Press. [Dr. Adams afterwards disclaimed any intention to allude to the press of our denomination.] Dr. Nelson was glad to hear him say so. In his part of the house the allusion had certainly been regarded as offensive. Hon. Wm. E. Dodge moved that we go in at once and settle this whole matter by a vote. Dev. Geo. Dujfield, Jr., with great earnestness and determination opposed such hasty action. Rev. W. W. Maeomber moved to make this subject the business of an evening session. Dr, Butler hoped not. The clerks and assembly and all were exhausted and excited. Mr. Maeomber did not withdraw the motion. Dr. Nelson rose to a point of order, a member had the floor. He had yielded. There were no objections. The courtesy of addressing the house was extended to Dr. Adams, Had we the right to take the vote while Dr. Patterson’s position was what it was? The Moderator once more was no little confused about parliamentary law. And amid a storm of motions and counter-motions, of substitutes and amendments,. JDr. Butler gave in his judgment that no motion, was in order. Which prevailed. Adjourned. THURSDAY, MAY 28. 9?hjs day -tbe Aeßetnbly apent at.Gettyahurgh. FRIDAY MORNING MAY 29. Rev. George Duffield, Jr., led the usual morning hour’s devotional exercises. The Moderator called the Assembly to order for business at half-past nine o’clock. He prayed that the proceedings might be characterized by that Chris tian courtesy which the solemnity of the occasion demanded. The credentials of Rev. G.F. Stelling, Correspond ing delegate from the Lutheran General Synod, were presented, and it was ordered that he be heard on Saturday morning. Debate on Re-union. The question thea recurred on the re-union re port. ■ Rev. Dr. Hickok, chairman iof the special com-, mittee, re-announced that the committee had, not deemed it consistent with honor to recommend a separate vote on the tenth article of the basis of union, as desired. Dr. It. W. Patterson , having had the floor at the hour of adjournment on Wednesday evening, took a position near the platform, and said: As I have found it difficult to express with clearness the thoughts which I have had in my mind, I have committed to writing a considerable portion of what I have to say this morning. But before proceeding to make my speech I wish to make a few sugges tions as briefly aB possible. It is apprehended in the minds of some of the brethren that some of us have hesitated,in this matter because we were in fluenced by aversion to some of our Old School brethren, perhaps from personal contact with some of them. I wish to; say, in reference to this, that my with my Old School brethren has beeaßmihe most kindly character. I should as any member in this Assembly to urehes re-united to-day,'and I am for a union when I see that the two bmjSSre sufficiently internally one to promise the internal relations of the-Church. I wish to say one word in regard to my position, as to my being in the minority. I was aware long ago that in this thing I should be in the minority. I bad contented myself with a determination not to say anything on this question, but to remain silent. It is hardly conceivable that there should be entire unanimity, and .1 have learned, sir, from my expe rience, that it is not well to submit our own judg ments and convictions to the judgments and con victions of our brethren, however great may be our confidence in,them; that it is often well for a mi nority, even a small minority to express their con victions in an Assembly. I remember, on one oc casion standing up with only one other brother against a nearly universal conviction, in a Conven tion, the object of which was to draw off our entire Church in the section where my lot was then cast from connection with the General Assembly. I stood alone in protesting against the division, and was sustained by only one other vote in this posi tion. Before the vote was taken a good brother was called upon to pray, and his prayer had a direct personal application. Nevertheless I did what I thought was my duty, and I think that there is no one preseut here who will not say that I did right in the premises. lam aware that we labor at a great disadvantage in this discussion. There is an immense social pressure brought to bear upon us. I have felt like abstaining altogether from express ing my views and to allow the matter to be carried by the pressure of circumstq.nces and feeling on .the occasion. But I beg gentlemen to hear me with patience, because 1 know the, pressure that is brought to bear upon them. It is impossible for a minority, obliged to cover a great deal of ground, and to meet every thing that may beisaid on the other side in some measure of condensation, to bring out clearly to those who differ from us that which we desire to say. I am aware that with my own habits of mind I shall be unable to bring my thoughts clearly before you. I ought to add that the state of my health is such that I cannot command my thoughts to-day as I should like to do. Mr. Moderator:—ln resuming my remarks, this morning, I beg to return my sincere thanks to my brethren of the Assembly, who, on Wednesday, P. M., refused to sacrifice my rights by yielding to a demand for final action on the question before us in defiance of all rule and order. I desire also to correct an erroneous impression. Had I read the extract from the letter to which I referred, I should not have failed, as I seem to have done, to make it plain that the esteemed brother, from whose state ment I meant to quote, did not intend to speak so much of the committee of which lie was a member, as of his Church at large, in giving the reasons why the demand was made that the right of examination should be conceded in the terms of re-union. The words are as follows: “In my opinion, one reason wky the right of each Presbytfcry to examine all ap plicants for entrance is demanded by so many of our Presbyteries, is that they may , exercise this right, should occasion require, to guard against the reception of ministers holding the views referred to as exceptionable in my first answer to your former enquiries, as well as against'every other error they may deem inconsistent with ‘ the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.’” There is in this ho. reflection on the committee on'either side. It is simply the judgment of a well-informed, competent witness in regard to a matterjof faiet. I would say further, in this connection,' that so far as I am aware, no man has,impugned the sincerity, or honor, or good faith, of eitlier branch of the joint committee. But I have said, and do say, that by some means, there has been a different understanding, on the two sides, in respect to the idiport on the-first and second articles in the Plan, and that of tl)is I have positive proof. ' 1 pass now directly to the question which I was discussing at tiie hour of adjournment on Wednes day evening. , : I. Let me repeat my definition of, the ’question touching the right of examination: (-l.)-I saidflrat, that it is not the question whether a Presbytery may inquire into rumors respecting the character and conductor an applicant, which have arisen since his credentials were given, and may remand hitn back to liis Presbytery, if they learn that there is probable cause for trial. Such inquiry and action are provided for in our Book of Discipline, Chap. 11. Sec, 1. (2.) Nor is it the question, whether a minis ter who was notoriously unworthy,before his dis missal, may be refused until the case can be disposed of by remonstrating with the Presbytery that has given the letter, or by complaint against the Presbytery to a superior judicatory. Thisulso may be conceded. (3) But the question is this: Is it true, as a general principle, that a Presbytery has a right to require an applicant bearing regular testimonials from a sister Presbytery, and against whom no specific charges are alleged, to submit to an examination touching his ministerial standing and qualifications, as a condition of his being ad; mitted, on his credentials? In other, words, has a Presbytery a right, on mere suspicion, to .call in question, the sufficiency of a certificate given by another Presbytery in the same ecclesiastical con nection, and on that ground, to reject the bearer of Buch certificate, unless he consents to submit to any scrutiny that distrust or party jealousy may dictate? It is obvious that “the right of examination,” al luded to in the tenth article, covers the same ground that is covered by the actual exercise of this alleged right as it is maintained and practiced in the. Old •School Church, and that covers all,that pertains,to ministerial standing and qualifications, as appears from the imperative rule of 1837. (Bee Digest, p. 116, rule 12.) 11. I say that this alleged right, not only rests on sheer assumption, but stands opposed to the spirit .and letter of the constitution, arid to all the prin ciples, decisions arid precedents fairly appKcable ,in, relation to the question. (1.) It lias no siipport’in the general principles of any organization, civil or ecclesiastical, that resembles our Church’ in point of organic unity. It is a doctrine' of State rights and independency. It can have no proper place in a system of confederated government, and co-ordi nate courts, where the duties and prerogatives of each branch ofthe govern men tare specially defined by u written constitution. State Legislatures are uhlike our Presbyteries from the fact that their members as such, can have no official standing in any other like bodies.. Tiie principles of Congrega tionalism, dr. independency, admit the right of ex amining ministers in, reference to their settlement over particular churches, because there is no sys tem of co-ordinate courts provided for either in the ruling idea, or ofthe practice of Congregationalism, as there is in Presbyterianism. (2.) Th# Alleged right of examination contradicts the best established, principles of oiir system. It is said that our system, like ail others, includes the inherent right of self protection ; and that therefore the Presbyteries have a right to receive or exclude applicants, ac cording to their best discretion. I answer that any inherentrights which-Presbyteries 'way_have, are. subject to the limits of the Constitution and the re quirements of our organic unity; just as the inher ent rights of States in our civil system are limited by the Constitution and Laws of the United States. Unquestionably, each Presbytery is charged with the duty of protecting itself and the whole Church Against unworthy ministers, tiy exercising its best judgment, according to the Constitution in relation to the reception of ministers from without. But the Constitution defines all the necessary methods of protecting the Presbyteries and the Church from unworthy ministers who are already within.,, And that protection is to be found alone in the ample provisions that are .made for the exercise' of all needful discipline by regular judicial forms. There can be.no necessity for any protection against our own ministry that cannot be reached in one or another of the following ways : [i.] By sending a. minister back to the Presbytery that gave liis cre dentials, in case he has afforded probable grbdnd for accusation since his letter was given ; or [2,] by remonstrating.with his Presbytery, or even com plaining to the. Bynod, in. case a letter has been given to a notoriously unworthy member; or [4,] by the control which each Presbytery has over its own members after they "have been received; or [s,] by the due supervision of the superior judicatories. These provisions for the protection of particular Presbyteries or of the whole church are all that Presbyterianism was ever supposed to need; until our Old School brethren wished to fence out the New School men from their Presbyteries, during the controversies that rent the Church in twain. It is said that in our widely extended country, Pres byteries cannot know all the applicants from dif ferent and distant sections, e. g. from California or Oregon. But they kno w the standing of the Pres byteries by whom credentials are given, and that is enough. If we cannot trust our Presbyteries'on the Pacific coast, or elsewhere, with , the other . safe guards which pur system provides, we had better acknowledge Presbyterianism a failure. The Meth odist Church is far more extended than ours. But no minister in,that Church is ever re-examined, if he brings proper testimonials. Protection against occasional inconveniences is impossible under any system of general law. There will and must be some, cases of annoyance. Thus sometimes trouble some men apply to a Presbytery, against whom there is no offence alleged. It might be convenient to reject such without any legal ground. But will it do to act upon such a principle? Besides; in nine cases out often such men would pass an ex amination as well as others. Why not throw out all the troublesome men already in each Presby tery without, trial? They must be somewhere in the Church until they are regularly divested of their office. Similar remarks may be made respecting ministers who have turned aside to secular callings and Still act in the Presbyteries. They must be somewhere until the Church shall provide some mode by which they can honorably return to the relation of private members, and the principle of examination would not, in general, guard against the evil. But let ns look for a moment directly at the general principles of our system: (1. One prin ciple is this: That each Presbytery is the agent of the whole Church within constitutional limits, for its own district; just as the agents of the United States act for the whole country within their res pective districts; and therefore the Church is bound to recognize as valid what each Presbytery does, unless its acts are set aside by superior authority, just as the decisions of all our district courts are valid for all the purposes for which they are ren dered. (2.) Another principle is, that every min ister in the Church is a minister for the whole Church, and not merely for a' single Presbytery. (3.) No minister can be divested of his office with out due process of discipline. (4.) No action can be properly taken that shall indirectly have the effect of discipline upon a minister, or operate to abridge as a minister of the whole Church, still in good standing. (5.) If the ana ministers are to be authority of co-ordinate and under the general system, they are entitled to a corresponding recognition of rights and privileges, so long as they are guilty of no tangible offence. Now the principle of examina tion runs athwart all these principles, as might be easily shown. Each Presbytery is bound to recog nize the act of its sister Presbytery as much in re-; latio.n to a judgment upon the good standing of one of its members, as in relation to the deposition of its members. If a Presbytery has a right to give a letter, it is the duty, of the Presbytery to whom the letter is addressed, to receive it, unless some offenqe is believed,to have been committed since the letter was given ; and it certainly involves an abridgment .a. minister's liberty in the whole Church, %nd practically degrades him . without a constitutional trial io exclude him from the territory of aJU&|jv tery, jyithin whose bounds he may wish tSHHffit, pn the ground that that Presbytery of his qualifications from the he has formerly belonged. No tering the ministry under such a know .that he will not be practically deposed with out trial,.so, far as many portions of the . territory covered by the one Church is concerned; and if there he suspicions andi, jealousies abroad, the pos sibility.of this’degradation for whole districts, may become a probabilityjif not a certainty. And if a man is thus practically degraded by a Presbytery, and returns to the Presbytery from which he came, he is still subject, through the Synod or the Gen eral Assembly, to the control of the Presbytery that has rejected him without constitutional trial. Thus the proper balance between his amenability and his privilege is destroyed. This principle grafted upon our system, is certainly a piece of Congregational cloth sewed upon the old garment of Presbyterian ism ; and the new agreetli not with the.oid. In Con gregationalism pure, if a minister is examined for on,e parish, and rejected, he may call another council and be installed in the same or a, neighboring parish. . But the principle in Presbyterianism abridges the minister's liberty without abridging, in any degree, his responsibility, and he must re cover his lost rights by a process most injurious ty his reputation, or else submit to the wrong. This is inevitable, unless the right is treated practically as a. nullity, precisely in those circumstances, that .are most unfavorable to just and impartial action, viz.: when jealousies, and suspicion, and prejudice, are abroad in the Church. This we know by sad experience.. I know it is said that the Presbyteries are the sources of power in the Church. This, like the doctrine of independent State , sovereignty, is a fallacy. The Presbyteries,, like ‘ the States, are neither the sources nor streams of power; they are just what .the constitution terms them, as co-or dinate, and mutually dependent bodies. And as no State has aright to deny citizenship to a citizen of a neighboring State, as some of the Southern States used to do .in practice, so no Presbytery has a right to deny a home within its territory, to any duly accredited minister in our Church. I might say much more in this connection, but I pass to the provision of the constitution itself, bearing directly on this subject. And here my first remark is, that in, all the attempts to de tend the alleged right of examination, I have never seen nor heard of any direct appeal to the Consti tution. Why not? Appeals are made to everything else. (The Constitution was ratified in 1821, and amended 1826, 1833.) Now look at the provisions of the Constitution, for one moment, and you will see why no such appeal is made. First. As to Licentiates—Form of Government —chap. 14: sees. 9, 10, p. 382,3 [These. sections refer to. the transfer of candidates and licentiates, at different stages of, or after, their trials, and contain provisions for their reception into another Presbytery “on proper testimonials,” simply, from the Presbytery to which they had be fore belonged.] Second. Translation of a minister—Form of Government —chap. 16: sec. 3, p. 391. “The Pres bytery, to which the. congregation belongs, having received an authenticated certificate of his release under the band of the Clerk of that Presbytery shall proceed to instal him,” &c. No word of examina tion here. Third. As to Jurisdietionand Letters —Discipline —chap. 10: sec. 2, p. 424. “ A minufgHa always to be considered as remaining tion of the Presbytery which until he actually becomes a member This is all that bears on the subject tion and no right of examination here. We now turn to decisions of the GeneH^^sembly. [The speaker made the following references: (1.) Case of Key. Geo. Duffield, 1772, Digest, p. 113; (2. Rule in respect to foreign minister, Digest, p. 119; (3.) Case of Mr. Birch, a foreign minister.] , In regard to this third case he remarked: (a.] The principle had been affirmed only the year'before, that even a foreign minister haying been accepted by one Presbytery in part, and still on probation, was to be received to the same standing in another Pres bytery on his credentials. Did'the Assembly of the next year mean to contradict the principle declared in the very rules under which they were acting ? Cer tainly not. (b.) What shall we say then ? The language in this case is to he limited by the nature and re quirements of the ease in hand. Mr. Birch did not bring credentials from a co-ordinate Presbytery. ;He was, therefore, to be ; received into the church for the first time, and no previous judgment had been ren dered upon his qualifications by our Church. Hence the Assembly said, with such cases in their eye, that there is a, discretionary power necessarily lodged in every Presbytery to judge of the qualifications of those whom they receive, ( i. e. into the ministry of the Church and not merely of the Presbytery,) espe peeially with respect to experimental religion. The Assembly had no occasion to declare a' principle broader than the case required; and with the old Presbyterian doctrine in their minds that every min ister received from without: becomes ipso facto a min ister of the whole Church, it did not occur to them to guard their language against the misconstruction of some straitened advocate of an opposite doctrine who might interpret,, their words without proper re gard to their connection and circumstances, after the lapse of sixty or seventy years. The idea of .exam ining'a man who should, bring regular testimonials from a co-ordmato Presbytery, especially in respect o expeiimental religion, never entered their min *' e ,j 3 remarkable that neither this case, nor a y o the peculiar cases cited in this discussion, to sustain the right of examination were noticed by the protestors who, in the Assembly of 1834, so w! tl,Ti ended for the ri g h t in question. Thev knew that those cases were not in point, and that the language used respecting them w£ to be construed by its connection. rect'i^ e h°Jrf r -^ e K 8 7 a < " on S re gational minister received by the Presbytery of Geneva. (Digest, p. 112, No. 4, minutes 687.) The decision in this caL was strong against the principle -not even the Synod could call m question the man’s standing once estab lished. It was ‘ valid and final.” Could a neighbor ing Presbytery then go back of the record when the oynod could not do so? 5. for the alteration of the book; in 1821 P . was d° ne to secure a change so as to establish the right of examination, and the overture was refused in the light of principles previously coti- *?• uext case is that of an extinct Presbytery. (Digest, p. 114-18.) In this case the applicant had a certificate from an extinct Presbytery, " Dut was sup posed to be chargeable, with gome offence subsequent ly to the date of the certificate.” The certificate did not, therefore, cover the whole case; had there been no offence charged, no question would have been raised; but there being such a charge, and there being no living Presbytery to whom the applicant could be remanded; the question was, must the Presbytery .receive him, being charged with miscon duct after his letter was given? The Assembly an swered: (l.).,That it would ordinarily be proper, on general grounds; that such an applicant should be received and tried afterwards for his offence. (2.) They recognized, however, the principle that every Presbytery has,the privilege of “judging of the char acter and situation of those who apply to he admit ted into their own body, and unless they are satis fied, to decline receiving the same." And therefore that the Presbytery might, and in cei^^HjJcumstances would, be bound to reject such in which case he was to apply for relief to his(Jßod. But here, as in the case of Mr. Birch, .the language used is to be construed in the light of well established principles and of the case in ques tion. It ws® a principle that had been received and acted upon by Presbyteries from the days of John Knox onward, that a certificate of good standing was to be regarded as satisfactory legal evidence of the good standing and character of a minister—at least up to the time when the certificate was given. Now while it is certainly true that a Presbytery has the privilege of judging of the character and situation of an applicant, that judgment must be conformed to the rules of legal evidence; and according to those rules, the certificate, if in proper form, is valid evi dence, with which the Presbytery is bound to be sat isfied for ecclesiastical purposes, in relation to the character of the applicant for the time covered by the certificate. But if there are otheracts laterthan the certificate, the Presbytery may exercise in rela tion to such facts its independent judgment; and if taking the whole ease, together, and the Presbytery is not satisfied, it may decline receiving the appli cant. On this ground the Assembly decided that when any minister dismissed in good standing, by an extinct Presbytery is charged with an offence sub sequently to the date of bis dismission, the Presby tery may, if they see cause, decline receiving him, which plainly implies that the certificate is legal evi dence as far as it goes, although in the case in ques tion it does not cover tiie whole ground. All that is proved by this case and what is said respecting it, is simply this: That the Presbytery is the proper judge whether the certificate is in due form and should thereon be treated as legal evidence as far as it goes, and also, .in respect to the importance of the subsequent facts. that may cloud the reputation of the applicant. And this is what we all believe and hold. 7. We come now to the declaration of the Assem bly of 1834, a majority of whose members were New School. This declaration was pointedly against the right of examination, which the Old Sohool memori alists desired to have the Assembly affirm. (Digest, p. 116—10.) 8. Next we find the Assembly of 1835, declaring in favor of the alleged right of examination. Apd it will be borne in mind that the majority of this Assembly of 3835 was strongly Old School. (Digest, p. 116—11.) This then was simply an Old School declaration, as that of the previous year was New School. 9. In 1837, the Old School majority went still further, and not only affirmed the right of examination, but required every Presbytery to exer cise it. (Dig. p. 116,12,10.)' ”ln 1838, after the di vision, our Assembly, regarding it as unseemly to leave unnoticed a.positive rule requiring examina tion, although they deem it in itself of no binding force, declared it null and. void, on the ground that it is the inherent right of Presbyteries to expound and apply constitutional rules touching the qualifi cation of. their own members. This we all believe. The Assembly has certainly no right to trammel the Presbyteries on such a subject by an unconstitutional requirement. But it is said that the Assembly of 1838, while declaring the imperative rule null and void, did not repeal the action of 1835, and therefore the action which affirmed the right of examination, is still the law of our Church. But it is obvious that that action was only a declaration and required no thing of'the kind, and our Assembly did not deem it necessary to repeal in form every offensive declara tion that had been made by Old School majorities in previous Assemblies. The truth is, both parties felt for several years before the division that they were really two,churches in,one organization; hence, when they were separated, they treated the declarations of each other, as of course, belonging only to the other party. But it should be particularly considered that the de clarations both of the New School majority in 1834, and of the Old School majority in 1835, were by no means separate and ordinary decisions which should be regarded as having the force of binding laws. They were simply parts of long answers to memori als on various topics. And accordingly Dr. Baird, in his Digest, does not,put them down among the ordi nary decisions and precedents of the Church on thi3 subject. Among the resolutions of 1835, and adopt ed in the same paper with the resolution touching the right of examination, is one declaring it to be the •first standing duty of the Presbyterian Church to sustain her boards of mission and education in con tradistinction'to voluntary societies. And there was another resolution declaring that certain opinions prevailing in the Church (meaning the New School theology,) were condemned “as not distinguishable from Pelagian or Arminian errors.” But none of those, resolutions were ever formally rescinded'by our Assembly. . Has our honored presiding officer (Dr. Stearns) come seriously to the conclusion that policy of ecclesiastical boards has always been the policy of the New School Church! and that the New School theology has always been condemned by our Church as not distinguishable from Pelagianism ? As well might he conclude that the first resolution in the series which pertains to the right of examination, is the recognized law of our Church on the subject! Why, the act of' 1837 repealing the plan of union was not expressly declared null, by our Assembly until tbe year 1852, in which that act was denounced by an. able committee of the Synod of New York and. New Jersey,,including several honored members of this Assembly, as “ a rash and arbitrary act, subver sive of the very foundation of sound morals and highly injurious to the cause of evangelical religion. But we are to believe that we recognized that act as= our own for some fifteen years after it was perpetra ted? Still again, in the Assembly o f 1837, alter the • famous paper of the New School protestors was. brought in which contained the doctrinal statements that constituted the celebrated Auburn declaration, [cosrxjfirED ox the outside pages.]
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers