in connexion with their heretical publications, is, in our best judgment, to throw a shield over both. For if the public is not pointed to a particular book or pamphlet, it will often not be known what publication is intended, and its very existence may be denied; and if the publication be distinctly referred to, and it bears the name of the author in the title page, (which was the case in all the instances referred to in the memorial) then those who simply make this reference, fall under the heavy denunciation of this resolution. We profess to admire the provisions of the constitution which this resolution eulogises, as much as they do who framed and sanctioned it; and we protest against the resolution itself, because its tendency is to render difficult, and in some cases absolutely impracticable, the duty which the constitution enjoins; and thus may prove, as we have said, a shield, both to the heretic and to his work.

5. We do earnestly and solemnly protest against the seventh resolution, in which it is asserted, "that ministers dismissed in good standing by sister Presbyteries, should be received by the Presbyteries which they are dismissed to join, upon the credit of their constitutional testimonials, unless they shall have forfeited their good standing, subsequently to their dismissal." This resolution is in conflict with the right of a Presbytery to judge of the qualifications of its own members, which we verily believe has never before been authoritatively attacked and impaired, from the time of the meeting of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, in which it was recognised, till the meeting of the present General Assembly. It is indeed in conflict with the acknowledged right inherent in the members of every society, civil as well as ecclesiastical, to judge of the qualifications of those with whom they shall be associated. But it not only contravenes a right, it also exposes the entire church to the most serious evils. It puts it in the power of a few corrupt Presbyteries, to corrupt the whole church, by throwing their members into sound Presbyteries, one after another, till they become dominant in all. We view it as a virtual relinquishment and denial of one of the essential principles of all presbyterial order and government, and as such, we most solemnly protest against it. We do and must maintain, that every Presbytery has an inherent and indefeasible right, to determine whether it will receive into its bosom any and every member who applies for such reception. Circumstances may render it unnecessary to call this right into exercise in certain instances, but the right always exists, and circumstances may require its exercise, at least for a time, in every instance in which application is made for admission to a Presbytery. The denial of this right, we repeat and insist, is the denial of a fundamental principle of Presbyterianism.

6. We protest against the eighth resolution, because, in our judgment, it not only establishes a principle erroneous in itself, but does in fact, the very thing which it imputes to the memorialists-it casts censure on a former General Assembly for examining and condemning a heretical book, before the author was tried and condemned by his Presbytery. We here refer to the case of W. C. Davis. It is our firm belief, that it is often an imperious duty incumbent on the judicatories of the church, to examine erroneous opinions in thesi; and, having carefully compared them with the standards of the church and the word of God, to condemn them in the abstract;—and then, if it be thought expedient, and be found practicable, (which it may not always be,) to subject those who have promulged these opinions, to the proper discipline. To invert this order, is, in our firm conviction, to render discipline, in many cases difficult, and in some impracticable, and thus to prove a protection to those who are unsound in the faith. We might specify some additional points in the resolutions against which we protest; but those to which we have adverted, we regard as the most objectionable. Still we feel ourselves constrained to add, that the doings of the General Assembly in regard to a memorial adopted by eleven Presbyteries, or parts of Presbyteries, as well as by several sessions, and numerous individuals-a support greater than any other memorial has received that has ever been presented to a General Assembly in this country-is calculated deeply to grieve and wound the feelings of a large part, and we must think not an unsound or undeserving part, of the Presbyterian church. Their pious, and, as we think, their just and reasonable expectations of some redress from the General Assembly, will be utterly and hopelessly disappointed.

We do, therefore, by offering this protest, most solemnly and earnestly beseech the Assembly to pause-to consider the probable consequences of their action on this memorial, and yet to retrace their steps; lest the adherents to the standards of our church in their plain and obvious meaning, should find themselves constrained, however reluctantly, to resort to first principles, and to make their final appeal to the Great Head of the Church.

Ashbel Green, Robert Love, Carver Hotchkiss, George Morris, A. Bayless, W. L. Breckinridge, Samuel Boyd, E. H. Snowden, Charles Davis, David M'Kinney, Simeon H. Crane, C. Beers, Charles Woodward, Isaac V. Brown, I. N. Candee, Benjamin F. Spilman, Jacob Coon, James W. M'Kennan, James Magraw, D. R. Preston, George Marshall, James Agnew, W. A. G. Poesy, James Scott, Alexander M'Farlane, Edward

Vanhorn, S. M'Farren, James M'Farren, William Craig, William M'Coombs, James Blake, James Remington, William Sickles, Jacob Green, Loyal Young, Wm. Wylie, James C. Watson.

Mr. White, Mr. B. King, Mr. Grover, and Mr. Leach, were appointed a committee to answer the Protest.

ANSWER TO THE PROTEST.

The committee appointed to answer the Protest against the proceedings of the General Assembly, on the "Memorial complaining of sundry grievances abroad in the church," made the following report, which was adopted, viz.

That after due consideration of the whole subject, and believing the Protest to be founded on assumptions which were fully refuted and proved untenable, in the course of a long and thorough discussion of the several resolutions adopted, they deem it inexpedient for the Assembly to assign any further reasons for the course pursued, in relation to the above memorial.*

Our readers have now before them a connected view of the proceedings of the General Assembly relative to the "Memorial," together with the Protest, and the answer it received. We have thought it most fair not to distract the reader's attention by interspersing our comments with the several steps of procedure, but to reserve them till the whole case should be exhibited as it stands on the records-We now proceed with our remarks.

We think no candid and competent judge, who attentively reads the memorial in connexion with the manner in which it was disposed of by the Assembly, can fail to adopt the opinion, that, from first to last, there was a studious endeavour to treat it with indignity-to treat it as a paper to which, indeed, some formal attention was required by the rules of the house, but which was to be marked with peculiar disapprobation, if not with scorn, at every stage of the proceedings had upon it as an address, in a word, which should receive such a reception as would make its signers sensible that their remonstrances and requests excited no other feeling in the Assembly than that of determined, if not contemptuous disregard. Such, it seems to us, must be the result of an attentive reading of the documents; but the conclusion thus formed, would have been strongly confirmed, if the reader could have heard and seen all that passed in the Assembly, while acting on the memorial. It was the tone of the treatment it received, as well as the final decision on its contents, that deeply grieved and mortified its friends, and convinced them effectually, that it was not from simply petitioning or memorializing the Assembly, but from some other mode of action, that the evils which afflict the Presbyterian church, and threaten its very existence, are to be arrested in their progress. We shall now go into some detail.

Repeated efforts were made, and made in vain, by the present writer, to have the memorial read, before it was referred to the committee that brought in the resolutions which sealed its destiny. The records do not mention that it was read at all; and if the Assembly had acted upon it without ever having an opportunity to know its contents, it would have been just as well. It was read, however, after the committee had pointed out in their resolutions how it was to be disposed of-read by a manifest reluctant consent of a majority of the house, and heard by

*After very nearly four months since the rising of the Assembly, we have been unable to obtain a corrected copy of the minutes. We have therefore been obliged to have recourse to the religious newspapers for the quotations we have made. We have taken much pains to render our extracts correci-and we believe they exhibit the doings of the Assembly fairly and fully. If, on obtaining a copy of the corrected minutes, we shall discover any error that affects the meaning of a sentence, we will not fail to announce and correct it.

a number of those who did not go out while it was reading, with accompanying indications, not to be mistaken, of uneasy or scornful feelings. Now we do not believe, as is intimated in the protest, that any deliberative assembly in this country, whether civil or ecclesiastical, and in times when party spirit has been most excited, ever before treated a respectful memorial in this manner-ever appointed a committee to report upon it, before the house knew what it contained; and then permitted it to be read, that it might be treated with pointed disrespect.

After the memorial was read, the first motion that was made was, to postpone it indefinitely. Nothing more contemptuous than this, could have taken place in the form of a motion. Its plain import was, that the memorial was not worthy of the attention of the Assembly; yet the records state, that this motion was "discussed at some length." The majority commonly acted with great concert, but as we were never in their secrets, we cannot tell whether it was understood, or not, by the party, that the memorial should receive this mark of contempt, and then be reserved for the fate which awaited it from the passage of the resolutions-The motion for an indefinite postponement, for whatever reason, was negatived.

The report of the committee on the memorial, now came before the house, and a member of the minority moved, "that the report of the committee, and the points it embraces, be postponed, with a view to take up in their place the articles of the memorial, on which the memorialists earnestly request a decision. This motion, after considerable discussion, was also decided in the negative." Here is a sample of the manner in which the Assembly have several times evaded a decision on points of the deepest interest to the church, from the proceedings in the noted Barnes' case, down to those that issued in the rejection of the memorial. In the case of Mr. Barnes, the Presbytery of Philadelphia had specified a number of particulars, in which, in the judgment of the Presbytery, his far-famed sermon stood in direct opposition to certain articles, or positions, of the doctrinal standards of the church; and they asked the judgment of the Assembly, whether the specified opposition between the sermon and the standards, did really exist or not. But the Assembly evaded the whole, by converting itself into a Congregational Association, and appointing a committee, that brought in a report, in which the entire subject was wrapped up in a few generalities, and voted on without discussion, and without touching a single point on which the Presbytery looked for a judgment. In the case of the memorial, there were no parties at bar, as in the former case; and therefore there was no necessity of again adopting the Association principle; but in disposing of the points detailed in the memorial, on which a decision was earnestly sought, the course pursued partook largely of the character for which the Assembly of 1831 had furnished a precedent. The motion to take up and consider the specifications of the memorialists, was negatived; and the resolutions fabricated by the committee, and shaped so as to suit the views of the expected majority, were substituted in their place. The unfairness of this procedure, must strike every unprejudiced mind.

On the first resolution of the committee, after it was decided that the report should be considered by paragraphs, there was an animated debate, which was terminated by a vote, on which the yeas and nays were demanded and recorded. This record is to be attributed to a standing rule of the house, which directs that the yeas and nays shall be recorded,

when demanded by one-third of the members present; and happily it was found, on this occasion, that the minority could count more than a third of the members; although the record shows that they wanted three-andtwenty votes of equalling the number of the majority. But for the existence of this rule, it is confidently believed the church would never have known who, among the members of the last Assembly, were the friends, and who the foes of the memorial. The votes on the subsequent resolutions, where there was a difference of opinion, were nearly the same as on the first. There was some little variation as to the side occasionally taken, but none that materially affected the strength of the different parties. The third resolution, we believe, had no opposition; and the 4th and 9th resolutions are only different expressions of constitutional provisions, which the minority had no disposition to controvert; and which probably were intended to show the great regard which the committee had to our standards. The power of a third of the members to secure a record of the yeas and nays on any question, was not forgotten in the subsequent proceedings of the Assembly; for when such a record was moved, on the vote which excluded from the minutes all notice of the motion of Mr. Jennings, the locum tenens of the Moderator's chair, (the regular Moderator having withdrawn) declared, to the astonishment we believe of all who heard it, that the motion was out of order. He knew, that if the motion were put, a third of the members would vote for it, and thus the yeas and nays on this important question, would appear on the minutes; but he knew also that his decision, declaring that the motion was out of order, could not be reversed but by a majority, instead of a third of the house, and he was confident that the majority would ratify this most unfair and unrighteous sentence. An appeal from his decision was taken, and his confidence that a majority of the house would sustain him, was proved to be well founded. We do think, and have not a doubt that the public think with us, that, especially in the present state of the church, the yeas and nays on all important questions decided in the General Assembly, ought to be recorded and published to the world; that the churches may know how their representatives have voted, and all may have an unequivocal expression of the opinions of those whose names appear on the record. But to this the New School party in the Assembly have, for several years past, been generally and decidedly opposed; and hence the public do not, and cannot know, how the votes of individual members have been cast, on questions involving the vital interests of the church.

On

We refer to the protest for a statement of our objections to the doctrines or principles contained in the several resolutions, and we hope our readers will do us and themselves the justice, carefully to compare the protest with each of the resolutions to which it is opposed. the first and second resolutions, we have nothing to add to what is contained in the protest, and the remarks already offered. The fifth resolution is one of the most objectionable of the whole series. But it is so satisfactorily answered, and its slavish and unchristian principles are so clearly exposed, in the 4th article of the protest, that we deem any enlargement unnecessary. Of the 6th resolution, the protest takes no notice. The position that "the Assembly have no authority to establish any exclusive mode of conducting missions," is perfectly equivocal, and we doubt not was intended to be so. That the Assembly have no authority to establish any exclusive mode of conducting missions out of their own bounds, or for missionaries of other churches, is

certainly true-so obviously and confessedly true, that there was no need to state it. But that the Assembly has authority to establish a mode, and if it be found necessary, an exclusive mode, of conducting missions within their own bounds, and by members of their own communion, is also true-so true, that no one who understands the constitution of the Presbyterian church, can plausibly deny it. Missionary operations affect all the interests of the church, more than almost any thing else; and to maintain that over such operations the Assembly has no authority, and when necessary, even a controlling authority, is to maintain that the greatest irregularities may exist in our church, and the most serious evils be inflicted upon it, and yet that the supreme judicatory have no power to apply a remedy. We can hardly think of a greater absurdity than this, to be embraced by any one who professes to be a Presbyterian. The chapter which relates to missions in the constitution, (see chap. xviii. of Form of Government) directs that applications for missionary aid should be made to a Presbytery or Synod, or to the General Assembly, and orders that missionaries shall be ready to produce their credentials to the Presbyteries within whose bounds they may be, and obtain their approbation, or at least that of a committee, appointed for this purpose. In conformity with this constitutional prescription, all the missionaries employed within the bounds of the Presbyterian church, for many years after the adoption of the constitution, were made responsible to the ecclesiastical judicatories of the church, and to them alone; and such is the fact at present, in regard to the missionaries appointed and employed by these judicatories. But of late years, Voluntary Associations, both for domestic and foreign missions, have been organized, and have carried on their operations in the bosom of the Presbyterian church, without any responsibility whatever to the judicatories of this church; and this has had, and still has, a most pernicious influence, not only in enfeebling all missionary operations of a strictly Presbyterian character, but in creating jealousies, collisions, and contentions of the most pernicious kind in the church -Nay, the influence of these Voluntary and anti-Presbyterial Associations, has gone far to control the judicatories of the churches themselves, from the highest to the lowest. Here, at this hour, is a principal source of the corruption, disorder, and disregard, both of the creed and government of our church, by which it is so grievously polluted, divided, and distracted; and we solemnly believe that no rational hope of a return to sound principles, and to regular presbyterial order, can be entertained, till the influence of this radical evil shall be removed. We request our readers to turn to the fourth section of the memorial, and see the statements there made of undeniable facts, and of the unhappy influence which these Voluntary Associations, particu larly of the American Home Missionary Society, has exerted, on all the interests of our church; and no where more manifestly and lamentably than in the General Assembly itself. This was a tender point for the reasoning committee, and they touch it tenderly. They, in effect, do nothing more than roundly assert that the Assembly have nothing to do with the business-not aware, it is presumed, that by this very assertion, they prove themselves either utterly ignorant, or totally regardless, of the principles and government of the Presbyterian church, relative to this subject. They do indeed, in the close of the resolution, venture to "recommend to individuals and inferior judicatories"-recognising that it is "left to their discretion" to do as they please "a willing and efficient co-operation with the Assembly's Board" of Mis