mind might operate on, and those which it could not affect, it has been attempted to draw a clear line between functional and organick disorder; but it is very possible that the physiologist may find that he has presumed too far, upon his supposed knowledge of the workings of the human frame, so fearfully and wonderfully made; that his definitions of what constitutes these two classes of case have not been sufficiently established; and that some diseases may possibly be cured by the operation of mind, which he might have been disposed to consider as not capable of being thus affected. But, be this as it may, the general position is the same: it is mind upon body; the etherial principle on the living fibre: and till our asserters of modern miracles will bring me a case out of this range, I shall not suppose a miracle, though I may be unable to account for the facts; as I cannot tell how my own mind guides my pen, or dictates to my tongue, though I am sure that it does so. I put it to our friends, seriously to ask why they have no one modern instance, to produce of alleged miraculous effects upon matter not connected with mind; upon a dead body, for example. Some persons, it is said, lately tried to raise one in Scotland, but they failed, as might be expected; for the exciting mind, the enthusiastick impulse, actuating the material frame, was wanting. In general, the cures effected have been, obviously, cases connected with the nervous system. I am not aware of any one clearly out of even this limited range. But, grant, that, in the enthusiasm which prevails in certain quarters, one apparently anomalous should occur, it would only convince me that the action of the soul on the body may be more powerful than I had anticipated; that strong nervous influences may affect cases hitherto considered beyond their

reach, but still within the sphere of the operation of the mind upon the body. Give me a case beyond this category, and I shall feel staggered. If it were said, that Mr. Irving, to prove his doctrine, had hurled a stone of a hundred pounds weight over the pinnacles of the Caledonian chapel, I should doubt the fact; but if it were irrefragably attested, I should still see no miracle, as I have seen Belzoni perform wonderful feats of strength, and I am not assured how far muscular energy, under very extraordinary excitement might be carried. It is still a case of the mind influencing the bodily organs, stimulating the nerves, and stringing every muscle and fibre to action. But if he moved but a pebble in my garden, while he himself was several miles off; if he turned back the shadow on the sundial, or clave the sea, or raised the dead, or healed another who is unconscious of his operations, the miracle would be obvious. What I wish in these remarks, is simply to suggest the turning fact,—that all the cases referred to as proofs of modern miracles, are cases of an excited mind operating upon a person's own body. In some of these cases the excitement happens to be connected with cer tain theological opinions, whether those now inculcated by Mr. Boys, Mr. M'Neile, and Mr. Erskine, or those current in the church of Rome, or any other modification of sentiment; but in others the excitement has nothing to do with matters of religious faith, but is wholly secular. How then, in fairness, can the cases be separated, so as to make a miracle in the one and not in the other?

"For my own part, my dear friend, I feel no desire to suppose myself living in an age of miracles. Far more consoling is it to my spirit, to know that I am under the unceasing guidance of Him who is full of kindness and full of

amateur has begun to regulate infant schools by the science;' but I was not aware that historical fact was to be submitted to this ordeal, and remodelled according to the notions of physiological grave-diggers. But so it is; for tradition, history, and, above all, Shakspeare, we are told, have mistaken poor Cardinal Beaufort's character: there is little dependence to be placed upon the assertions of historians!' for thus run his manifestations: 'Head large; the intellectual organs exceedingly well developed; yet others still more so, especially amativeness, love of approbation, self-esteem, combativeness; but almost unprecedented for destructiveness, firmness, and secretiveness.' It is well for the reputation of Phrenology that the Christian law was not written in his skull, since it would, have required a large displacement of history, to prove that it was exhibited in his life. I cannot, my friend, but think there is much evil in these reveries. I, indeed, see nothing abstractedly impossible in the idea that different portions of the brain may be connected with different parts of its actual exhibitions; but I do not think that even this has been proved by fact; and, above all, it is most rash, to say the least, to attempt to educate youth, or to recast history, or to interpret scripture, upon so vague a speculation. "But it is time to emerge from the crypts of cardinals, and the 'Holy Hole' of Popish wonderworking saints, to fresh air and daylight."

THE PRESENT STATE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

No. X.

In our third number, speaking of the committee to which was as

signed the nomination of a new Board of Missions, we say:

"Yet on this committee, which was a large one, not an individual was placed, who was likely to act the part of a friend and advocate of the inculpated board-the' board of the preceding year. Whether had not proved sufficiently subservient to the wishes of the moderator and the ma jority of the house, or from whatever unknown to us; but so it was, this most other motive the nomination was made, is important committee was entirely composed of those who were disposed to report, and actually did report, a nomination of a new board, most decidedly friendly to the American Home Missionary Society, and hostile to the existing Board of the General Assembly. A few, and but a few of the members of the existing board, were not displaced-on the expectation, we doubt not, that they would voluntarily resign; as we are confident they would have done, when they should see the complexion of the board entirely changed, and

the committee on the case of Mr. Barnes

rendered subservient to the American Home Missionary Society."

66

There are two points in this statement, on which we are at issue with the Moderator. The first is our assertion that on this committee, which was a large one, not an individual was placed who was likely to act the part of a friend and advocate of the inculpated board-the board of the preceding year." We have already adverted to an apprehended error that we had made, in relation to this point; of the readiness we felt to correct it, as publickly as it had been made; and of our eventual discovery that we had committed no error at all; inasmuch as every member of the committee in ques tion, had shown his feelings toward the old board, by his vote on a previous question. The facts of the case may be seen, summarily, by the following extracts (pp. 183, 184) from the printed minutes of the Assembly. "A motion was made, that in conformity to usage, or to the course pursued last year, a committee of nomination be appointed, to nominate persons to constitute the Board of Missions for the ensuing year. A motion

was then made to postpone this motion, with a view to take up the following, viz.-Resolved, that the present Board of Missions be reappointed. After considerable discussion the vote was taken; and the yeas and nays being called for, the vote stood as follows, viz." &c. Here the names of all the voters are given-The yeas 87, the nays 109. And of course-"The motion for postponement was declared to be lost." This was on the morning of the 1st of June. In the afternoon of the same day, the minutes state-"The motion to appoint a committee to nominate persons to constitute the Board of Missions for the ensuing year was resumed; when it was resolved to appoint such a committee. Dr. Hillyer, Mr. Riddle, Mr. Chase, Mr. Bronson, Mr. Garrison, Mr. Jessup, and Mr. W. Anderson, were appointed."

The discussion which ensued, first on the motion to appoint a committee to nominate a new board, and afterward, on the motion for a postponement of that motion, in order to reappoint the old board, was ardent and considerably protracted. It brought out the sentiments of the opposite parties fully; and as we stated in our last number, those who voted against the postponement expressed their wish to change the old board, "as clearly as if this had been the formal object of their vote." If the motion for postponement had been made, without clearly expressing its design, we admit that it would not, in itself, have been a test of the views and feelings of the members, in relation to the reappointment of the old board. But when the whole design of the motion for postponement was explicitly declared in writing, to be the introduction of a resolution "that the present Board of Missions be reappointed"-to vote, in these circumstances, against the postponement, was virtually a declaration, Ch. Adv.-Vol. X.

by every member who so voted, that he would not so much as consider a proposition to reappoint the old board-This, we think, is undeniable. Now, when the Moderator made his selection of members to constitute this nominating committee, he took every man of that committee from the nays, on the question of postponement; that is, every man of the committee was selected from those who had voted against even considering a proposition to reappoint the old board. Yet he says, "The committee appointed to nominate a Board of Missions was, in every respect, a fair and discreet committee." We maintain the con trary. For although it was decided that a new Board should be appointed, yet, agreeably to all. correct usage, the minority-and especially a minority of no less than 87 voters, when the majority was only 22-ought to have had, on a committee of seven, at least two members. But it had not one; and yet this is affirmed by the Moderator to have been "a fair and discreet committee!" If it was, we cannot tell how an unfair or indiscreet committee could be appointed. Was it likely-for this is the single point on which the truth of our statement turns-was it likely that a friend and advocate of the inculpated board, would be found on this committee? We have said that it was not likely; and let the impartial decide between our statement and that of the Moderator. The Moderator asks, “Did not Dr. Green know that the Rev. Mr. Bronson, a member of this committee, was one of their own missionaries?"" We answer, that Dr. Green knows full well, that although the Board of Missions to which he belongs, has been opprobriously represented as composed of exclusionists, they have, in more instances than one, appointed men as missionaries, who they had good reason to X

believe were not friendly either to them or their operations; and he knows too, that Mr. Bronson's name is among the nays, on the question of postponement. Again; the Moderator asks "Can the Doctor fix on one act, that shows that Mr. Riddle, of Virginia, entertained any hostility to the Assembly's Board? If so, let him tell us what it is." Well, since the Moderator commands, we will obey, and "fix on one act," that, as we think, shows that Mr. Riddle, of Virginia, entertained some hostility to the Assembly's Board. It was this-After the matter had been settled by compromise in the Assembly, or while it was in train for a settlement, Mr. Riddle was an invited guest to a dinner party in Philadelphia; and in a company, of which a member of the old board, with his wife, made a part, Mr. Riddle indulged openly, with great freedom, and at considerable length, in censures of the old Board, as consisting of exclusives, as he called them, who ought to be displaced. We have this from the member of the old board who heard it; and who was at length constrained to say something in favour of the Board to which he belonged. Now, we do think that Mr. Riddle, to say the least, was not likely to act the part of a friend and advocate of the board which he himself openly and severely inculpated: and yet the Moderator seems to have pitched on him, as that individual of the committee to whom no possible objection could be made. We say then-Ex uno disce omnes. Let the man the Moderator has selected, be taken as a sample of the whole committee. Had there been a suitable representation of the minority on this committee, possibly it might have been the means of giving some modification to the report, so as to have lessened its offensive character. But whether it would have had this effect or

not, we maintain that the minority had a right to be represented there, and they were not represented; and thus our charge against the Moderator, of unfairness in the appointment of this committee, is fully sustained-and our allegation is strictly verified, that there was not an individual of this committee, who was likely to act the part of a friend and advocate of the inculpated board.

The second point to which we have referred in the passage of our third number quoted above, is found in these words "A few, and but a few, of the members of the existing board, were not displaced-on the expectation, we doubt not, that they would voluntarily resign, as we are confident they would have done, when they should see the complexion of the board entirely changed, and rendered subservient to the American Home Missionary Society." This is the sentence to which we referred in our last number, when we said, that in our statement of facts we had seen nothing to correct, "beyond one verbal inaccuracy-if indeed it be an inaccuracy-no way affecting the substance of our statement." The supposed inaccuracy lies in the clause, "A few, and but a few, of the members of the existing board were not displaced." The Moderator and the Stated Clerk have both affirmed, that it is so far from being true that only a few members of the existing board were not displaced, that a very consi derable majority of them were not displaced; and they both have made a statement of numbers to sustain their allegations.

The Stated Clerk, on the 21st of October last, published in the religious newspaper, edited by himself, in reply to an article with the signature" MANY ENQUIRERS," the following paragraph.

"I have examined the original report of the Committee who nominated a Board of