whenever the Moderator thinks it proper and important that he should deliver his opinions and arguments, on any topick before the Synod, he calls the assessor to the chair, and mingles in the discussion. Would it not be well for us to imitate our Dutch brethren in this, by making a constitutional provision for the purpose? The Westminster Assembly of divines had two assessors, in addition to their prolocutor.

We next notice the Moderator's reply to our objection to his placing Mr. Bacon, the congregational representative from Connecticut, on the committee to which was referred the case of Mr. Barnes and the Philadelphia Presbytery. After quoting his authorities in detail, the Moderator adds, "From these references, which embrace the period of ten years, we learn the uniform and undeviating usage of the Moderators of the General Assembly, in appointing the delegates of corresponding bodies, on the important committees of the house." He subsequently says "But the editor lays much stress on the circumstance that the Connecticut delegate, by a recent arrangement, had lost all right to a vote in the house. But this is a consideration never regarded by any Moderator of the General Assembly." Now it is true that we did lay "great stress," and as to the matter of right, the whole stress, on the circumstance that the delegate from Connecticut had recently "lost all right to a vote in the house." And if the Moderator had continued his quotation to the end of the sentences from which he garbled it, he would have laid before his readers a reason for the stress we laid on this circumstance, which all his sophistry would not have been able to countervail. We need little more in reply, than to repeat the sentences, without mutilation, as they stand in our third number

"That delegate, (we said) by a recent arrangement, had lost all right to a vote in the house; but whoever is acquainted with the usual course of business knows, that a vote in a committee, on an important and interesting concern, is of more ultimate influence than two votes in the house. Yet here, an individual gives his vote where it has the greater influence, when it is denied him where it has the less." The Moderator attempts no answer to this reasoning, but fills up his paragraph with round assertions, that the distinction we had made "was never regarded by any Assembly, nor by any Moderator;"* and concludes it with representing the editor as a "culprit," who had passed sentence on himself, because he, when Mode. rator, had appointed a delegate from Connecticut, on the Committee of Bills and Overtures. Now, without staying to remark on the courteous language of the Moderator here, we state, that in our judgment, the whole merits of this question centre in the single point-that the party objected to had no right to a vote in the house; and we maintain, that by whomsoever men, not having a right to vote in the house, have been placed on

* Dr. Fisk, the Moderator of the Assembly for 1830, has authorized us to state, that he is, and always has been, of our opinion, that since the Connecticut delegation has lost the right of voting in the Assembly, no representative of that delegation ought to be placed on any impor

tant committee. With this view of the subject, he said he had filled up the judicial committee of 1830, with Presbyterian members. But before they were an nounced, the Stated Clerk urged him to place one member on this committee from a corresponding body; and that, without time to deliberate much, he consented, though very reluctantly, to displace_one name, and to put in its room that of Rev. Daniel A. Clark, from the General Association of Vermont. Dr. Beman, not Bacon, on the committee in Mr. Barnes content with placing his favourite, Mr. case, put him also on the Judicial Committee.

important committees, especially on committees to consider questions involving constitutional principles of the Presbyterian churchthose who have done this, have "made appointments in a high degree improper, if not absolutely unlawful," which are the precise words of our charge against the late Moderator, for his appointment of Mr. Bacon. And for this judgment, we rely on the reason assigned when we made our charge, and which we have repeated above -We offer no other reason; we are confident we need no other. But who sees not, that all the cases mentioned by Dr. Beman, in regard to the Connecticut delegation, antecedently to the year 1830, when the right of that delegation to a vote in our Assembly was surrendered, are just so much of nothing at all to the purpose? Till that period, the Connecticut delegates had a conventional right, though we think it was never a constitutional right, to vote, and did vote, as well as deliberate, on all subjects that came before the General Assembly; and therefore we humbly think, that the editor's reasoning does not return on himself, to make him a culprit, because he placed a member of this delegation on the Committee of Overtures, in 1824. Then, such a member had a conventional right to be there: but at the last General Assembly, Mr. Bacon had no right of any kind, to be where Dr. Beman placed him. The difference, therefore, between right and wrong is the difference between what the editor did, and what Dr. Beman did: and hence it follows, in the Moderator's dialectick, that the editor is a culprit, and that Dr. Beis immaculate-Quod erat demonstrandum.

In the civil community, no subject that comes before a representative body for disposal, is, we believe, ever committed, except to its own members. Other individuals Ch. Adv.-VOL. X.

than members may be requested, and may consent, or be summoned, to attend a committee, for the purpose of giving information, or answering inquiries; but to make them members of the committee, is never thought of. But on subjects not involving constitutional principles, or important interests, in the Presbyterian church-such as those that relate to a Bible Society, a Temperance, Tract or Colonization Society, a Sabbath School Union, a Concert of Prayer, or an Association to preserve the Sabbath from desecration-we would never object to any of the delegates from other bodies to the General Assembly being placed on its committees. The subjects mentioned, relate to the general interests of religion, as regarded by almost all denominations of Protestant Christians, and we would not therefore refuse them a representation on the committees of the Assembly. Nor do we object to the usage of referring to a selection of ministers and elders of the Presbyterian church, not members of the existing Assembly, some important subject, to be considered and reported on to the Assembly of the following year. But Mr. Bacon, a Congregationalist, and not entitled to vote in the house, was placed on a committee to which was referred the consideration of several most important constitutional points and principles of the Presbyterian church, both in doctrine and government;

points and principles in relation to which his attachments and habits would naturally lead him to oppose strict Presbyterianism: and that they did so lead him, he, in his published letter to us, openly avows, and boasts of it in a strain of triumph. In his vindication, he pleads that he was placed on the committee by the Moderator, and that he supposed the Moderator knew

Y

his own

duty. But we think he also knew -and indeed his letter shows it -that his feelings had already enlisted him decidedly against one of the parties, whose cause was to be decided, if equitably decided, by the standards of the Presbyterian church, and by nothing else. We think, indeed, that the Moderator was far more blame-worthy than he, in this whole transaction; but did he not, after all, consent to act where he might have refused, and where delicacy and propriety should have dictated a refusal? Do not men who are called to a jury in civil causes, and. who know that they have prejudged the whole case, often state this frånkly to the court, and in consequence are removed from the panel? Was there not, in this trial, in the highest court of the Presbyterian church, so much analogy between the committee on which Mr. Bacon was placed, and a jury in civil courts, that the principles which have influence on those courts, should have had such influence in our ecclesiastical court, as to make Mr. Bacon absolutely decline this appointment? Let an impartial publick decide on these questions, and we have no fear for the award.

We proceed to make a few remarks on the two following positive assertions, in the 10th and 11th articles of the Moderator's summary-"The Allegation of the Advocate that a large proportion' of the Low Church approve' of admitting 'mere church members' to a seat in the Assembly, is so far from being correct, that it has not one particle of evidence to support it-The Low Church did not vote' against an act of the last Assembly-as the Advocate says they did the object of which was to prevent committee men and mere church members, from hereafter having any claim to seats in the General Assembly for no such act was passed or proposed."

A considerable part of the Moderator's seven numbers consists of quibble and evasion; but there is. rather a larger portion of them than common in the foregoing affirmations. Let us examine his first assertion, taken in connexion with that part of his second number, of which it is given as an epitome, where he says, "But that'a large proportion' of the New School in the last Assembly, expressed in any shape or manner, their approbation of admitting men who are merely church members,' as constituent members of that body, I have yet to learn. Let the editor name one man who uttered such a sentiment, and I consent that this solitary instance shall stand as an apology for this sweeping declara tion." Now this surely seems, in the reading, to be not only plausible, but imposing and conclusive. Yet it is, in fact, nothing more than an evasion, serving to keep a just state of the case entirely out of view. The facts are theseBefore the election of a Moderator, a question was raised, whether "a standing committee" man should be allowed to vote. In favour of his voting, Dr. Beman was earnest, eloquent and successful-It was determined that the committee man should vote; and no doubt he voted for his advocate. Afterwards, sixty-seven members subscribed a protest against the lawfulness of admitting this man to a seat in the house; and an answer to the protest was ordered, and brought in by the New School members-This we have noticed in a preceding number. Subsequently to the decision of the case of Mr. Barnes, and the settlement of the business in regard to the Board of Missions, so many of the New School members obtained dismissions and left the Assembly, that their opponents were able to carry a resolution, by a majority of 81 to 54, "That in the opinion of the General Assembly, the appoint

as effectually secure their objectwould leave the door wide open, as for years in succession it had been left, for the admission of as many mere church members as they and their Presbyteries should choose to commission as ruling elders. In this way, accordingly, the New School men did make every exertion that their ingenuity could devise; and we did them no injustice, in representing this, as showing their approbation of the admission of mere church members into the Assembly. Who can say, without an evasion, that those who did all in their power to defeat the only measure that could keep them out of the Assembly, did not manifest plainly a willingness and desire that they should come into the Assembly? Here is the point without disguise; and let every reader decide it for himself. But the Moderator says again, that no act was passed to keep mere church members out of the Assembly. Here is just another quibble-That is, because no act was passed, that mentioned mere church members by name, it may be asserted that no act was passed to keep them out; although an act was passed which had for a principal object, in the minds of those who voted for it, the effectual keeping of them out. If committee men were to be excluded, the Old School men knew, that mere church members, would inevitably be excluded-And to exclude them effectually and forever, was, we repeat, one chief object of the resoÎution. O for an antagonist, if we must have one, who will not mystify the point in issue, by a play upon words, or by pleading the want of certain words, when the matter intended is as clear as a sunbeam. We thought we were prepared not to be surprised at any thing the Moderator could utter; but we had not duly estimated Dr. Beman's astonishing powers. We

confess the following language did surprise us.

"Just as the question, on commitment, in the case of Mr. Barnes, was to be taken, Dr. Green commenced certain remarks, which had a bearing on the mode of appointing the committee in question; and which led the Moderator to call him to order; and Dr. Ely, one of the complainants, to observe, that if the Committee of Reference were not appointed in the usual way, that is, by the chair, the case would not be referred. Dr. Green acquiesced; but as soon as the question was decided in favour of referring the case, and the house had ordered that the committee should consist of eleven members, the Doctor handed me a slip of paper, containing five names (not quite half the number of the whole committee), and remarked very pleasantly, 'If you will put these on, I care not who the others are.'"

Now, before we offer one word of comment, we ask any impartial person, and especially those who have been frequently in the Assembly, where was the criminality of what the Moderator says was done on this occasion by Dr. Green? Yet the Moderator insinuates, that here was an attempt, secretly to touch the very main spring of motion, by endeavouring to make an interest with the Moderator, and through him to secure some additional weight in the committee, in favour of his side of the question." And in recurring to this matter in his summary he says

"The interference of Dr. Green, in tor, in the appointment of the committee, trying SECRETLY to influence the Moderain the case of Mr. Barnes, accounts for all his conscientious difficulties in relation to the appointment of Mr. Bacon on that committee; and at the same time tells somewhat worse in the publick ear, than the tale, that the Moderator acted, in this instance, as all other moderators have done before him. And this interference of Dr. Green, is known, both to High Church and Low Church, to be in perfect keeping with that uniform promptership, which he has exercised toward Moderators of the General Assembly, ever since the Assembly was constituted."

We have given the Moderator's language thus extensively, because