tinctly contemplates a judicial proceeding, there can be no doubt that what is said under the section of appeals was intended to be applicable here. It was exactly followed by the Synod of Philadelphia, in disposing of a complaint relating to the case of Mr. Barnes. We find the constitutional order in articles IX. and X. of the section that relates to appeals, which articles are as follows "IX. After all the parties shall have been fully heard, and all the information gained by the members of the superior judicatory from those of the inferior which shall be deemed requisite, the original parties, and all the members of the inferior judicatory shall withdraw; when the clerk shall call the roll, that every member may have an opportunity to express his opinion on the case;* after which the final vote shall be taken. X. The decision may be either to confirm or reverse, in whole or in part, the decision of the inferior judicatory; or to remit the cause for the purpose of amending the record, should it appear to be incorrect or defective; or for a new trial."

From this course of procedure, there was, as we have said, a complete departure; and one entirely new, and of a different character, was substituted for it. The subject submitted to the court was referred to a committee; and when the committee reported, there was no" calling of the roll, that every member might have an opportunity to express his opinion on the case," before the final vote was taken; and this vote was taken precisely as is done in deciding on ordinary subjects, when the Assembly is not sitting in its judicial capacity. This capacity, as we have seen,

Let it be observed that the language here is unequivocally IMPERATIVE. "The clerk shall call the roll, that every member may have an opportunity to express his opinion on the case."

VOL. X.-Ch. Adv.

it had solemnly assumed, and in this capacity it had acted till the cause was submitted; nor was there ever an intimation that the Assembly had ceased to act, in this case, as a court of judicature, engaged in trying a cause. But thus it did in fact cease to act; and to this hour, therefore, there has been no judicial decision, constitutionally made, on the case submitted to the last Assembly, by the parties in the Presbytery of Philadelphia.

It may be remarked, and it is certainly true, that a proposition to submit this whole cause to a committee had been made, even before the papers relating to it had been read. It is also true, that the motion to submit the entire subject was renewed, as soon as the court had heard the parties. But it is not true that the representatives of the Presbytery of Philadelphia ever consented to give up their right to a regular judicial trial and decision. Had they done so, they would have betrayed their trust. They had been explicitly instructed "to use their best endeavours to obtain a full discussion of the points submitted, and an explicit decision of the Assembly in regard to the same." In waiving their right to plead, it was obvious to reflect that those members of the Assembly whose opinions agreed with their own-and they knew there were present many such members, of high character for knowledge and ability

would do full justice to the cause, when they should be called to speak in the order of the roll.

The proposition to submit the cause without argument was first agreed to by the complainants, on the express condition, however, that the representatives of the Presbytery would do the same. When the latter were asked if they would accede to such an agreement, there was some hesitation. The present writer, who was one C

of them, requested a little time to reflect, and to consult with his colleagues. This was refused, and a prompt answer was demanded. No more time was allowed or taken, than was barely necessary to ask each of the individuals representing the Presbytery, and who was present (one was, at the moment, out of the house) whether he would consent to waive his right to plead. The answer was affirmative and unanimous. Whether this was the best course that might have been taken, may be, and has been questioned; and we wish not to exempt from merited blame, any party, or any individual, to whom blame ought to attach. One of the brethren who represented the Presbytery, has since told us, that he understood, that opportunity for argument was to be allowed the parties, after the contemplated committee should have made their report. All, it is believed, were impressed with the idea that pleading would consume much time, would probably produce much irritation in a large and deeply interested audience, and ultimately have little if any effect on the decision of the court -in which, as already intimated, there were many able men, prepared, as was believed, to give their opinions, as well as their votes, in favour of orthodoxy and order. In haste, then, whether right or wrong, the representatives of the Presbytery submitted the cause at once-to THE COURT, (we repeat and appeal to the record) and to no other arbitrament whatever.

In the speech which was delivered by the respected member who made the motion for a committee, there were, we are constrained to say, some things that surprised us more and pleased us less, than perhaps any thing else that we ever heard from his lips. We saw that the appointment of such a committee as he moved for was a novel measure, when a cause was

already before judges in a court; and we augured no good from its appointment. We saw that the report of this committee would unavoidably have a great influence on the ultimate decision; and hence our chief objection that a New England delegate should have a vote in the committee, when he was precluded from one on the final award by the court. Yet we could not say then, nor can we say now, that the Assembly, even when sitting as a court, is not constitutionally competent to commit any subject, for the purpose of digesting and giving order to it, when it is complicated; and the case in question was doubtless one not a little complicated. We also thought it possible that the maker of the motion might have in his mind something which did not occur to us, that might be advantageous in presenting the points of most importance, for the ultimate and distinct determination of the court: and we owe it to this brother to mention, that when the committee for which he had moved, and of which he was the chairman, had been canvassing the business committed to them for a considerable time, he called us out of the house, with a view, as he said, to assure us that when he moved for this committee he had hoped and expected that not a little good would result from it; but intimated, as we understood him, that he was likely to be much disappointed. He did not say, nor did we ask him, either then or since, in what manner he had hoped the committee would be useful. The only reply that we made, was, that we never expected that the committing of this subject would result in any thing beneficial. Here the conversation ended, and we returned to the Assembly. Let it be distinctly noted then, that if consent of parties to change the constitutional mode of terminating this controversy, might be supposed to authorize such a change, this consent was

never had. One of the parties, at least, never did understand that they were even asked to depart from that constitutional mode of bringing this case to a final decision, which had been commenced and proceeded in, till the cause was submitted without argument. It is believed that the representatives of the Presbytery had not power, under their instructions, to do any such thing; and that if they had done it, the Presbytery would have had a right to refuse to abide by their act, as being one that was done, not only without authority, but contrary to instructions. And surely, if there was an understanding that a thing so entirely novel as settling an important controversy in a mode not pointed out in the constitution, did now take place, there would have been a very particular minute made of the transaction-at least, the explicit consent of parties would have been distinctly recorded. Nothing of the kind appears, and nothing of the kind did take place in fact. The parties consented to submit the cause to the court without argument, and to nothing more.

We think we never before saw the General Assembly in such a state of mental confusion, as seemed apparent for a few minutes after the report of this committee was made. One or two attempts to speak were arrested, by intimations that any discussion of the report would open the whole cause anew -that it must be taken or rejected as it stood: and taken it was, not only without calling the roll, to give every member an opportunity to deliver his opinion deliberately and in detail, but without such an opinion being given by any one member of the house. If it be asked, why did not the old school members rise, and stand on their right to the call of the roll?—we say, although we cannot affirm it as a fact, that we really believe that in the hurry of the moment, they did not recollect that they had the right. There

had been an interval of nearly three days (one was the Sabbath) since this concern had been in the hands of the committee. Much interesting business had occupied the attention of the house in the interval; and when the committee reported, attention was absorbed by the report itself; and it seems not to have occurred, perhaps to any one, that on this case the Assembly was still sitting" as a court of Jesus Christ." The great error was, that the court did not proceed with the trial as it began, and without a committee; but it certainly was an additional error, of no small magnitude, to adopt the report of the committee without allowing every member of the house, on the call of the roll, to state his views, give his reasons in detail, propose amendments, or alterations, or a substitute, and then to take the vote containing the award of the court, as the concluding act.

The report of the committee passed the house with fewer negative votes than we perhaps ever heard on an important question, where there was a real difference of opinion. There was, we know, the appearance of great unanimity; but the truth was, all parties were dissatisfied; and so equally so, that that there seemed to be a kind of tacit agreement to let the matter go-as being about equally balanced, in the way of disappointment, to the sides that were in conflict. A leading member of the committee said to us with emphasis, a short time after the vote was taken, "not a single member of the Assembly is satisfied with our report." And, we ask, is this the best way of settling, or rather, of leaving entirely unsettled, an important ecclesiastical controversy? Is this right in itself—all constitutional considerations out of the question? We think not. The manner in which the Assembly has treated this concern, has, among other evils, opened a door to re

was, that it was best to go to work, of that occasion, in something like the Congregational way, rather than in the Presbyterian way.

"Taking this view of the object for which the committee was appointed, and entering, as I did, very heartily into the design, I never suspected that my not being a Presbyterian disqualified me from serving. I supposed that being a Congregationalist, and therefore not wholly unacquainted with such methods of proceeding, I was only the better fitted to assist in the labours of such a committee; and accordingly I took hold of the work with a disposition to assist in the humble measure of my ability."

From what is now before the reader we think it is evident, 1. That a Congregational interest did in fact govern the last General Assembly; so that in the case of Mr. Barnes, the decision made, was not in accordance with the constitution of the Presbyterian church, but in conformity with the principles of the Congregationalists. We are truly glad that the very statement made by Mr. Bacon, in all its length, and breadth, and plainness, has come before the publick. For although, as we have said, it mortifies us severely, yet, as it is substantially true, we think it of high importance that the truth should be known; and that it should have been told from the quarter whence we have received it. Had we made the same statement, before this document was published, we are persuaded that not only would the truth of our representation have been denied, but we should have been denounced as slanderers, both of our New England brethren and of the last General Assembly. We therefore view the communication of Mr. Bacon as containing a potion for our church, bitter indeed in the taking, but which we hope will be salutary in the operation. It will be for Presbyterians to consider, whether this eastern influence is to continue; and if not, what means ought to be taken to arrest or control it. It is manifest that something must be done, unless we are prepared to

become Congregationalists without a struggle.

2. We think it entirely consistent with having said we rejoice that the statement of Mr. Bacon has been published just as it stands, to say that there is in it, according to our judgment, the manifestation of a spirit which ought not to have been indulged. For the same reason that we are glad, on the whole, that the mortifying condition of our church should be publickly known, we are glad that the existence of feelings on his part, which we think wrong in themselves, should be known in the same manner-The knowledge of both these evils may do good in the same way. If there is not the language of triumph-of the triumph of Congregationalism over Presbyterianism, in this communicationwe mistake egregiously. Nay, if some of this language is not directly calculated to give provocation, we certainly do not understand it. He speaks in a manner that strikes us as contemptuous of the institutions of our church-as giving" answers out of the whirlwind," and of having "courts rising above courts," and then asks repeatedly," what are they worth? what are they worth?" We answer, that while we agree with him entirely, that there was in the last General Assembly a refusal, which we think shameful, to try what our institutions were worth in the case of Mr. Barnes, and to which refusal he contributed, as he confesses, all that was in his power; yet we are well satisfied, nevertheless, that if our ecclesiastical order had been permitted to have its regular course, and had been administered in the genuine spirit of our standards, doctrinal and disciplinary, we should have seen something that was worth a hundred fold more than the mawkish, evasive, and trimming report of the committee, of which he was a member. We must also remark, that this