any part of it-all these, doctrine, discipline, and worship, remained as before. What, then, was the ground on which the complainants deemed Mr. Irving unfit to continue a minister? Simply for giving place and paying reverence to that which he believed to be the voice of God, and which they did not believe: simply because he had faith, and they had none, in this matter: simply because he wished to lead and instruct them, which was the very purpose for which he was set over them.

Such was the real occasion of the complaint. Mr. Irving has broken down nothing, and omitted nothing, in his services: but, in addition to the usual services, he has allowed, or not prohibited, the voice of God in his own temple. But it is of But it is of very little consequence, so far as we are at present concerned, whether the complainants or the Presbytery agreed or did not agree in Mr. Irving's views. The latter had no spiritual authority over Mr. Irving. They had no right to say, You are wrong in coming to or acting on this belief. Their only part was to adjudicate the case as it stood before them in evidence.

There is nothing, nor can be, in the standards of the Church of Scotland (nor of any church) which can be construed to forbid the Spirit of God speaking in the midst of the church. There is nothing in those standards to say that God will not be pleased again to raise up prophets. The nearest approach to this is a statement, "that the extraordinary calling by God himself immediately, as was of the prophets and apostles, in kirks established and well already reformed, has no place.' (2d Book of Disc. ch. iii.) But this is so far from denying the possibility, that it clearly sanctions the probability, of such extraordinary calling-unless it be contended that Reformed churches can never fall away from the truth. And, in corroboration, it is expressly asserted, in the previous chapter of the Book of Discipline, that the office of the apostle, evangelist, and prophet have now ceased, "except when it please God extraordinarily for a time to stir some of them up again."

If, then, the possibility of the bestowal of supernatural gifts be once admitted, it becomes necessary, previously to the condemnation and extrusion of a minister for permitting the exercise of what he believes to be such gifts, to ascertain whether the assumed gifts be pretensions or not. But how can this be ascertained? It is a matter in its very nature incapable of being proved or disproved by evidence, except from the testimony of the gifted persons themselves. None other can by possibility testify to more than his belief. And, if not disproved on the evidence of the persons presumed to be gifted, so far as evidence will go, the case against the minister must fail. But, then, it is clear that there must be an authority in the church to try those that say they are apostles or prophets, and either to permit or

to forbid the exercise of their gifts; and that authority, in Mr. Irving's case, was Mr. Irving, and himself alone. If it were not Mr. Irving, who could it be? Not the Presbytery of London: they had no spiritual jurisdiction or supremacy over Mr. Irving or his church and certainly neither the trustees who chose to interfere in the matter, nor the public press, which lashed and goaded the trustees to that interference. Mr. Irving was the sole judge of the matter, and he decided that the supposed gifts were indeed of the Spirit of God; and in order to convict him of a false judgment therein, it was imperative on the complainants to bring evidence that these supposed gifts were not of the Spirit of God. But how does the case, as supported by evidence, in fact stand? Three witnesses were called; two of whom on oath declared their firm belief that the matter complained of was the voice of the Spirit of God. This was no proof against Mr. Irving. Had they both sworn that the contrary was their belief, it could not have enabled the court to pronounce against Mr. Irving. But the third and only other witness, swore to the fact that he had been one of the parties who had been the occasion of the complaint, and that he did speak by the power of the Spirit of God. This was the only evidence adduced, except Mr. Irving's letters, which, of course, contained statements only to the same effect. And on this evidence the Presbytery decided in express terms, that the gifts were supposititious.

Such is the fair statement of the case brought for the adjudication of the Presbytery. We now proceed to consider their exact position in respect of jurisdiction, and their manner of exercising their brief authority; passing by the fact, that, as matters stood, they had no jurisdiction whatever, there being no valid complaint before them, the which could alone have given them jurisdiction.

II. In the first place, then, be it remembered, that as a presbytery they had no authority. They were not in the position of that court in Scotland, dealing with a minister legally brought before them, and over whose entire ministerial conduct they could legally exercise controul. In one word, they were merely arbitrators, who were called upon to give their award upon the subject matter contained in the complaint, as supported by evidence, on the one part; and the answer of the defendant, on the other part. The fact that this court had previously, on another question, pronounced Mr. Irving an heretic (although, having no jurisdiction over him, their judgment was but brutum fulmen, an inoperative bull), had so altered the relation between the Presbytery and the National Scotch Church, that, in the eye of equity, they could no longer be regarded as impartial arbitrators; and, no doubt, on application to the Court of Chancery Mr. Irving would have been relieved from the necessity of trying the

VOL. V. NO. II.

3 N

question before them. But Mr. Irving having refrained from so doing, it was at least their duty to have abstained carefully from all former questions: yet will it be believed, that they not only refused to dismiss from recollection their former personal quarrels against Mr. Irving's doctrines, but, so blinded were they to all sense of propriety, that they actually inserted on their record the fact that "he had been delated and convicted before them on the ground of heresy concerning the human nature of our Lord Jesus Christ?"

These, then, were the judges by whom Mr. Irving was condemned. 'We, who have of our voluntary act and interference already adjudged this gentleman an heretic, do yet conceive ourselves competent to act as judges, and to give an impartial decision upon the question whether he be fit to remain minister or not; and therefore do decide that Mr. Irving is unfit to be minister.' If it be in human nature to give an impartial judgment under such circumstances, is it prudent, with a regard to character, that men should take on themselves such an office? Is it possible that their decision should be treated with respect ?

The fact is, that the presbytery were parties, as well as sole judges; and as parties they acted from the commencement to the close. Instead of listening with attention to the arguments on either side; instead of suggesting their doubts, and being willing to hear what could be urged by the party against whom those doubts bore adversely; they seized the first moment when they could declare the parties removed, and then debated and decided, frequently on completely different grounds to those touched upon by either side; and if an attempt were made to set them right in their assumptions, however extravagant the notion or violent the mistatement giving occasion for such attempt, the intruder on their deliberations was told that he could not then be heard.

Hence proceeded the iniquitous course of examination to which the witnesses were subjected by the court :-cross examined by one judge after another, not for the discovery of facts: every question irrelevant to the matter of complaint, but directed to the detection of some false doctrine supposed to be held by Mr. Irving :-a moral crucible, in which the opinions of the witnesses might be fused, in order that, if possible, they might scrape up some dross and call it Mr. Irving's. But they were unsuccessful.

Hence also proceeded the monstrous proposition, that after the complainants had finished their case, after their witnesses had been examined and sifted and to no purpose, they, the judges, should make up for the deficiency which they were con scious did exist, and might themselves adjudicate on a case of their own construction. "Oh," said the Moderator," the Revi Defender and his agent ought to be informed that Presbyteries

in Scotland have the power of examining what witnesses they please, for they are frequently in the situation of prosecutors." True; for they are never judges in the last resort: they are subordinate tribunals, who make up the case for other courts. But that man is unfit to adjudicate the smallest matter, who cannot distinguish between his duties as a prosecutor and his duties as a judge. Had they been able to allege a doubt as to certain facts on which they required clearer evidence, there might have been some colour for the proposal; but common sense, on a perusal of the trial, will discover the real motive for this dismissal of the character of judge, and assumption of that of prosecutor.

The ignorance of the Presbytery, not only in the forms of procedure in their own church, but, what was of much more importance, of the first principles of justice, betrayed them continually into acts which would have been only absurd, had they not been injurious to the cause of justice. They had heard somewhere in Scotland, that at a certain period, in a church cause, it is not competent for any to constitute themselves parties therein : and therefore, while the very matter in discussion was whether all the trustees assented to the complaint or not, they refused to hear one of the trustees, who rose to set them at rest on the subject, and to say that he did not assent to the complaint. And on the same ground they refused to listen to the united voice of the subscribers and seat-holders, expressive of their wish to retain Mr. Irving as minister. Rules for the goverment of a large community may be very good things, and tend on the whole to the promotion of justice; but it quite escaped the Rev. Gentlemen, notwithstanding their anxiety for abstract maxims, that “summum jus" is too frequently" summa injuria."

But, above all, and beyond all, was their daring act of defiance to God and His word, in their refusal to allow appeal to the word of God, upon a subject which, from the nature of the case, could only be determined theologically from the word of God. Let our readers mark the manner in which this was, done for, iniquitous as was the decision of the General Assembly in forbidding to Mr. Campbell a similar appeal, there was no common principle whereby to connect the present case with Mr. Campbell's, as was attempted by the Presbytery. The latter case, even had it been rightly ruled, was no precedent for the former. Mr. Campbell was charged on a matter of doctrine, which, after proving that the standards did not contradict, he attempted to support and enforce out of the word of God, and thence to draw additional proof that his was the correct construction of the standards. He was told to limit himself to the standards. But in the present case a witness was asked as to his own private belief-a matter which had nothing to do with the question, it is true; but which line of examination by Mr. Irving had been rendered necessary by the previous examination

by complainants and court;-and it was on a private man's belief, not on the doctrine held by a church, that the appeal to the Scriptures was forbidden. If this be not rank Popery, to be a Papist is an impossibility.

Being thus prevented from appealing to the Scriptures, Mr. Irving put in the following Protest :-"I protest, in the presence of Almighty God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Head of the Church, that I was not permitted, in questioning the witnesses, to refer to the word of God, which is the only appeal in all questions; that my judgment therein was taken away; and that I will put no further questions." This conduct was persisted in by the Presbytery, and subsequently attempted to be justified by the Moderator, on the precedent afforded by the General Assembly of last year. "I can state," he said, " on my own personal credit, having been present at the case, that, at the last General Assembly, the Rev. Mr. Campbell of Row, who is now a deposed minister, was proceeding with the same line of defence, by taking his appeal to the Scriptures, instead of justifying his doctrine as coming under the standards of the Church. The General Assembly ruled that it was an incompetent line of defence." This is a practical illustration of the argument at the commencement of this article, and shews that the Church of Scotland refuses to be tried by the Word of God, and must be dashed in pieces, unless she instantly repents of her sin, and abjures the abominable acts of her rulers.

We cannot conclude without calling the attention of our readers to one matter further in the conduct of the Presbytery. Conscious of their disqualification, so far as accorded with all human maxims and morality, to act with impartiality in the adjudication of this question; and therefore of the necessity of publishing the ground for taking on themselves a burthen which, contrary to their own inclination, as they alleged, was cast upon them; they give, as their solemn reason for so doing, in their Judgment, that "the Trust Deed, legally drawn with the consent of the Rev. E. Irving and the parties thereto, provides not only that this Presbytery shall act and adjudicate in all cases of complaint brought against the Minister for the time being by such persons, but that the said award shall be final and conclusive." These words are very clear; their intent also is very clear: and therefore, as the Presbytery were convinced that under the Trust Deed a majority only of the trustees were sufficient to compel them to adjudicate, not their will consented, but necessity threw upon them the decision otherwise justice must have been deprived of her efficacy; and-a pastor and his whole flock, with the exception of some eight or ten individuals, must have been permitted to continue in the house expressly built for them, against the will of those few individuals. However, our readers will be astonished: to hear, and the Presbytery grieved to learn, for the first time,