In an elaborate review of the proceedings of the Assembly, Dr Hodge, with his characteristic judiciousness, condemns these resolutions, and gives his judgment on the question in the following terms, which we deem worthy of insertion :—

"It is obvious that the debates and some of the measures of the Assembly indicate the spirit of intolerance and impatience of diversity of opinion which are so apt to reveal themselves in times of excitement. It was even proposed to censure the Synod of Kentucky, because that body had expressed its disapprobation of the action of the previous Assembly, respecting slavery and the state of the country. Yet every member of the Assembly would, on reflection, readily admit that it is the right, not only of subordinate ecclesiastical bodies, but of the humblest member of the church, to express in respectful language their judgment on the acts of our highest court. This is a privilege which we all claim, and which we all freely exercise, and which no presbyterian ever will give up. If, as citizens, we may express our opinions of the acts of Congress; if, in fact, those who desired to censure the Synod of Kentucky, did doubtless vehemently condemn those acts under the administration of Mr Buchanan; if, before the division, when the New-school had the majority in the Assembly, the Oldschool freely protested against many of their measures, surely no one can pretend that all men are now precluded from this liberty of judgment and freedom of speech. What would become of the state or the church, if minorities could not say a word in opposition to the acts of the majority. How long did the evangelical party protest, condemned publicly and privately the course of the moderates in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland? It is not necessary to argue such a point as this, and its being called in question at all is an evidence how soon men in power, and under the pressure of strong feeling, forget the plainest principles of constitutional liberty and right.

"Another illustration of this same tendency is found in the Assembly's making its own deliverances the test of orthodoxy and loyalty. Dr John C. Lord said, that if Kentucky needed a definition of loyalty he would give it. It was 'cordial agreement with the deliverances of the Assembly on doctrine, loyalty, and freedom. This amounts to saying, orthodoxy is my doxy. Yet not only individual members, but the Assembly itself insists in authoritative acts, and requires this agreement as the condition on which the Southern ministers and presbyteries are to be received into our church. We are persuaded that not a member of the body, when he comes calmly to consider the matter, will hesitate to admit that the Assembly, in so doing, transcended its power. They allow their own members to protest against their acts, to enter their protests on the minutes; they cannot deny the right of inferior judicatories to record their dissent, nor hinder private ministers and members from condemning their action and arguing against it, and yet they declare agreement with it to be a condition of ministerial and church fellowship.

"It is an axiom in our presbyterianism, that the General Assembly can make no law to bind the conscience. It cannot alter by adding thereto or detracting therefrom the constitutional terms of ministerial or Christian fellowship. Those terms are laid down in express words in our Form of Government, which we are all bound to obey. Assent to the truth or propriety of the deliverances or testimonies of the Assembly is not one of the terms prescribed. If the Assembly may make agreement in their testimony on slavery a term of communion, they may make their deliverances on temperance, colonisation, or any other subject such a term. This was often attempted during the temperance excitement. We have seen a minister rise in one of our synods and say that the time had come when the

Miscellaneous Intelligence.

877

church would not tolerate any man in the ministry who refused to take the pledge of total abstinence from intoxicating liquors. This was done by a man who, if not at that time secretly a drunkard, soon became notorious for his addiction to that vice. We have no security for liberty of conscience, no protection from the tyranny of casual majorities, if the principle be once admitted that the Assembly can make anything beyond what the constitution prescribes, a condition either of admission into the ministry of our church or of continuance in it. This is too plain to be questioned. Yet this plain principle is obviously violated in the minute adopted on the Report of the Committee of Bills and Overtures.

"Again, we make bold to express our conviction that the majority of the Assembly will admit, on reflection, that their action in reference to the Southern synods and presbyteries was altogether unnecessary. The object of that action was to prevent the admission of unworthy or undesirable ministers or members into our church. It was said that many, especially in the Border States, had not only taken part in the rebellion, but had joined the guerrillas, committed acts of violence, or been the guide of depredators, pointing out to them as objects of vengeance the friends of the Union. How, it was asked, could such men be recognised and received without repentance? How could Christian people be expected to sit at the Lord's table or receive the consecrated elements from hands red, it might be, with the blood of their friends and brothers? It is plain that sessions and presbyteries did not need any act of the Assembly to authorise them to deal with such crimes as these. Joining the rebellion on the part of citizens of States which had not seceded, was a civil as well as a moral offence. It was without any colour of law. It was just as much a violation of morality as riot or resistance to the magistrates in the public streets. And as to acts of robbery and violence, said to have been of such frequent occurrence, of course the church courts were bound to deal with them before, as much as after, the order of the Assembly. But the power of our presbyteries go much beyond the right to punish notorious offenders. They have the right to judge of the qualificatious of their own members. If a man is eccentric, imprudent, fanatical, or for any other reason, unsuited to a particular part of the country, the presbytery on that ground may refuse to receive him. By so doing they do not affect his ecclesiastical standing. They do not impeach his orthodoxy or his Christian character. They simply say that they believe that his admission to membership would be injurious to the interests of their churches. A householder is not bound to receive every applicant into his family. He may decline for reasons which affect no civil or social right of others. He only guards his own. Our presbyteries have always acted on this principle, and it is universally recognised. The very putting it to vote whether a man coming with clean papers should be received, implies the right to say No, as well as Yes. This being the case, there was no necessity for the General Assembly issuing an order to the presbyteries as to whom they should receive and whom they should reject. They have a right to exercise their own discretion in the matter, and therefore this action of the Assembly is not only unneces sary but nugatory. The presbyteries are not bound to obey it. If the Assembly had no right to give the order; if they had no authority to alter the constitutional terms of membership in our churches or presbyteries, the lower courts are under no obligation to regard the injunction. The Assembly has the right to order the presbyteries to see that all those whom they receive have the qualifications prescribed in the constitution, and therefore little objection has ever been made to the act passed some time ago, enjoining the presbyteries to examine every minister from another presbytery as to his soundness in the faith before admitting him to membership. But beyond this it has no right to go.

"It may be said, however, that the action of the Assembly virtually amounts to nothing more than a declaration, that taking part in the rebellion and dissent from the deliverances of the Assembly respecting slavery, are moral offences, which are proper grounds of exclusion from church privileges until confessed and repented of. The Assembly, of course, has the right to express its judgment and give instructions on all points of truth and duty. So has every presbytery and every minister or Christian. But such judgments and instructions have only the authority due to the advice or opinions of those from whom they proceed. They have no legal force on any man's conscience or conduct. If a presbytery should admit a minister who had favoured the rebellion, or dissented from the Assembly's deliverance on slavery, and any one should bring the matter before the higher court by a complaint, the Assembly would have the right to give a judgment which would be binding on all the lower courts. But every man would be entitled to his opinion as to the correctness of that judment, and the next Assembly would have a perfect right to pronounce a decision of a directly opposite character. The popish doctrine of the infallibility of church courts does not suit Americans. It is high time that these simple principles of religious liberty should be clearly announced and openly asserted. It is no new thing that the greatest advocates of liberal doctrines should become intolerant and tyrannical when invested with power. If a man makes up his mind always to go with the majority, it will be a miracle if he do not often go wrong.

"It is, moreover, very obvious that the action of the Assembly with regard to the Southern churches is founded on a disregard of two plain distinctions. The one is the difference between political offences and ordinary crimes. As this point has been considered in a previous article of this number of our journal, we shall not dwell upon it here. It is enough to repeat, what no one can deny, that a man's taking the wrong side in a civil war, is no proof that he is not a Christian. His course may be determined by a wrong political theory, or by a regard for those actually in authority over him. We are bound to obey a de facto government, although it be that of a usurper. The apostle, in enjoining submission to the 'powers that be,' meant those in actual possession of the authority of the state, whether a Nero or any one else. This obligation is, of course, limited by the higher obligation to obey God rather than man. But it is not necessary that every man should investigate the title of a ruler's authority before believing in its validity. The present inhabitants of France are bound to recognize Louis Napoleon as emperor, whatever they may think of the revolution which placed him in power. The fact, therefore, that a man or minister supported the late wicked rebellion, is not to be assumed as a proof that he is unworthy of Christian fellowship, even if that support was voluntary on his part.

The other distinction to which we referred, is that between sin and ecclesiastical offences. Every day sad exhibitions are made by those whom we are obliged to regard as Christians, of the imperfection which belongs to our present state. How often do we see manifestations of pride, covetousness, maliciousness, arrogance, to say nothing of idleness, sloth, lukewarmness, and worldly mindedness, in ministers and church members! It is seldom that a meeting of the General Assembly itself occurs without some exhibition of unholy temper. All these things are great sins. They are heinous in the sight of God, and offensive to all good people. Yet they are not matters for formal church discipline. We may, therefore, see and feel that the conduct of the Southern ministers and members has been exceeding wrong that the spirit of pride, contempt, and animosity which they have in so many cases exhibited towards their Northern brethren and fellow-citizens, are great sins in the sight of God; but so also are the evil

Miscellaneous Intelligence.

879

tempers, the worldly-mindedness, avarice, and other sins which we have so much reason to lament in ourselves and others. Church courts cannot visit all kinds of sin with ecclesiastical censure. We are obliged to receive all into the fellowship of the church who give evidence that they are true Christians, however imperfect they may be; otherwise the best of us would

be excluded.

"Another thing must force itself on the minds of the majority of the Assembly, as it has already strongly impressed outsiders, The demand that all who favoured the rebellion should give evidence of repentance of that sin and openly confess it, goes beyond all previous action of the Assembly, and all demands of the civil government itself. When the New school seceded from our church and erected another and rival body, it was an unjustifiable act, as all Old-school men believe. It was done in favour of false doctrine and in disregard of our constitution. When the separation was effected, the Assembly opened the door for the return of all who were disposed to come back. The only conditions prescribed were, adoption of our standard of doctrine and conformity to our form of government. No man was called to repent of the sin of schism, to confess sorrow for having favoured the secession, nor to approve of the exscinding acts. Yet if the principle or feeling which governed this assembly had prevailed in the excited controversies of 1837 and '38, these requisitions would cer tainly have been made. It will hardly be maintained that a rebelllion against church authority is not as sinful as rebellion against the state; or that a secession in favour of doctrinal error is not as serious an offence in the sight of God as secession in favour of African slavery. Whatever may be thought of the relative evil in the two cases, the principle is the same in both. Yet the Assembly of 1838 adopted one principle, and that of 1865 another. The prominent advocates of the reunion of the Old and Newschool Church were the most zealous in pressing through these extreme measures with regard to the Southern ministers. They insist that all who are willing to adopt our standards of doctrine and order should be welcomed back to our fellowship. They do not require that they should repent of their sin in breaking up the union of the church, in supporting or tolerating false doctrine. Nor is it demanded that they approve of all the acts and deliverances of the Assembly in 1837 and 1838. One rule is adopted with those who have gone off from us in the South, and another to those who, with no better excuse, seceded in the North.

"The United States authorities require of those who participated in the rebellion, no expression of contrition, no renunciation of political theories, no avowal of approbation of the measures of the government for the preservation of the Union and abrogation of slavery, but the simple promise of obedience to the laws and allegiance to the government. It seems rather incongruous that a church court should assume to be more loyal than the government which it desires to support,

"Again, it is hard to see why, if favouring the rebellion is a crime calling for confession and repentance, it should not be visited upon Northern as well as Southern offenders. The fact is undeniable that thousands of men, many of them members and officers in our own church, have sympathised with the South in this whole conflict. They openly rejoiced when our armies were defeated, and mourned over our successes. Many faithful pastors have been driven from their churches, because they felt in conscience bound to pray for the President and the success of our national arms, and to give thanks over our victories. If these are overlooked, and if the Assembly refused to direct their being made the grounds of church censure, with what consistency can Southern men be rejected for the same thing. If there be a difference in the case, it is in favour of Southern men who espoused the Southern cause which they regarded as the cause of their

country, and not of Northern men who sided against what they knew to be their country, and took part with those who were seeking its destruction. We are bound by our ordination vows to promote the peace and unity of the church, to endeavour to bring into harmony and Christian fellowship, both external and inward, all who agree with us in the adoption of the same faith and discipline. It matters not whether they be the New-school men at the North or Old-school men at the South. Whatever therefore tends to alienation and division is contrary to the spirit of the gospel. On this ground we are persuaded a very general objection to the action of the Assembly on the state of the country will be entertained, as well as very profound regret. That action can only serve to increase instead of allaying unfriendly and unholy feelings; to retard rather than to promote that visible union which all profess to regard an important duty."

The Free Christian Churches in Italy.

in a 66

Quarterly

THESE churches have lately found an English organ Report of Evangelisation in Italy," the first three numbers of which are now before us. It is impossible to refrain from admiring the spirit of Christian meekness and candour in which this periodical is conducted. The object of the editor is to vindicate the Free Italian churches from misrepresentation, and enlist in their behalf the sympathy and support of British Christians. Into the controversy which has unhappily arisen between them and the Waldensian church, we do not now enter. It is a thousand pities that there should have been any thing like collision between fellow-workers in such a glorious enterprise; and we are afraid there have been faults on both sides. On the one hand, we can hardly believe that the Waldensians expect that their church is to be the sole and exclusive organisation of Christians in Italy, or that the work of evangelisation can only be conducted by proselytism to their community. Viewed by the Italian population rather as foreigners and French, than as natives of the soil, associated with the hated name of Protestants, around which every epithet of reproach and ignominy has been gathering for centuries, it can hardly be anticipated that this small church, rich and reverent as she is in our eyes from the memories of the past, will succeed, to any great extent, in attracting the multitudes of Italians who are seeking after the truth. On the other hand, it was our fond hope, that the Free Italian churches, in their reaction from the sacerdotalism and ritualism of Rome, would be preserved from falling into the opposite extreme of ultra-spiritualism. And we regret to find, not so much from this Quarterly Report, as from certain pamphlets issued by some individuals who are taking a leading part in the movement, that they have adopted views regarding the Christian ministry and ordinances, as much at variance with those of our reformers, as they are with those of the Romanists. We do not charge these writers with "Plymouthism,"-it is vain to bandy terms of reproach, and the Plymouthists themselves will reject the name, but there can be no doubt that they reject the doctrine of an ordained Christian ministry,-that they express themselves in terms of strong reprobation regarding all confessions of faith, and that they seem to have adopted a system of worship and order in some respects new to the Christian church. In