sources of the existing boards of the church. Second, that the difficulty we had to contend with, is not the want of buildings but the want of preachers. Wherever a congregation can be collected, a house can be built adequate to their real necessities; and to organize a plan to assist in erecting churches is to destroy the self-reliance of the people, and lead them to look to others for what they should do for themselves. Third, some of the brethren seem to think that the report was too secular, that church extension was not to be secured by erecting houses, but by spiritual means; that Rome and Lambeth might take the lead in secular agencies for enlarging the church, but Presbyterians must rely on preaching the gospel. Fourth, it was objected that the Board of Missions was not the proper body to whom to refer this business. They had already enough to do, and especially enough to do with money matters and agencies. It was undesirable to concentrate in their hands either more of the duties which belong to private christians, or more influence. It was the duty of individual christians to answer the occasional calls of feeble congregations for aid, and other than occasional calls should not be encouraged.

The plan was advocated by Dr. Hoge, its author, by Dr. Rice, Mr. Hall, Mr. Yantis, Dr. Potts, of St. Louis, by Dr. Maclean, Dr. Plumer, Mr. Scovel, and others. These brethren proved that the object, which the plan designed to accomplish, was desirable and important, and that the means proposed for attaining that object, were good. It was not denied either that the preaching of the gospel, is the great means of securing the extension of the church, or that a people who need a place of worship, should do all they can to erect it. But it was proved that in a multitude of cases the great difficulty in collecting a congregation, is the want of a convenient building, and that still more frequently the people, though willing to contribute, are unable by themselves to erect a suitable edifice. The evidence of these facts consists in the testimony of the brethren in the more destitute portions of the church, and in the frequency of the applications made for aid. It cannot, therefore, be denied that great and crying necessity does exist for the erection of suitable places of worship in almost every part of the church. This demand is so extensive and so urgent that it must be met, and the only question is as to the best means of meeting it. The means now employed, is for the pastor of the feeble congregation to leave his church and travel about,

usually in one well trodden path, to solicit assistance. The objections to this plan are obvious. It takes the man away from his post whose presence and labours are most necessary to the success of the enterprise. It presents the application under the least imposing form. The churches have no information on which to act, but the testimony of the pastor, who is unavoidably more impressed by wants which come under his own immediate cognizance, than by those of which he has no personal knowledge. And besides this, the applications are in this way confined to a few congregations, or individuals, who are thus subjected to incessant and often unreasonable demands. This is an effectual answer to the objection urged against the plan submitted to the Assembly, that the churches were already taxed to the extent of their willingness to bear. The question is not whether money must be raised for this purpose, for it is raised, but how it can be most economically, justly, and efficiently collected? Shall it be by private and unauthorized applications to a limited number of individuals? or shall it be by a regular plan which shall in the first place secure proper evidence that the case is one which calls for assistance, and then look for that assistance not to a few men, but to the whole church? The Assembly with great unanimity ultimately decided in favour of the latter method. In this we greatly rejoice; we believe this to be one of the most important decisions at which our highest judicatory has for a long time arrived. It is a step towards the practical recognition of that brotherhood of Christians, which in words we are all ready to acknowledge. We admit that the church is one body, and that unless we feel a real sympathy with all the members of that body, we can have no good evidence that we ourselves belong to it; yet one pastor has more than he can spend, while another must labour with his hands; one congregation is sumptuously accommodated, while others have no place in which to worship God. We are not so sanguine as to imagine that this diversity will ever be entirely obliterated, and we are far from supposing that exact equality either in the salaries of ministers or in the style of church edifices, is, in the present state of the world, either possible or desirable. But we are fully persuaded that the diversity which now exists is far too great; that the great evil under which we labour is the want of that brotherly love which would make the different parts of the church feel that they are all members of the same body; that it is no less a privilege than a

duty that the abundance of one part should be for a supply for the want of another. This has always been the case when the church prospered, and it is one of the most effectual means of securing that prosperity. We greatly rejoice, therefore, that the Assembly has sanctioned this plan which will call into exercise, and by the exercise strengthen the sympathy of every part of the church with every other. We are certainly behind many other denominations in this respect, not to speak of the compact organization of Popery, which, animated by one spirit, is bringing the resources of the whole body to bear on the extension of their system of delusion, where, without such aid from abroad, it could not exist, many protestant churches are setting us an example in this respect. The fact that the Methodist church in this country now numbers more than a million of communicants is to be attributed to no one cause so much as to the real union which has hitherto subsisted among them; to the fact that they make common cause in every thing, and sustain men and build houses by the contributions of the whole body, in places where the gospel could in no other way be sustained. That Dr. Hoge's plan when first submitted, considering its comprehensiveness and importance, should call forth the expression of doubt and misgiving from many excellent brethren, is not to be wondered at; but the fact that it was finally adopted "without a count," shows that its merits soon became convincingly manifest. We are thus encouraged to hope that it will meet with the general approbation of the churches.

Appeal and Complaint of R. J. Breckinridge and others.

The Rev. R. J. Breckinridge, D. D. presented to the Synod of Philadelphia, at its late meeting, two papers expressing dissent from the decisions of the General Assembly of 1843, touching the constitution of the quorum of presbyteries, and the right of ruling elders to join in the imposition of hands in the ordination of ministers, and proposing that the Synod should overture the Assembly to reverse these decisions. The question being on the adoption of the said papers, the Synod decided not to adopt; and thereupon Dr. Breckinridge and others appealed and complained to the next Assembly. The papers connected with this subject having been referred to the judicial committee, the Rev. S. B. Wilson, chairman of that committee, reported that they had examined the same, and that, in their opinion, the deci

sions complained of were not, according to our Book of Discipline, matters of appeal or complaint, and recommending that the papers be returned to the parties who presented them. When this report came up for consideration, James C. Baker, Esq. of Virginia, moved that it should be adopted. The Rev. J. L. Yantis, of Missouri, moved a postponement of that motion with a view to grant leave to the appellants to be heard in the Assembly in support of their right to appeal. The motion to postpone was advocated by the mover, by Dr. Young, James Stonestreet, Esq., Rev. N. H. Hall, and others. It was opposed by Rev. A. O. Patterson, Dr. Hoge, Rev. A. Williamson, Rev. N. L. Rice, &c.; and rejected by a vote of 119 to 55. The following day the report of the Judicial Committee again came up, when the Rev. J. Allison, of Tennessee, moved that it be postponed with the view of taking up the following resolutions, viz:

1. Resolved, That while this Assembly accord with the views of the Judicial committee, as far as appeals are concerned, it is believed that according to our constitution it is the privilege of any member to complain of any decision of our lower judicatories.

2. Resolved, That the Judicial committee be directed to prepare and arrange the papers in the case of the complaint of R. J. Breckinridge and others, in order that said complaint may be regularly issued by the Assembly.

On motion of Dr. Maclean, the motion to postpone was laid on the table, and the way was thus opened for the discussion of the report of the Judicial Committee. The adoption of that report was advocated by Dr. Wilson, Dr. Hoge, Dr. Elliot, Messrs. A. O. Patterson and N. L. Rice; it was opposed by Dr. J. C. Young, Mr. Junkin, Mr. Stonestreet, Mr. Gildersleeve, and others. After a protracted discussion the vote was taken and resulted as follows, Ayes: Ministers 88, Elders 53-total 141. Nays: Ministers 21, Elders 26-total 47. Thus the report was adopted,* and the Assembly decided that, in the case before them, there was no ground on which either an appeal or complaint could rest.

Until within a comparatively recent period there was no diversity as far as we know either of opinion or practice, in our church, on the legitimate grounds of appeals and complaints. At present it would seem that there are no less

*The Presbyterian reports the ayes as 143, and nays 47. The Protestant and Herald makes the ayes 142, nays 45.

than four different views more or less prevalent on the subject. The first is that any decision of a lower, may be brought up before a higher judicatory by either an appeal or complaint, at the option of those concerned. The second opinion goes to the opposite extreme, and denies the right of either appeal or complaint except in cases strictly judicial, i. e. cases in which there has been a trial and a sentence. The third opinion is, that appeals are limited to judicial cases, but that complaints may be entered against any decision of a lower judicatory. The fourth, which we believe to be sustained by the plain doctrine of our Book, and the uniform practice of our own and of all other Presbyterian churches, is that taken by the Rev. N. L. Rice and we presume by a great majority of the late Assembly, viz. that appeals and complaints may lie not against any decision, but against any kind of decision of a lower court. That is, it matters not whether the act be judicial, legislative, or executive, it may be brought under the revision of a higher court by either of the methods mentioned. But as both appeals and complaints are measures of redress, they from their nature suppose a grievance, a wrong done or charged, and therefore cannot possibly lie in any case where no grievance or wrong-doing is supposable.

At

It is somewhat remarkable that after nearly a century and a half of practice, during which appeals and complaints have almost yearly and often many in the same year been brought up and decided, it should still be a matter of debate when a man has a right to avail himself of this mode of redress. To the best of our knowledge there never were two opinions on this subject until the year 1834, when the late Rev. Mr. Winchester, in defending the Synod of Philadelphia against the complaint of the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia, took the ground that no appeal or complaint could lie except in a judicial case, a case of trial and censure. that time the Synod which he defended repudiated that ground of defence, for they themselves referred to that very Assembly, an appeal from an executive act. The following autumn, however, the Synod, under the lead it is believed of some of the present appellants, took the ground, that no appeal, complaint or even protest could lie except in cases of a strictly judicial character. This, however, was a momentary delusion, for the members of that Synod without the least hesitation or objection joined in entertaining and issuing, the following spring, an appeal of Thomas Bradford