incur the responsibility of bringing odium on the cause of Christ, if we now became the assailants, and drew our brethren to the bar of a civil tribunal, at the very moment they were withdrawing their suit against us.

There was moreover no such prospect of success as to justify us in incurring the evils which must result from a protracted law suit. The law in any case was uncertain. One court had decided against us in our former suit, and another for us. Though a plainer case, both as to law and equity in our judgment was never submitted to a court. The incompetency of such tribunals to decide questions connected with ecclesiastical proceedings, both parties in the church had been loud in proclaiming. It was therefore most unwise, to put the important interests at stake to the hazard of another trial; especially as in the present case, we were not the party immediately interested.

The motion to reconsider prevailed by a vote of 96; and it was then moved that the whole subject be indefinitely postponed, which motion was carried, ayes 65, nays 52. It was then resolved, that the papers on this subject transmitted to the trustees should be recalled, and returned to the gentleman who laid them before the Assembly.

Hasty ordinations and unauthorized demission of the sacred office.

The committee appointed on this subject by the last Assembly, made the following report, which was amended and adopted as follows, viz.

The Moderator of the last General Assembly submitted to the Committee of Overtures, a minute in regard to hasty ordination of ministers of the gospel, and to unauthorized demission of their covenanted employment by ministers, which that committee reported to the Assembly, (Overture No. 11, p, 432, printed minutes of 1841,) and which being considered was referred to a select Committee, (page 425,) the report of which together with the original minute, was by order of the Assembly, (page 447,) referred to another select Committee, which was directed to report to the Assembly of 1842; which last named committee, having considered the subject, submit the following minute as their report viz:

I. That as persons are liable to mistake their calling, and as the office of the ministry is, by God's institution, a permanent one, which cannot be laid aside at pleasure, Presbyteries ought to exercise great caution in ordaining ministers of the gospel. And they are hereby enjoined, not to ordain any one to the Pastoral office, until full proof has been made of him, as a licentiate, by the Presbytery that ordains him.

II. As one great evidence of a divine call to the work of the ministry, is the call of a particular congregation, it is especially necessary to use great caution in ordinations sine titulo, and the Presbyteries are enjoined not to pro

ceed to such ordinations except in the cases provided for in our form of government.

III. That the Presbyteries are specially enjoined not to ordain their licentiates when they are about to remove into the bounds of other Presbyteries, but to dismiss them as licentiates.

IV. That, as intimately connected with this subject, Presbyteries ought to have a special oversight of the settlement of ministers in vacant churches, as by the word of God, and the standards of the church, they are empowered and directed. And that in all such settlements, it is in itself right, and would tend to establish proper order, and the due supervision of Presbyteries, and to break up irregular influences and residences, that vacant churches should apply to their own Presbyteries for supplies.

V. That permanent ministerial connexion with any Presbytery except that in whose bounds the individual lives, is irregular and disorderly, and not to be allowed. But where the residence is not in the bounds of any of our Presbyteries, (as in the case of foreign missionaries,) the connexion may be with either of them.

VI. That the relation of stated supply, which has grown up between many of our churches and ministers, is unknown to our system, and tends to disorder and injury in many ways. The Presbyteries, are therefore directed to supplant it, as far as possible, in all cases, by the regular pastoral relation; and to discountenance it as a permanent relation.

VII. That those ministers who give up the regular and stated work of the gospel ministry, as their main work, except it be for reasons satisfactory to their Presbyteries, should be called to an account by the Presbyteries to which they belong, and dealt with according to the merits of their respective cases. And the justifiable cause for which any minister gives up his work should be stated on the minutes of his Presbytery at the time-with the approval of the body.

VIII. That all our Presbyteries be directed, at their first stated meeting after the rising of this Assembly, to require such ministers in their bounds, as are not regularly engaged in their covenanted work, to give an account of themselves; and the Presbyteries shall take such order in the premises, as is consistent with this minute, and report their doings specially to their respective synods, and to the next Assembly.

IX. The whole object of this action is to enforce the true principles of our standards, in regard to the calling and work of the gospel ministry; and to correct errors and irregularities which have sprung up in various places. And for effectual reform in the premises, the whole subject is commended to the special attention of all our Synods and Presbyteries. And nothing herein is to be construed as any disparagement of the true office and work of an Evangelist, which is scriptural, permanent, and most important; and on that very account the more carefully to be guarded, lest it become a pretext and covering for deceived persons, or for intruders into the holy work of the gospel ministry. X. Resolved, That it be referred to the Presbyteries whether the following section shall be added to the 15th chapter of our form of government;

The office of a minister of the gospel is perpetual and cannot be laid aside at pleasure-yet any minister may, with the permission of his Presbytery, demit the exercise of his office, and when any minister has thus demitted the exercise of his office, he shall not be permitted to sit as a member of our ecclesiastical judicatories. And any minister, having so demitted the exercise of his office, may on personal application to the Presbytery which allowed him to demit it, if said Presbytery think proper, be by it restored to the exercise thereof, and to all the rights incident thereto.

This report gave rise to considerable discussion, but was

finally as amended unanimously adopted. The principal points embraced in the discussion were the following: First, when may a candidate for the ministry be properly ordained sine titulo. On the one hand it was contended that such ordinations should never be allowed, unless the candidate intended to make the preaching of the gospel his main work, and to go as an evangelist to frontier or destitute places. But, on the other hand, it was said that this principle did not embrace certain cases, in which Presbyteries had the right, and ought to exercise the power to ordain. If the candidate had, in the judgment of the Presbytery, a clear call of God to the ministry, and a proper field to exercise its functions, then he had a right to ordination, and it was the Presbytery's duty to grant it. Ordination confers the right and imposes the duty of preaching the gospel and of administering the sacraments; but it does not necessarily imply that the discharge of these duties should constitute the main business of the minister. There are many of our missionaries whose time and attention are mainly devoted to the superintendence of schools, or the translation of the scriptures. Such men were Carey, Morrison, Martyn. While thus employed, however, they had abundant opportunities of preaching the word. Was this right to be denied them, to satisfy the whim of adhering to rule? Our constitution declares that "the pastoral office is the first in the church both for dignity and usefulness." This we have no disposition to dispute; but the church may see fit to assign some of her probationers to the more humble office of teaching her candidates the a bc of the sacred languages, of superintending their general or professional education, and while this is their main, official business, they may have abundant opportunities to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. Is there any reason why they should be deprived of this privilege, or shut out of this field of usefulness? We know professors in our colleges who preach every Sabbath, who attend bible classes among the students, who have religious meetings every day in the week, often for months together. We know on the other hand, pastors, who from necessity or choice, are six days in the week engaged in their schools, upon their plantations, or in some other secular or semi-secular employment, and who preach on the Sabbath one or two discourses. Is there any ground for regarding these latter as more in the way of their duty than the former; has the one class any right to say to the

other stand by, I am holier than thou? We know no class of men worthier of more respect than pastors, whose congregations are unable or unwilling to give them an adequate support, and who, therefore, after the example of Paul, labour with their own hands night and day, that they may be able to preach the gospel of the grace of God. But it cannot be denied that what is at first undertaken as a means of support, is often prosecuted as a means of wealth, and that the richest ministers are often those who get the smallest salaries. All we wish is that justice should be done; that some of the best and most devoted men in the church, whom the providence of God and the wishes of their brethren have placed in the position of hewers of wood and drawers of water, who are engaged in our colleges in preparing the children of the church for the sacred ministry, should not be regarded as themselves intruders into that office; while in point of fact their time and strength are devoted to the service of the church.

Another point involved in this discussion was the case of those ministers who give up the stated duties of the ministry as their main work. All agree that when a man, for inadequate reasons, after having been ordained to the sacred office, turns aside to secular employments, it is an evil and scandal which requires a remedy. And besides, it sometimes happens that a man mistakes his calling; and after due trial discovers he has not the qualifications or character suited for the successful discharge of the duties of his office. It was thought that some provision should be made for such cases; that the Presbyteries should not allow their members to turn aside from their work for the sake of worldly gain; but should consider such cases as calling for the exercise of discipline. And for the other class, comprising those who, without forfeiting the confidence of their brethren, found themselves unfit for the work to which they were called, the addition to our form of government proposed in the tenth section of the above report, was introduced. To this there seems to be no reasonable objection. It is already provided in our constitution, that although the office of a ruling elder is perpetual, and cannot be laid aside at pleasure, yet any elder may, for adequate reasons, lay aside the exercise of his office. And when this is done, he is not entitled to sit as an elder in any of our church courts. It is simply proposed to extend this rule to the case of ministers. The above rules while they provide for acknowledged

evils, leave uncensured that class of our ministers, who, though not engaged in preaching the gospel as their main work, are employed in the service of the church, and in accordance with the wishes of their Presbyteries.

The only other point in this report which gave rise to much debate, was that part of the third section of the original report, which declared that no candidate should be admitted to trials for settlement in a vacant congregation independently of the immediate supervision of the Presbytery. It was urged on the one hand, that it was the right of the session of a church to supply its own pulpit, or to invite any licentiate or minister in good standing in our church to preach for them, without consulting the Presbytery; that to deny this right was to introduce patronage into our churches, and to interfere with the liberties of the people. On the other hand, it was maintained that the elders of a vacation church were bound to exercise the right in question in subordination to the Presbytery; that they were not an independent body, but a constituent part of an extended organization; and consequently must in all their acts conform to the rules of the church. As a minister and his session are the spiritual rulers of a parish, and have a right to say who shall and who shall not exercise the office of a teacher to the people submitted to their care; so a Presbytery are the spiritual rulers within their bounds, and have the same right with regard to all the churches. The liberties of the people are abundantly provided for by our system. No man can be imposed upon them as a ruler without their consent, or even without their deliberate request. Greater liberty than this they need not desire, and do not as Presbyterians possess.

It was further urged that the supervision of the Presbytery over the supply of vacant congregations, is expressly recognized in our form of government, as in chapter 18; and was constantly exercised; since nothing was more common than for a vacant congregation to apply to its Presbytery for supplies, or for liberty to supply its own pulpit for a definite period. The denial or neglect of this supervision, it was contended, would be the occasion of the greatest disorders. It would effectually nullify all those provisions of our constitution which give to the Presbytery authority in the ordination or installation of pastors. For if a man, whom a Presbytery could not see its way clear to ordain, was allowed, without their consent, to preach within their