Rev. JAMES ELLES of Saltcoats was heard in support of the overture.

Dr Young moved that the overture be adopted, and that Dr Harper should, in accordance with its prayer, be appointed to the chair of systematic theology.

pendent of the Secession Church, and that they should not assume the title of that denomination, as it was his intention to establish a voluntary Colonial church in that country, which might embrace not only ministers of the United Secession Church, but of the Relief and This motion was seconded by Dr HAY. other churches. The Board of Missions Dr HARPER said, as he was so much felt considerable difficulty about this mixed up with the question before the condition, and referred the matter to the court, he thought it would be wrong in decision of the Synod. Mr Smith, from him to withhold his views on the subject. Australia, addressed the Court in sup- From the time when the overture was port of Dr Lang's application, and ex- first brought forward, the subject had plained the circumstances connected with been frequently in his thoughts, and the the Doctor's conversion to Voluntaryism, result was, that he now objected to the and the events which subsequently led proposed transference. He looked upon to his deposition by the Synod of Aus- the chair of systematic theology, as, tralia in consequence of his views and in the present circumstances of our procedure in this matter. A long dis-church, a more arduous one than that of cussion ensued as to the policy of the Synod sending out ministers upon such a condition, and as to whether it would not be better for the Synod at once to occupy this important mission station on its own account, seeing many obstacles in the way of such a proposal as that of Dr Lang. The following is the result of the Synod's deliverance:

Dr HAY proposed the following motion

66

That in the present state of our information respecting Australia, the Synod deem it to be inexpedient to send out missionaries to that country."

pro

pre.

Mr RENTON proposed the following amendment "That as a large and mising field of missionary labour is sented in New South Wales-as an urgent invitation has been addressed to the Synod to occupy that field-and as arrangements have been far advanced for sending out missionaries, the Synod direct the Board of Missions to prosecute the mission, and to employ all prudent measures to secure that it shall be put! on an independent and efficient footing." On the vote being taken by a show of hands, Mr Renton's motion was carried.

pastoral theology, and he shrunk from additional responsibility. If he had a preference either way, it was rather for the chair which he at present occupied; and as he had now completed his third session in that chair, and had collected materials that would facilitate his duties in future, he was unwilling to incur the additional labour which the proposed appointment would impose upon him.

Dr YOUNG did not think the Synod should be influenced in its decision by the statement of Dr Harper. The reasons he had stated were just those which any enlightened right-hearted christian man would give; and he (Dr Young) would therefore suggest that a committee should be appointed to confer with Dr Harper on the subject.

The motion and suggestion of Dr Young were unanimously agreed to.

Dr HARPER said it was impossible for him, with his present views and feelings, to say that he submitted to the appoint

ment.

Dr BROWN having been proposed to be put upon the committee, requested that his name should be withdrawn, for this very plain reason, that he could not CHAIR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. execute the duty which the Synod would The Synod then took up an overture expect from him as a member of comfrom the Presbytery of Kilmarnock, to mittee, and especially as convener. In the effect that, in the prospect of the saying this, he was sure that there was proposed union with the Relief Church, nobody in that court that he thought the Synod should not appoint a new would better fill the chair than Dr HarProfessor in the room of the late Dr per, but, considering the sacrifices he Balmer; but that Dr Harper should be would have to make, and the labours he requested to take the Chair of Systematic would have to submit to, he (Dr Brown) Theology, and that the duties of his (Dr would not be warranted in pressing Dr H.'s) present Chair of Pastoral Theology Dr Harper to leave the chair he at preshould be jointly discharged by the three sent filled, unless a very strong case was Professors, according to whatever ar-made out. If Dr Harper saw his way rangements they might consider to be best.

clear as to filling the other chair, he (Dr B.) would rejoice exceedingly; though, at

the Synod were glad to find that so many congregations had made the collection appointed for this object on the third Sabbath of March last, they enjoined presbyteries to ascertain if such collection has been made in all the congregations in their bounds, and take due means for having it made where the Synod's injunction had not been complied with, and make a return to the Synod treasurer within one month thereafter.

the same time, he would regret that the had bestowed upon this object. While chair which Dr Harper at present filled would be left empty-a chair, the proper filling up of which was of immense importance to the rising ministry. He regretted exceedingly that in all that he had heard of the matter, they were left perfeetly in the dark as to whether or not the four chairs would be filled up-whether or not the chair of Pastoral Theology would be filled up-or whether they would attempt to distribute its duties among the other three Professors. Whatever the members of the court might think, he was quite sure that the Professors were of one mind, that they had enough to do within their own sphere-that they did not need to go beyond it. For the reasons he had stated, he must request that he would not be named a member of committee.

Dr YOUNG thought that Dr Brown would be of great service as a member of committee.

AMERICAN SLAVERY.

The Synod then took up various overtures and memorials, which had been presented by presbyteries and congregations, respecting American slavery.

The Rev. Geo. Jeffrey, Glasgow, understood the overture as requesting the Synod to consider two things, and only two things;-first, what was the present position of the American churches in regard to slavery in that country? and next, what was the duty of this church towards these churches, if it be true that they countenanced the sin of slavery?

Dr EADIE said, that he seldom differed in opinion from his colleagues, but that at present he differed from both-The Synod had only to do with these that he approved of the object of the overture, and would willingly act on the committee, as proposed.

two things, and he should conceive that he had travelled from the subject presented for consideration if he entered upon any matter foreign to the terms of the overture, or made the slightest refer

The committee was appointed to consist of Professors Brown and Eadie, Dr Young, Dr Hay, and Dr Beattie-Drence to any person or parties in this Beattie to be convener.

country, with whom the Synod had no

The Synod then adjourned till the thing to do in the discussion of the quesevening.

EVENING SEDERUNT.

tion before the house. What were the facts in regard to the American churches? At this time of day he did not require to The Synod, at the beginning of the dwell long on this point. The facts were evening sederunt, took up an overture well known, he supposed, to every memfrom the presbytery of Arbroath, suggest ber of Synod, and, as a church, we had ing that a formula should be prepared, once and again dealt with these churches to which all persons admitted as mem- on their position towards slavery in the bers of the Secession Church, should be language of faithful and earnest remônbound to g give their assent as the ex-strance. He supposed he would not pression of their opinions and religious be contradicted when he termed these belief, Meta churches what they had already been It was decided by a vote, that the Sy-designated-the bulwarks of slavery. nod, for the present delay the consideraof this overture.

tion

SYNOD HALL AND MISSION PREMISES. Mr BOYD g gave in a report from the Synod Hall committee. After stating that plans had been prepared, and that a suitable site for the building had been ob tained, it concluded by urging upon those congregations which had not yet contributed towards the fund to do so without delay.

Why did he not expect contradiction? Because he had only stated truth. For instance, excepting the Reformed Presby terian Church, and they were an honourable exception, it was well known that all other Presbyterian churches in the States admitted slave breeders, slavetraders, slaveholders, as ministers, elders, and members to their pulpits and communion, and to the highest place of honTour in their church courts. Now, did it The Synod approved of the report, need to be asked what that slavery was and expressed their sense of obligation that was thus directly approved and to the committee, and especially to their sanctioned? What is American slavery? convener, for the time and labour they He should read a faithful portraiture of

the slavery of the United States from a well known, did all this; and American memorial of the Glasgow Emancipation Presbyterian churches, and other churches Society, of which he was a member. In reference to the slavery of the American Union, it says, and says justly:

"To all intents and purposes, they are held and used as property:

They are denied the rights of marriage, and are compelled to live in universal concubinage:

They have no protection in their domestic relations and endearments:

All control of parents over their offspring is annihilated; and they must yield them up, as soon as born, to be branded as property, and to be reared for the market as mere articles of merchandise:

in that country, admitted to their fellowship and communion ministers, elders, and church members, who did all this. It was done by ministers, elders, and members, not only under the sanction of American law, but under the sanction of the Presbyterianism of the American Union. The churches of America did not merely overlook the sin of slaverythey did not merely look at it-they were, with both hands, engaged in it-in holding, buying, and selling slaves for gain. He charged on them the sin of manstealing, and all the evils of slavery, for they welcomed the slaveholder to their communion. He charged on them the impurities of the slave, for they sanetioned a system that separated the husband from his wife, and made him commit adultery, by taking up with another woman, at the pleasure of his master. He charged on them the blood of souls, for they sanctioned a system which deThey are scourged, hung, hunted with nied to the slave the right to search the bloodhounds, and shot, if they attempt scriptures-the right to worship Godto exchange their ignorance for know- the right to teach his children the glad ledge; their intellectual, social, and mo- tidings of salvation. The question was, ral degradation for literature, science, what is our duty towards these churches? and moral elevation; their slavery for" Have no fellowship with the unfruitful freedom; their heathenism for Christianity and civilization.

Children must follow the condition of the MOTHER; and the Father of a slave is never inquired after, or recognised, in ecclesiastical or civil courts:

They are punished with stripes, imprisonment, or death, for teaching their children to read the law of their God:

They are never allowed to bear witness against their oppressors in civil or ecclesiastical courts, whatever outrages they may have committed upon them:

They are fed, clothed, reared, and disciplined, solely with a view to their value in the market:

They have no being aside from the pecuniary interests of their masters; they are worked as creatures of profit, and profit only, and have no value in the estimation of their owners, except as they add to their wealth:

works of darkness," saith scripture, "but rather reprove them." Apart from other scriptures, he thought that the principle that should guide the Synod in this case would be found fully given in the fifth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, where the apostle, under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, says, “I wrote unto you in an epistle, not to company with fornicators; yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters, for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you, not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one, no, not to eat." Here was, he apprehended, a broad distinction laid down between common and christian intercourse-between fellowshipping men as men, and fellowshipping them as christian men-between dealing with them in the common business of life, and having Such was the condition of the Ameri- communion with them as christian brecan slave-such the system of American thren. If we are not to meet with bad slavery, under which all this was done, men in the common business of every and such the deeds of the American slave-day life, scripture told us, that we must holder. It was not necessary to dwell on these things. They were facts-well known facts. American slavery, it was

While conscious of their alliance to God and eternity, and of their 'right' in the language of the late Rev. Dr Andrew Thomson-' to call God their Father, and to tread the soil of freedom, because they hope to tread the soil of immortality,' they are compelled to grope about amid the dark horrors of chattelism, feeling after God and eternal life among beasts and creeping things."

needs, in such a case, go out of the world. But what said it in regard to christian fellowship? In regard to that fellowship,

MONDAY, MAY 11.

which is the recognition of christian bro- | sound christian discipline, and the willtherhood, and which can only take place ing and warm advocates of the cause of between christian men, who make pro- the oppressed. fession of christian faith, it as distinct- After some discussion, the following tinctly told, If any man that is called a motion, by the Rev. James Pringle, brother, in other words, a professed chris- Newcastle, was unanimously adopted:— tian man, be as described by the apostle, "That this Synod, regarding the system we are not to company with him in chris- of slavery, in any circumstances, as a tian fellowship, while he remains unre- heinous sin, and that of America as a pentant and in sin; while he puts not sin of a peculiarly heinous and aggraaway his sin from him, we are to place vated character; and having with this him under discipline. We are to refuse conviction, on former occasions, addresseù to hold christian fellowship with him. the presbyterian churches of America Scripture thus plainly exhibited the prin- in the language of faithful and earnest ciple which, he held, ought to guide the remonstrance, hitherto without the deSynod in their conduct towards these sired effect: the Synod now feel it to be churches of the American Union. In their imperative and solemn duty to rerefusing to hold fellowship with these fuse christian fellowship with any church churches, he pronounced not upon their which sanctions that system of iniquity: Christianity. He did not ask,-Can and appoint a committee to prepare a a slaveholder be a christian? Can a memorial embodying these sentiments, slaveholding church be a christian to be addressed to the presbyterian and church? That was not the question other churches in America which sancwith him. He unchurched them not. tion slaveholding: in that memorial He had no power to do so. He did remonstrating against this unholy thing, wish the House to declare, however, and entreating them to put it entirely that, while these churches sanctioned the away." sin of slavery, this Synod must refuse to them christian fellowship. He held that it was easy on this question to conjure up Dr BROWN having given a reason of suppositions that were not supposable. absence on Friday evening, when the It was easy to divert attention from the deed of Synod respecting American slareal question at issue. He held, how-very was come to, craved liberty to record ever, all palliations of the guilt of the his dissent against said deed, with reaAmerican churches, on the ground that sons. slavery is sanctioned by the law of the land that they are the victims of a system-that they cannot help themselves that the evils of slavery are to be traced to the system, and not to them,to be as vain as they were aside from the question. The only question wascan we have fellowship with them while they remain in sin? If we shall say that we can have no fellowship with these churches, we neither unchurch them, nor pronounce upon their Christianity; we only pronounce upon their crime, and say that, while they countenance slavery, we cannot company with them in any acts of christian fellowship, though we must deal with them in acts of christian discipline, and remember to reprove— rebuke-exhort them to part company The Synod then took up a protest and with that which makes us part company appeal by the Rev. William Marshall, with them. He did hope the Synod Leith, against a deed of the presbytery would be wisely guided on this question of Edinburgh, sentencing him to susfor the sake of multitudes in galling pension from the exercise of his official bondage, for the sake of religion in the functions and from the fellowship of the United States, and for the sake of the church, aye and until he should confess cause of God everywhere over the earth, his sin, and exhibit satisfactory proofs of and prove themselves, as they had ever repentance. The grounds of this senbeen heretofore, the faithful friends of tence were certain offensive letters writ

NO. VI. VOL. III.

The consideration of the report of the committee of Synod, on the state of the probationers' list, was delayed.

TUESDAY, MAY 12.

CHAIR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.

Dr HAY reported for the committee appointed to meet with Dr Harper, that they had conversed with him; and that he had warranted them to say, that notwithstanding the difficulties he felt on the subject, he had, especially considering the unanimity of the Synod, pointment to the chair of systematic thought it his duty to accept the aptheology.

CASE OF REV. WILLIAM MARSHALL.

M M

The presbytery find, that Mr Marshall has reflected on the integrity, piety, and christian principle of Dr Heugh, inasmuch as, in

ten by the Rev. Mr Marshall to the Rev. | slander,-but revived as an ugly charge Dr Heugh. The findings of the presby- by recent events,-as originating new tery were as follows:suspicion of Dr Heugh's integrity, or reThe presbytery find, that Mr Mar-viving the old-and as leading himself shall has reflected on Dr Heugh's piety, to have less confidence in Dr Heugh's inasmuch as in the introductory para- honesty. graph of his letter, of date March 31st last, he refers to Dr Heugh's public conduct on some late occasions as causing him very great difficulty indeed in crediting Dr Heugh's piety, and there states that Dr Heugh's public conduct gave such magnitude and credibility to certain vile reports affecting Dr Heugh's private character, as necessitated him to demand explanation.

(5) Paragraph of letter aforesaid, he directly charges Dr Heugh with utterly unprincipled conduct, and with glorying in his shame, in sitting on a committee of which the Synod appointed him a member-in sitting as chairman of that committee, and in avowing that he had done so, after he had openly pronounced

The presbytery find, that Mr Marshall has reflected on the veracity, integrity, and christian principle of Dr Heugh, in-judgment on the case; and states that asmuch as, in

(1) Paragraph in letter aforesaid, he describes a report of grossly unchristian conduct on the part of Dr Heugh towards a worthy christian brother in the ministry; and represents said report as giving rise to serious doubts about Dr Heugh's character, and tending to foster these greatly where they exist

The presbytery find, that Mr Marshall has reflected on the christian principle of Dr Heugh, inasmuch as, in

(2) Paragraph of letter aforesaid, he refers to a reply given by Dr Heugh to a communication from Dr Marshall,and calls Dr Heugh's explanation the same with that of any living hypocrite in explaining gross slander,-as producing the impression on the mind of others that Dr Heugh was any thing but a Christian indeed, whatever may be his pretensions, and alleges, that the bloody assassin might, with the same propriety, pretend that he stained his hands with murder in obedience to the Sixth Commandment.

The presbytery find, that Mr Marshall has reflected on the veracity, integrity, and christian principle of Dr Heugh, inasmuch as, in

such conduct has no parallel, except in the case of one or two infamous wretches, who, about the end of last century, disgraced our public tribunals, whom history has since held up to universal and deserved execration.

II. The presbytery proceeded to consider the ground of complaint against Mr Marshall, for having refused to retract and apologise when called on to do so.

On the second ground of charge the presbytery find, that after Dr Heugh had denied every charge in Mr Marshall's letter of March 31, affecting his veracity, Mr Marshall refused to make retractation and apology, when required to do so by Dr Heugh; and still farther, declined all such retractation and apology, when requested by brethren before whom Dr Heugh had laid the correspondence.

III. The presbytery proceeded to consider the third ground of complaint against Mr Marshall,—as increasing the offence by the spirit and matter of his correspondence.

The presbytery find, that they have reason to declare the letter of 31st March sinful and offensive in its tone-and even supposing it to have been written by "a brother offended"-in its manner most uncharitable and violent. They also find, that they have cause to characterise all Mr Marshall's letters as breathing a vindictive, arrogant, and malignant spiThe presbytery find, that Mr Marshall | rit-expressed in supercilious and abusive has reflected on the integrity, honesty, and christian principle of Dr Heugh, inasmuch as, in

(3) Paragraph of letter aforesaid, he insinuates a charge of slander against Dr Heugh, simply on the ground, that Dr Heugh differed in opinion from another respecting a public document.

(4) Paragraph of letter aforesaid, he insinuates that there is now room for suspecting Dr Heugh of having sworn a false oath, speaks of a report to that effect as at first set down by him as a

terms-unbecoming in any person, and especially at variance with the modesty of youth in addressing a father, and frequently applying the language of Scrip ture with much impropriety, and with any apparent purpose rather than the avowed object of edifying or gaining a brother."