fresh, and not under excitement. I make a motion to that effect.

The motion was agreed to.

A member. I have one objection to the amendment, and that is, that the family with which I stay dine at half past twelve o'clock.

Rev. Mr. Thomes. I desire, with the permission of Dr. McLean who has given way for this purpose, to make a motion. I suppose it will not give rise to discussion, and will pass immediately.

Resolved, That a committee of five-three ministers and two elders-be appointed to confer with a like committee of the Assembly meeting at the First Presbyterian Church, in this city, with reference to joining in devotional exercises during the current session of the General Assembly..

The Moderator. I may be wrong, but I have great doubts whether the member who occupies the floor has the right to give way to introduce entirely new business. It is rather a new question.

Dr. McLean. You will bear me witness, Moderator, that I have yielded very reluctantly to anyone, but on the important suggestion of my friend, I was willing to yield my right to the floor. I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the merits of the paper offered to this body yesterday afternoon, and I shall occupy but a very few moments of the time of this body, only to explain very briefly, as I hope to do, that the members may distinctly understand what the question is before them; and then, sir, I propose to read to you a brief resolution which will put this matter in a shape for the action of this body. I will read the original resolution. (The resolution has already been published.)

I do not propose, as I have already remarked, to touch on the merits of this case. That every deliberative body has a right to judge of the qualifications of its own members is, to me, a self-evident proposition. To deny that would render powerless for good, and utterly useless, and utterly demoralize any public deliberative body; that a public body have a right, where they have been elected, to go back and consider the qualifications of the electors is, to me, equally as plain as the other proposition. If the individual who fills a place in a deliberative body is disqualified by reason o matters connected with himself, even though the electors be entirely competent to elect a delegate, tne body may reject the individual proposing to become a member of their body. If any defect exists in the character of the elector, and if there be no fault attached to the individual sent as a member, still the body has a right to rej ct the member, in consequence of the informality and detect in regard to the elector.

I think these are principles that cannot be obviated. Now, in the present case, the paper assumes that there are rumors and public fame in regard to the electors, and one person, at least, elected, and that ought to be disqualified. In this incipient state of the matter, I have a paper designed, perhaps, to decide this matter, or to prepare a way towards deciding it. It simply asserts that it suspends these persons as members of this house; that they are 10 entitled to seats in the house, and that the Assembly will proceed with dispatch to investigate these rumors and decide upon them. I propose, therefore, after I have made a motion, to offer this resolution:

Resolved, That a committee of seven be appointed, composed of four ministers and three elders, to examine into the facts connected with the alleged acts and proceedings of the Louisville Presbytery, and whether it is entitled to representation in this General Assembly, and to recommend what action, if any, this General Assembly should take with regard to this said Presbytery.

I now move that the previous question be taken on this paper.

The Moderator. I may not have understood Dr. McLean entirely. Do I understand that the demand for the previous question is upon the motion pending yesterday to adopt the paper originally offered? Dr. McLean. Precisely.

The Moderator. What has that to do with reference to the committee?

Dr. McLean. Nothing at all.

A member. Dr. McLane had the floor this morning on a question which he debated yesterday. Now

I raise a point of order, whether setting aside his right to introduce a new resolution he can demand the previous question, either upon that resolution or upon the whole paper offered by him.

The Moderator. It is certainly his right to move the previous question at any stage. Nothing is more common in parliamentary bodies than for a member to offer a motion, and then demand the previous question. Iunderstand the previous question to be un the paper offered yesterday. That would bring the question to the adoption immediately of his paper. There can be no debate upon this paper. Inquiries for information are in order. Rev. Mr.West. I will ask for information, through you, Mr. Moderator, of Dr. McLean, whether the paper before this body-which asks of this body to exclude from seats in this house the Commissioners from Louisville till their case is decided-whether the points involved in that resolution are to be determined here and now by the previous question, or whether the Doctor proposes to offer a resolution which will open the whole question for debate?

The Moderator. That is in the nature of debate. Dr. McLean offered a resolution yesterday which I suppose the house understands; if so, they must understand what will be the posture of the case if this is adopted. Shall the question be now put?

Rev. Mr. Anderson. We want to call the ayes and noes on that vote on the demand for the previous question.

Dr. Krebs, Is it in order to make a point of order, and move a reference of this whole business to a committee? And again, sir, if a motion for a reference is made, is there any need for the previous question?

The Moderator. The motion to refer is not debateable.

Dr. McLean. It is very simple to my mind. The Moderator. If Dr. McLean will wait a moment, I am looking for a rule which refers to this matter. My impression is, and on reading the rule I am confirmed in it, that the motion of Dr. Krebs is not in order during the pendancy of the previous question.

Mr. Clark. Is this question under discussion.

The Moderator. No sir. There is no question that can be debated before the house. We must proceed to vote for the previous question. A demand for the previous question is made, and Dr. Anderson demands the ayes and noes. In order that that may be tested we must see whether one-third of the house is willing to have the ayes and noes.

Mr. Clark. Did not Dr. McLean have the floor for the purpose of debating the question, and did he not make a motion for the previous question in connection there with?

Rev. Dr. McLean. I call the gentleman to order. There is no discussion permitted on this question.

Mr. Clark. I am making a point of order and I contend I have the floor. By the 14th rule when a question is under debate no motion shall be received, unless to lay on the table, postpone indeflnitely, postpone to a day certain, commit or amend. I contend that this matter is under debate, then, and that I have the right to make one of the motions here specified. If the Moderator sustains my view then it is regular for me to make a motion to send this resolution to a committee.

The Moderator. I will decide that point of order. I agree with Judge Clark. The question is under debate, but I do not agree with his construction of the rule-that in every case the motions_mentioned can be made while a question is under debate, for if that is the case the motion for a previous question could never have been made. Nothing is more common in parliamentary bodies than for the previous question to be moved at any stage of the proceedings. When it is moved, a vote on It must be taken. If the construction of the gentleman is right, then there is no place for the previous question to be made, provided the subject has been once depated. I decide that the previous question must be taken.

Dr. McLean. The Moderator will bear witness with me that my only desire has been

The Moderator. The gentleman need not state his desire. We must take the vote.

Dr. McLean. No, sir; but the motive and object of making the motion

The Moderator. That is in the nature of debate, and the gentleman need not state it.

Dr. McLean. Does the Moderator decide that nothing further is to be said?

The Moderator, I decided the gentleman was proceeding to debate the question by stating his desire, Dr. McLeao. No, sir, not at all.

The Moderator. That is my judgment and you must submit or appeal from it.

Rev. Mr. West. I wish merely to say, with all deference to the impatience of the brethren, that I desire to ask for information whether we are not called upon now to vote aye or no on the exclusion of this commission without hearing a word further than what Dr. McLean has said.

The Moderator. The Assembly must be its own judge in this matter.

Rev. Mr. West. I ask as to the effect of the motion.

The Moderator. I presume the Assembly has all the information that I have as to that matter.

Mr. Wyckliffe. I rise for the purpose of inquiring whether the honorable member who moved that resolution can furnish any instances in civilized parliamentary bodies where a duly accredited member to that body had been expelled by resolution and the previous question without being heard.

Dr. McLean. Is that discussion or not?

The Moderator. It is not in order. I hope when members rise they will speak something in regard to the point raised and not debate the question.

Mr. Laws. I rise to inquire if we cannot refuse by this vote to take the previous question. If we refuse then we are prepared to refer it. Under the 16th rule if a motion under debate contain several parts it may be divided. This has the nature of two perts. I think Dr. McLean did not debate it but simply explained it.

The Moderator. I do not understand that the demand for the previous question is at all divisible The demand has been made that in taking the vote the ayes and noes be recorded.

A member I ask as a point of order whether the call for the ayes and noes at this point is in order, inasmuch, sir, as the preliminary question is simply whether house will second the call for the previous question. Whether the call of Dr. Anderson is not properly for the record of the ayes any noes on the previous question, provided it be called by the house.

The Moderator. Certainly, I understand it so, and in order that we may determine whether the previous question is seconded or whether it shall be put.

the effect of this motion. Is it not this, that if the Mr. Kempshall. May I ask the Moderator to state Assembly orders the previous question it brings up the paper offered yesterday and not the resolution? The brethren evidently seem to think they are going to vote on the resolution and not on the paper.

The Moderator. In case one-third of the body shall answer in the affirmative to the question, "Shall the ayes and noes be recorded?”

A voice. A majority is required.

The Moderator. It is a question of recording the aves and noes, which must be determined by onethird.

A member. There is a question among some of us whether it is in order at all to move the previous question in this way.

The Moderator. I have decided that it is in order. A member. Allow me to ask Dr. Anderson on what he desires the ayes and noes. Is it on the previous question, or on the main question after the previous question has been decided?

The Moderator. It is on the first question, which is, shall the main question be put ?

Mr. Kempshall. The brethren around me ask you to state the effect of the previous question on the two papers-which of the two will come before them if it is sustained?

The Moderator. If one-third of the body vote affirmatively, that the ayes and noes may be recorded, then the question will come up, Shall the main question be put? If that is decided in the affirmative by a majority, then, if I understand Dr. Anderson's demand, it is upon the main question, which will be the adoption of Dr. McLean's paper, the ayes and noes will be demanded.

Dr. Anderson. No, sir. It is on the previous question. When the other comes up we will be ready for the same motion on that.

The Moderator. Then to answer the question we are brought to a direct vote on the paper offered by Dr. McLean yesterday.

The vote was then taken as to whether one-third of the members desired the ayes and noes on the previous question.

It appeared the ayes and noes were not desired. The vote was then taken on the previous question, shall the main question now be put? and it was agreed to.

Dr. Wilson. Will the House allow the ayes and noes on the main question?

The Moderator. ́ I had begun to take the vote, but I will give way.

Dr. Anderson. I gave notice in advance that when the question came up I should ask again for the ayes and noes.

The Moderator. I beg pardon, I did not understand it. The question now is, shall Dr. McLean's paper be adopted; no amendments being offered to it.

The vote was then taken as to whether the ayes and noes should be taken, and the ayes and noes were ordered.

The ayes and noes were then called, and the vote resulted ayes 201, nays 50, excused 3; so the paper offered by Dr. McLean yesterday was adopted.

During the calling of the roll several of the committees were called upon to hand in their reports. Dr. Krebs, from the Committee on New Psalms and Hymns, desired to report but was declared out of order.

Rev. Mr. Forman desired to give notice that he entered a protest.

Dr. Van Dyke. I give notice that I protest. Dr. Bracken. I give notice that I protest. Rev. Mr. Smook. I wish to give notice that I protest against the vote on ordering the previous question merely.

Dr. McLean. It is necessary, in order to protest for A. B and C to do so individually, or can they not unite in a protest.

The Moderator. Every member may rise and enter his protest individually if he chose to do so. Mr. Harding stated that he desired to dissent. Mr. Farquhar. As I understand it is, shall the question be taken by ayes and noes. Twice the Moderator stated distinctly before this last question was taken, Shall the main question now be pat? Has the main question been put? We have decided to take the previous question, but I submit that we taken and the vote announced, and the paper is have not decided on the merits of the question. The Moderator. The main question has been adopted by the votes I have announced,

Dr. McLean. Shall I read the resolution ?

The Moderator. Let me explain to the satisfaction of the gentlemen. The form of the adoption was by taking the ayes and noes. I had announced the Vote as ayes 201, nays 30, excused 3, therefore the paper is adopted. That is the main question.

Dr. McLean then read his resolution-above given-in regard to the appointment of a committee to whom the resolution in regard to the Louisville Presbytery shall be referred.

Rev. Mr. West. I move to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. Waller. I desire to offer an amendment to Dr. McLean's motion before it passes--that is, that the case of Rev. P. A.. Bracken Commissioner here from the West Lexington Presbytery, who is affirmed to be છે. member of that Presbytery, but who is the pastor of a church within the bounds of the Lafay ette Presbytery, and has never been dismissed from 119, be referred also to the same committee to inquire in regard to the facts.

Rev. Mr. Brookes. I wish to offer the following amendment :

The Moderator. Is that an amendment to an amendment.

Mr. Brookes. Yes, sir.

Resolved, That the committee be also instructed to inquire into the truth of certain rumors charged upon other members of this body, and with the same offenses for which the Presbytery of Louis

ville has been arraigned before the Assembly, and to report what action should be taken in the premi

Bes.

I prefer it should come up at this time, if the Moderator and the Assembly please, and if you will allow me I will make a single remark-not to detain the House. I cannot remain content in my seat seeing that these brethren of the Louisville Presbytery have been excluded from participation in our discussions on account of offensive language contained in that "Declaration and Testimony." They are no more responsible for it, Moderator, than are many of us; and it would be unmanly in me to say that they are any more blamable than I am. If anybody is to be condemned for that paper I am the man. I had more to do with the origination of it-although I did not write it-than either Dr, Wilson or Dr. Stuart Robinson. And inasmuch as these brethren have been excluded from the house because of the use of language that is deemed offensive to this judicatory, I cannot remain silent and see them driven away and retain my place. My object, therefore, is that this committee shall make a thorough investigation of this whole subject, and if we are deemed to be unworthy of a seat in the General Assembly, or a place in the Church of the Fathers, for protesting against what we honestly deemed to erroneous proceedings on the part of the General Assembly, let us know it, and for one I will cheerfully suffer for what I believe to be God Almighty's truth and Christ's glorious kingdom. [Applause in various parts of the house. ]

A Voice. clear the galleries.

be

Another Voice. Never mind; they won't hurt

you.

The Moderator. I hopeŝall such demonstrations, on either side, will not be manifested in this house. Rev. Dr. VanDyke obtained the floor.

to

Rev. Mr. Bracken. I wish to explain before this question is put in regard to my own case, that members may vote intelligently. It is immaterial to me whether they refer my case to a committee or not, but I wish them to simply understand the facts which I will briefly state. The Presbytery to which I belong in Missouri was disorganized during the period of our troubles--that is, for five years no business was done. Three years and a half, if I mistake not, after that Presbytery had ceased to transact business, I presented a letter from the stated clerk of that Presbytery to the West Lexington Presbytery testifying my standing, and was received by that Presbytery upon your record-as an order was issued by the General Assembly in 1864 in regard to this matter. These are the facts. I think that perhaps about onehalf-possibly not so many-but quite a number of the members of the Presbyteries of Western Missouri, were received in other Presbyteries in the same way and during the same period of time. And I presume these Presbyteries thought they were authorized thus to receive them by the action of the General Assembly, I know such was the understanding on the part of the Presbytery of West Lexington, which received me, and of which I have been a member for two years and a half, and bave met with them three times, and have twice sat in the Synod of Kentucky as a member.

Rev. Mr. Van Dyke again obtained the floor, and was proceeding to speak, when a point of order was raised in regard to the discussion on the amendment before the House, as to whether it should be confined strictly to the pending amendment.

The Moderator. I shall allow Dr. Van Dyke to go on, and if he gets out of order I will call him to order. I will ask Dr. Brookes to give his motion in writing,

Rev. Mr. Brookes then read the resolution which is given above. He said this is to include all who have signed this Declaration and Testimony to the same committee to inquire how many have signed it, and therefore chargeable with the same offense for which these gentlemen are excluded.

Rev. Wm. Breckinridge. I submit whether that is not the whole question before the Assembly? The Moderator. I have so decided.

Rev. Wm. Breckinridge. You are right, undoubtedly.

Rev. Mr. West. Can an amendment be discussed before the original motion is discussed? The Moderator. Rev. Mr. West. Then what do we vote upon when we come to this last amendment?

Certainly.

The Moderator. I can't tell whether we shall ever get to that point. The last amendment is now before the house, and Dr. Vandyke has the floor.

A member. The point is whether either of the amendments is in order.

The Moderator. Iregard both in order.

The member. Allow me to suggest a reason why I think they are not in order.

The Moderator. I think when they are decided in order the question is not debateable,

Dr. McLean. It seems to me on taking up a report, the amendment or amendments are only read by the clerk.

The Moderator. What rule is that?

Dr. McLean. Jefferson's manual.

The Moderator. Well, sir, that is not one of our rules. [Laughter.]

Rev. Dr. McLean. I thought you were regulated by parliamentary rules.

The Moderator. We do not recognize Jefferson's Manual as authority on this particular point.

Rev. Dr. McLean. It is authority.

The Moderator. This is all in the nature of debate; Dr. Van Dyke has the floor.

Dr. Van Dyke. I have been waiting patiently all this time, and if I had been allowed to go on I should have concluded by this time. I think, perhaps, it is due to some of the members of this Assembly who have manifested a kind interest in me, and certainly due to myself that I should explain exactly my relation to the business now before it. I have failed many times to receive credit for what I have done, and I have many times received creditfor what I have not done. I have been told by several members of this Assembly that I have been accredited with writing the Declaration and Testimony. The brethren do me honor over much. I did not write it. I had no part in the writing of it. I am not responsible for it in any way. If I had either written or approved the putting forth of it at that time I should have signed my name to it. Having said that I am bound to go further, and say that whatever principle is incorporated in the Declaration and Testimony aside from the language-from the practical inference in it-but whatever of principle there is in it I do subscribe to, and practically will ever act upon it so long as God will give me so to do [Applause.] And sir, agreeing with strength those principles, I should do injustice to myself if I were not willing to take my full share of any reproach or any condemnation which might come on those brethren for having advocates these principles, even though they might have erred in the language.

Now, sir, my objection to this whole proceeding is, that it is partial. Why, a stranger coming in here might suppose that these brethren of the Louisville Presbytery are sinners above all men, when it is perfectly notorious that men high in position in the Church, have, from the beginning, protested against the proceedings of the General Assembly in language quite as strong as any of these gentlemen ever used. Sixty-one members of the General Assembly-sixty-one, I think the number is correctwith Dr. Hodge at their head, said the deliverance of the General Assembly was "unconstitutional, a usurpation of Christ's prerogative, cruel and unjust." Is there anything stronger than that in the Declaration and Testimony? It is perfectly notorious that in the Synods of Baltimore and New York-especially in the cities--the orders of the General Assembly have not been attempted to be carried out. I do not know a man in the region of the church trom which I come that will consent to carry out these orders; and further, it is well known in the Presbytery to which I belong-and who with the full knowledge of that fact sent me here-that I have not only refused to carry out this order, but have openly said I would not; not out of any rebellious spirit against the Assembly-God knows I have no such feeling-but on the high ground that I owe an allegiance to Jesus Christ, and upon the further ground that according

to the Constitution of the Church this General Assembly has no authority to make such an order.

Rev. Mr. West. I rise to a point of order. Idesire to know if this whole subject in relation to the principles involved in the Declaration and Testimoby is to be gone into.

Rev, Mr. Van Dyke. I am not going into it. I am speaking entirely to the point. I am showing that you have grounds to make your action in this case a great deal broader,

The Moderator. Broader, even, than the action of the last Assembly?

Mr. Van Dyke. No, sir. Our own Confession of Faith says all Synods

Rev. Mr. West. What is the decision of the Moderator?

The Moderator. I have already declded the point before this talk commenced. Istated if I discovered that the gentleman tasveled beyond the bounds of my decision, I would call him to order. I confess I was not paying strict attention to what he was saying at the moment.

Rev. Mr. West. Am I to understand that the merits of the question are to come up.

The Moderator. Just so far as it is necessary to discuss the question, and it he goes beyond that I will call him to order.

Mr. Van Dyke. I will try to contine myself to the question if you will allow me. If the charge alleged against the Louisville Presbytery, in the paper which you have already adopted, and which charge is equally applicable to other brethren, were true, I respectfully submit to you that it involves meither heresy nor crime. When I adopted the Confession of Faith, and affirmed the government of the Presbyterian Church, and solemnly swore allegiance to it, I meant to keep it; but there was a clause there respecting my personal rights in that matter-as right of private judgment.

All Synods and councils since the time of the Apostles, either generally or particularly, may err, and many bave erred. They are not to be made the rule of both faith and practice; they may lapse in both. And further: "Before any overtures or regulations, proposed by the General Assembly to be established as constitutional rules, shall be obligatory on the Churches, it shall be necessary to transmit them to all Presbyteries, and to receive the return of at least a majority of them in writing, approved by them." Now, no act of this General Assembly on freedom and loyalty, from 1861 to 1865 (and especially the orders of the last General Assembly) was transmitted to the Presbyteries, and I affirm, according to the language of the book, they are not obligatory 'on aby Church or Assembly, and no binding authority on me whatever. If they had been transmitted to the Presbyteries and adopted by them, then the question would come up fairly as to what is the constitutional rule of the church; but there is no rule that has been violated by the Presbytery of Louisville according to the language of the book. If they could prove all you have said, there then is no violation. The language of the resolution is, they defied the General Assembly. Now, I do not think the facts justify the use of the word "deflance.” And what is the proof? The resolution says they have refused to obey the orders of the General Assembly, and said so. That is just what I have done; that is just what threefourths of the ministers that I am acquainted with in New York and Brooklyn have aone. The sessions of my church, immediately after the passage of these orders, moved-one of theni on their records-a protest, and refusal to obey, but I ohjected for the same reason that I did not sign the Declaration and Testimony I believed, under our confession of faith and terms of membership, and the doctrines of our Church as found in the word of God, that the General Assembly has no authority to make rules in this way that are binding on us, and therefore we have gone forward without reference to what the General Assembly has said, and intend so to do until that action of the Assembly is adopted by the Presbyteries. The only difference between these brethren in Louisville and fifty others, many of whom are on the floor of this Assembly, is, they have openly printed what they intended to do, while the rest have done

without openly saying anything. I do not see that, so far as justice is concerned, there is any differ ence in the case. Now, sir, I do not care to discuss the question further on its merits, because I respect your decision. But there is another remark I must make. and I make it in a spirit of conciliation and kindness, and God knows, with a feeling of grief. The carrying out of the plán indicated by the resolution which you have adopted, whether you make it partial or universal, will des feat its own end, because I take it for granted that the motive in which tis paper has originated is a motive that will bear the test of God's word and the light of judgment. I take it for granted it is to promote the peace, purity and unity of the Church. You may rest assured it will not promote the peace, purity and unity of the Church. If you sacritice these brethren of the Louisville Presbytery because they have contended for a principle which some of us hold as firmly as they do, you may make them martyrs for that principle, and you will rally around them an influence numerically, socially and 10 every other respect which, perhaps, ou personal grounds they could not have attained. If this General Assembly, by the force of the previous question, and by papers prepared before the Assembly met--and I do not mean to be disrespectful in this matter, but it is notorious what I allude to-unless the General Assembly mean to cut off the discussion of these great principles that pertain to the kingdom of Jesus Christ, by condemning those who honestly contended for those principles, there are others of us who will be bound by our allegiance to the Church and to God to stand exactly in the same position with them. I have nothing further to say.

Rev. Dr. Anderson. It would be entirely unmanly and unchristian if I should be silent now, though I speak as you perceive, and have done for years with great difficulty. [A voice-"Louder.''] I will make the members hear me, if they will wait till I can clear my throat.

I am, sir, the Stated Clerk of the Synod of Missouri, and I wish to say now, in this body, in no spirit of defiance, but that they may know the facts, that by a deliberative body, after a calm and thorough discussion of the principles involved, the main points that are involved in the Declaration and Testimony were adopted by the Synod of Missouri by a vote of three 10 ore. We wish to put ourselves, therefore, in the ranks with our brothers of the Presbytery of Louisville, and others who may fall under the action of the guillotine in holding these sentiments. I wish to say more, sir. Į approve of that action of the Synod of Missouri, and voted for it. I wish to say further, sir, and in no spirit of defiance, that at the last meeting of my session but one, we received two members among others, sitting sido by side, touching each other, one of whom had ridden in Merrill's horse on the Federal side and the other had bared his breast to the Union bayonets on the Southern side. They were neither of them asked any questions about their opinions with regard to one army or the other, but we received them as Christians, supposing that in their union with Christ there was a bond strong enough to bind them together across that gulf of blood that had for a time separated them. And I wish to say again, sir. in no spirit of defiance, that I should be glad to do that thing at every meeting of my session; and, God helping me, I will never obey an order that makes me determine the political opinions or practices of any man who may come to me to be united in the fellowship of the Church of Christ. I wish to put these facts before the minds of this Assembly and ask them to commission that committee to examine into our acts as well as those that have already been committed to their charge.

Rev. Mr. Forman of St. Joseph. Mo., said owing to physical debility he could not make a speech, but wished to make a few remarks in explanation of his position. He was a member of the Assembly in 1864 and on his way home had consultation with several prethren as to the course best to be pursued in relation to the acts of the Assembly regarded as unscriptural. A conference was suggested. About a year after he received a letter requesting him to attend such a conference. He could not go but

wrote a letter counseling prudence and moderation. When the Declaration and Testimony" appeared he did not and could not sign it, for he regarded it as too harsh in its spirit. But the great principles asserted in that paper he held to be true. The orders of the General Assembly in relation to Southern Christians and ministers he could not execute, because he believed them to be unscriptural. When Southern sympathizers, or those who had been in the rebel army, made application for admission to his Church, he could only ask them whether, as lost and helpless sinners, they were trusting in Jesus as a personal Savior. To go beyond this would be contrary to the teachings of God's word. And now if the Assembly were determined to inquire into the conduct of the Louisville brethren for refusing to execute the orders of the A8sembly. he wished the investigation to extend to himself and to all others who cannot observe an act which they hold to be unscriptural. Yea, he would have it extend to Dr. Hodge'tor his published declarations in opposition to the Assembly acts, and to Dr.R.J.Breckinridge for the paper penned by him and adopted by the Synod of Kentucky in 1861, in such very strong terms condemning the deliverance of the Assembly on the state of the country.

Rev. Mr. Bracken. I will remark, Moderator, that I have never signed the paper known as the Declaration and Testimony. Very many members of the Synod of Kentucky, and indeed many members of the West Lexington Presbytery signed that paper. They did not regard it as wise. The storm of passion was raging all through the land. It had entered the Church and ecclesiastical bodies, and we feared that document would be misapprehended and misinterpreted. We desired to avoid the evils that might result from it. These brethren said in that document that they did not desire a division of the Church. That they stood upon the old platform, and observed the old landmarks, taking the word of God and the constitution of the Church as their guide. But, Mr. Moderator, we feared it might be said that they had other aims in view, and the results have come to pass. No sooner was the document circulated than it was noised abroad over the length and breadth of the land, that here were rebels suspected long of disloyalty to their Church, and now that they had openly avowed that disloyalty, and that alarm was sounded loud and long, and it was prolonged and its echoes may yet be heard. This is what we would have avoided. But I speak with confidence, when I say a large majority of the office bearers of the Synod of Kentucky indorse substantiallg all that is said in that document; that the majority of the Synod of Kentucky agreed with Dr. Hodge and fifty-seven others, who, in 1661, when the first step was taken when the seed was planted which has matured and developed and borne its ripened f.uit. We believe with Dr. Hodge that that action was unconstitutional in its character-that it instituted new terms of Church membership, and usurped the perogatives of the Divine Master. Furthermore, we believe that whea the Synod of Kentucky declared in their report, which was written and mtroduced by the Brother who would now ask you to exclude those who reassert the same sentiments-we believe with that Synod resolution, adopted without a dissenting voice, that the action of the Assembly was unscriptural and unconstitutional. But changes took place, and new judgments were made to suit those changes. But, Mr. Moderator, it was not the Declaration and Testimony men of the Louisville Presbytery that changed when, in 1865, they repeated the same Testimony of the entire Assembly of 1845. We believe, furthermore, that we could not obey these orders, which we regarded as unscriptural and unconstitutional without violating other deliverances of the General Assembly. We turn back over the record of the Church and we read in the minutes of 1845 the sentiment that Christ did not legislate on these subjects, and the Church could not since the great head of the Church had not. We did not feel like violating the deliverances before given upon the clear teaching of God's word. We felt that we would violate the sentiment of that deliverance if we obeyed the orders of 1865.

A member. I insist that this whole debate comes

on the report of the Committeee, and I move to adjourn.

The Moderator. It is not yet time for a recess. Dr. Bracken. That action of 1845 Was taken when the entire Church was bound together by strong cords of brotherly love --delivered at a time when the excitements and confusion of the forum had never been introduced into ecclesiastical bodies. It was delivered when our Church, as the great conservative body of the land, stood forth like a mountain cliff, calm and immovable. There was no disturbance of that kind then. Our Church was then like a firm rock that beat back the muddy waves that dashed against it, and we felt like adhering to that deliver. ance of the General Assembly. Mr. Moderator, are we understand when acts of the General Assembly contradict each other, that the last act is the one alone which possesses binding force. We felt that this might be very good popery. We had read in the history of the past of Popes who claimed universal dominion, and the argument was that they had received the keys which gave them superior power from Christ, and we had also read that political and civil affairs came under the jurisdiction of the Pope and that when he could not carry out his dictates without military power, the military power was the servant of the spiritual head. We considered it was the same old argument repeated-repeated within the last few years.

And again, Mr. Moderator, every Presbytery al most in the State of Kentucky pronounced that first act as unconstitutional and unscriptural, and since that time almost every Presbytery in Kentucky has taken like action. But that is not all, because, Mr. Moderator, the very brethren who have assumed

Dr. McLean. Is that the question ? Is that the question? What is the question? Is that member in favor or opposed to it ?

Rev. Mr. Bracken. Whichever way you choose to have it.

The Moderator. I understand the gentleman that this investigation should take a very wide range, [Laughter.]

A member. I wish to inquire if it is in order for a gentleman to speak more than once to this point without the consent of this body. The gentleman has already spoken upon this subject.

The Moderator. I think that is the first speech the gentleman has made.

Dr. McLean. Let us know what side he is on.
The Moderator. He must tell you that.

Mr. Ferguson. I hope we shall trust the Moderator's judgment; he has said, as soon as the gen tleman gets out of order, he will call him to order.

Dr. Bracken, Allow me to say to Dr. McLean, that I am talking now in order to show that there are very many more in a like state. I am speaking on the amendment of Dr. Brookes, and to show that there are many more beside these brethren who stand on common ground, and have given like deliverances. Mr. Moderator, we feel that this would be very partial action, because the very members who differ from us, as has already been remarked, are practically doing the same thing, Where, I might ask, in the Synod of Kentucky, has there ever been an effort made to enforce thesé orders? I presume that such an attempt has never been made.

Rev. Mr. Thomas. I desire to make a few remarks but as the bour of adjournment is at hand I will move that we adjourn till this afternoon.

The Moderator. The General Assembly will hold no session this acternoon unless they reconsider the decision that they have already made.

A motion to reconsider the vote by which the hours were fixed was lost.

The Assembly then adjourned until Saturday morning at nine A. M.

The following is a complete list of delegates to the Assembly:

SYNOD OF ALBANY.

PRESBYTERIES,

Albany-Ministers, David Lyon, J. T. Backus,

D. D.

Londonderry-Minister, Joseph P. Bizby. Mohawk-Bider, Lucien B. Wells.