William L. Breckinridge, D.D., of Transylvania Presbytery, moved to lay this resolution on the table, upon which motion the ayes and nays were called and are as follows:

Samuel R. Wilson, D.D., and Stuart Robinson, D.D., Ministers, and C. A. Wickliffe, Ruling Elder, declined voting-3.

The motion to lay on the table was lost.

The question to adopt the resolution offered by Rev. Dr. D. V. McLean was pressed, and under a call for the previous question by Rev. Dr. D. V. McLean, the vote was taken with the following result:

Bredell, E.
Brown, D. C.

Buchanan, G. W.

Buchanan, R.
Clark, Lincoln
Clark, R. S.

Dickson, John
Hardin, Mark

Jarrett, G. W.

Conway, Joseph S.
Day, Henry

Jones, Isaac D.
Marshall, C. A.

Marshall, Glass
McClellan, J. S.
McKnight, R.

Pryor, J. W.
Swallow, G. C.

Vanarsdale, J. F.
Walker, H. T.
Ruling Elders, 22.
TOTAL, 54.

The resolution was adopted-whereupon Henry J. Van Dyke, D.D.. Joseph T. Smith, D.D., Rev. A. P. Forman, and Isaac D. Jones. gave notice of a Protest against the adoption of the resolution, and Mark Hardin of his Dissent against the same.

Mr. Hardin, being one of the commissioners from Louisville Presbytery, did not record his dissent.

On the adoption of the resolutions offered by Dr. McLean the following communication was read:*

*

To the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, now in session in St. Louis:

The undersigned, commissioners from the Presbytery of Louisville, deem it both respectful to the Assembly and demanded by the interests of truth and righteousness to lay before the body, through you, in this formal and official manner, for record on the minutes, their views and purposes in regard to the resolution passed yesterday, under operation of the previous question, to this effect:

"That, WHEREAS, The Presbytery of Louisville have 'openly defied the Assembly' and declared publicly their intention not to enforce the orders of the two last Assemblies on slavery and loyalty, etc., and have, in act, disregarded them in sending a commissioner here who, by a faithful execution of those acts, would probably have been suspended from the functions of his office; therefore,

66

Resolved, That until the Assembly shall have examined and decided upon the conduct of said Presbytery, the commissioners shall not be entitled to seats in this body.'

We respectfully suggest, not indeed as vital to the case, but as illustrating simply the evil of such action, under the operation of the previous question, cutting off all explanation, that both the premises of the Assembly's resolution contain grave mistakes of facts. The Presbytery of Louisville have, indeed, published a Declaration and Testimony against the acts of the five preceding Assemblies, in which many ministers and elders outside the Presbytery formally, and many more in spirit and act, have concurred. But the Presbytery of Louisville have not 'openly defied the Assembly,' as might have been seen by reference to the whole tenor of the paper, from which a single passage is quoted.

Nor has the Presbytery sent any commissioner here who, even under the act of 1865, in relation to ministers who have gone into the Confederacy, or fled, or been banished into foreign countries, could have been suspended from the ministry. Since the only one of their commissioners who has been absent from the country during the past three years, was neither in the Confederacy, nor fled, nor was banished; but being absent on a vacation tour, by arrangements made months before, at the inauguration of an unlimited military power under the control of his bitter ecclesiastical enemies, prolonged that absence, with the advice and concurrence of the Church session and of prudent friends of all parties.

Aside, however, from these mistakes of facts in the premises, a far more important matter, in our judgment, is the dangerous error in principle involved in such action, even were the facts as charged. On this view of the case, we beg leave with all respect and deference to suggest:

1. It will be manifest on due reflection, and would have been shown but for the call for the previous question, that the assumption of the right to take such action under the general power of any deliberative body to judge of the qualifications of its own members, arises from a failure to see the want of analogy between the case of the General Assembly and that of legislative and other similar bodies in the secular sphere. The right to appoint commissioners to the General Assembly, and to judge of the qualifications

*This communication is referred to in the Minutes of the Assembly for 1866, page 21, but not entered upon the records.

of those commissioners, is inherent in the Presbyteries, whose members are a constituent part of the Assembly itself; nor can they be divested of that right save by sentence of deposition from office as Presbyters, reached through the forms so carefully prescribed in the constitution. The claim of any particular Assembly to judge of the qualifications of its own members must be limited in the nature of the case to the question whether the credentials are in accordance with the provisions of the book. But in fact the Assembly in this instance does not pretend to be passing judgment upon the qualifications of its own members at all, but upon the constituency which sent them. This is manifest, not only from the terms of the action, but also from the fact that one of the commissioners excluded was no party to the Declaration and Testimony; neither could he be possibly objected to on the score of disqualication or a defective commission.

2. This, therefore, makes manifest what was confessed on the floor of the Assembly by some who voted for this resolution, that the action was in its nature judicial, and it is, therefore, in effect, a judicial sentence, pronounced and executed, not only in disregard of all the provisions for a fair trial so carefully ordained in our constitution, but, under the operation of the previous question, excluding the parties charged from a word of explanation, defence or protest.

3. And it adds to the aggravation of the wrong done in this action, that, even had the Assembly the right thus to act, and were its action according to the forms of law, and the sentence given after a fair hearing, it is a sentence of disgrace, as if inflicted for crime committed; whereas, what was done by the Presbytery could at most be regarded as only the mistaken exercise of the right of protest against what was conceived to be an act of usurpation by the Assembly.

4. A further aggravation of this wrong is the manifest partiality evinced in thus singling out for condemnation the Presbytery of Louisville, while notoriously a large number, if not a majority, of the churches in all parts of the country, and also several Presbyteries represented in the Assembly, have done precisely the thing which the Louisville Presbytery is condemned for asserting its purpose to do.

5. But a still more important and dangerous principle involved in this action is that it takes away from minorities, and even individual members of the body, all those safeguards provided for their protection against the violence and partisan feeling of a casual majority of members in all times of excitement and passion. The principle of this action, if admitted, would inevitably, speedily change the Assembly from an ecclesia organized, restrained and governed by the well-established laws of Christ's house, into a mere ecclesiastical gathering under the unlimited control of the majority of members, "the most part knowing not wherefore they have come together." 6. It but evinces more clearly and aggravates the wrong done in this case, that the Assembly resolves not absolutely and finally to exclude us, but only to exclude us until the Assembly "shall have examined and decided." The right to examine and decide under such a resolution; the right to exclude us, even for an hour, pending such examination; the right to exclude us after such examination is had, and the right absolutely and finally to exclude us, are all equally groundless. The injury inflicted on the good name of the Presbytery among the churches froin a temporary exclusion, as though probably guilty of high crime, is scarcely less than the injury from a sentence of final exclusion. Besides, even though it was consistent with our proper self-respect, and with the honor of the Presbytery, for us to await the result of the Assembly's inquisition, thereby recognizing the Assembly's right thus

"to examine and decide," we are cut off, by the sentence of exclusion, from the exercise of any right of defence. All of which makes it still more palpably manifest that the action of the Assembly is, in effect, the pronouncing and executing of sentence, and afterward proceeding "to examine and decide."

With profound respect for the Assembly as the highest court of the Church, and with unfeigned sorrow that we are constrained, in fidelity to our trust thus to speak, we feel it our duty to say to the Assembly, thatregarding this action as of the nature of a judgment upon the Presbytery and its commissioners, and this judgment a sentence of exclusion without trial or a hearing in any form in explanation or defence; regarding this action as not only unjust, injurious and cruel, but as subversive of the foundations of all justice, destructive of the constitution of the Church, and revolutionary in its nature; regarding it as setting a precedent for the exercise of a partisan power in the courts of Christ's kingdom, which leaves all the rights and immunities of his people at the mercy of any faction that may casually be in the ascendancy-we should be untrue to the Presbytery whose commission we bear, faithless to the cause of truth and Christian freedom, false to our Lord and King, should we silently acquiesce in such procedure or in any way recognize its legality. We must regard this action in its effect, so far as relates to us as commissioners, and to this present Assembly, as final in the case.

With these views and convictions there is but one course left open to us, viz., to take our appeal at once upon the issue as it has been made for us and forced upon us, from this General Assembly to the Presbytery at Louisville in particular, in so far as it concerns ourselves and that body, and to the whole Church, in so far as it is an issue involving the great principles of her constitution, and, indeed, her continued existence as a free Christian commonwealth in the enjoyment of the franchises and immunities conferred upon her by her adorable Head.

We, therefore, respectfully inform the Assembly that we shall not attend further upon its sessions.

ST. LOUIS, MO., May 19, 1866.

STUART ROBINSON, MARK HARDIN,
SAMUEL R. WILSON, C. A. WICKLIFFE.

Rev. Dr. Boardman, of Philadelphia Presbytery, offered the following: Resolved, That this communication be referred to the committee of seven appointed to make inquiries in the matter of Louisville Presbytery, and that the committee be instructed to inquire and report with the least practicable delay as to the expediency of readmitting that delegation to their seats in this General Assembly, until their case and that of their Presbytery shall have been finally disposed of.

On the motion of Hovey K. Clarke, of Michigan Presbytery, the resolution was divided; the first part, viz.: "That the memorial of Rev. Dr. S. Robinson and others be referred to the committee of seven to make inquiries in the matter of the Louisville Presbytery," was adopted. The remainder of the resolution was laid upon the table.

On Tuesday, May 22d, Henry J. Vandyke offered the following

PROTEST.-We, the undersigned, respectfully protest against what we deem to be the mischievous and erroneous judgment of the General Assembly in suspending the commissioners from Louisville Presbytery from the exercise of their rights and privileges as members of this body, for the following reasons: