all the distinctive principles advocated by Dr. Breckinridge plainly lead. But it is not our system; and the church, we trust, will pause and deliberate long before she will be ready to adopt it.

The necessary presence of ruling elders to constitute a quorum is argued, in the second place, from the definition. of a Presbytery, which makes it to consist both of ministers and ruling elders. Ruling elders are, therefore, held an essential element, not only of a Presbytery, but of a legal quorum of Presbytery. The only force of the reasoning under this head, resides in the confusion of these two perfectly distinct things. If a meeting of Presbytery could be held under the compulsory exclusion of ruling elders commissioned to attend, if the received construction of the rule involved this, there could be no doubt that it would be in conflict with the principles of our constitution. And it will be found that every plausible argument upon the other side, and all the fanfaronade about hierarchy, and freedom, and priestly usurpation, are founded upon the quiet assumption that such is the effect of the interpretation given to this rule. Ruling elders, if there be any within the district covered by the Presbytery, constitute a portion of that body, and no lawful meeting can be held, no business of whatever kind transacted, without an opportunity afforded, to all who may lawfully partake in its deliberations and acts, to be present and assist; but if they choose voluntarily to absent themselves, then, that the business of the church may not suffer through their absence, it is provided that the ministers who may be assembled may proceed to business without them. It will be perceived at once that there is here no restraint imposed, no subjection established, and, of course, no power bestowed. Ruling elders, one from each congregation, have a right to be present at every meeting of the presbytery. That right is left untouched. And this is a hierarchy! These are slight materials out of which to compose the horrid picture of the church, subjected to the rule of "three ministers without charge, who, it may be, have forsaken their covenanted calling."

If it could be shown that there was anything in our book, in the nature of the case, or in reason, requiring that the quorum of a body, which, when fully formed, was composed of different classes, must of necessity embrace some members of all those classes, the question would be decided that our rule ought to have been made to mean what Dr.

Breckinridge maintains that it does mean. But this has not been shown. On the contrary, our book, in providing for the action of a chuch session when no minister may be present, and for a quorum of the General Assembly when no ruling elders may be present, distinctly sanctions the principle, that a quorum of a body composed of two classes may be formed entirely of one of those classes. The expediency of the case furnishes no argument against our interpretation, inasmuch as there never have been any diverse interests betweeen the ministers and elders of our church, nor is it easy to conceive how any such can legitimately arise. They are not adverse parties, nor is there anything in the practical working of our system which could ever make them so. And if this were not so, if they were antagonistic parties, the quorum rule would still be harmless, as the elders would, in that case, take care to exercise the privilege which they possess of being always present, and thus prevent their priestly adversaries from taking advantage over them. It has also been shown, that in the common judgment of men, as manifested in the constitution and rules of other analogous bodies, it has never deemed essential to the constitution of a quorum that it should embrace some of all the classes represented in the body; as in the English House of Lords, which can transact business in the absence of all the spiritual Lords.

In the last place, it is argued that the authority of precedent is opposed to the authorized interpretation of the quorum rule. Dr. Breckinridge quotes under this head the authority of Steuart of Pardovan, who declares that neither the constitution of the church nor the law of the land, "do authorize any other ecclesiastical judicatory but Assemblies, Synods, Presbyteries, and Kirk Sessions, or their committees, consisting of ministers and ruling elders." It will be seen at once that this does not touch the question in debate. This, and all the other authorities cited by Dr. Breckinridge refer only to the proper constitution of church courts, and we are all agreed that these must be composed of ministers and ruling elders. They affirm nothing respecting the formation of a quorum of these courts. This is apparent from the language itself; and it is placed beyond all doubt by the fact that Steuart himself quotes from the Directory, "That to perform any classical act of government or ordination, there must be present, at least, a major part of the ministers of the whole classis." So that the

quorum of a classis, or Presbytery of the Scottish church did not require the presence of any ruling elders. This fallacy of confounding the composition of a body with the quorum of that body, runs through the whole of Dr. Breckinridge's historical argument, and vitiates every one of his conclusions. A proper regard to this distinction rescues from him every instance which he has adduced, excepting that of the condemnation, by the General Assembly of 1638, of six preceding Assemblies. And every one acquainted with the rudiments of the ecclesiastical history of Scotland knows that the grounds of this condemnation were utterly wide of the question which we are discussing. It was not because there were no ruling elders present in those Assemblies that they were set aside, but because there were elders present and voting, who had no lawful commissions. This case is too irrelevant to waste words upon. If anything can be established by testimony, it is clear that the doctrine and practice of the Scottish church are in agreement with the decision of our last Assembly. In addition to other authorities which have been abundantly given to this effect, we refer to the correspondence of Robert Wodrow, the celebrated historian of the kirk, Vol. I. p. 181. In a letter, dated Nov. 29, 1710, we find the following passage. "Thirdly, The rule of the church, though elders have a share in it, is principally committed to pastors. The keys of the kingdom are given to them. They are such as rule over the people, and speak the word, Heb. xiii. 7, and watch for souls as they that must give account, ver. 17; none of which places to me have any relation to the ruling elder; and therefore they can act in absence or under the want of elders, though I cannot see how elders can act without pastors."

We have thus in favour of the Assembly's decision, the obvious meaning ofthe language of the rule; the sanction by our book, of the principle involved, by its provision. for the action of a church session, and of the General Assembly, in the entire absence of one of the classes that compose these courts the practice of our own church in times past; the concurrent practice of the Scottich church; and the analogies of other bodies constituted in like manner. We have opposed to it, certain abstract notions about the rights of ruling elders, which, if fairly carried out, are destructive of our whole system; and certain exaggerated fears about the establishment of a hierarchy, by means of a harmless rule

of convenience, which, restraining no right, confers no power. We cannot doubt that the next Assembly will, if need be, affirm the decisions of the last. There are some things which the church ought to be presumed to know, and among these surely should be numbered her first principles of truth and order.

ART. VI.-Unlawful Marriage: An answer to "The Puritan" and "Omicron," who have advocated in a Pamphlet, the Lawfulness of the Marriage of a man with his deceased wife's sister. By J. J. Janeway, D. D. New York: Robert Carter. 1844. pp. 215.

This is a laborious and extended examination of the subject of which it treats; and is, we think, a very successful answer to the extreme and dangerous doctrines advanced by the writer in the New England Puritan. Dr. Janeway has convicted that writer of many errors both in quotation and argument, and has overthrown the principles on which his whole reasoning is founded. As this subject is still agitating the church, and as the tendency to unsettle long established laws and usages, relating to marriage, is clearly and fearfully on the increase in our country, and is especially manifested by some recent decisions of the civil courts, Dr. Janeway has rendered an important service by proving as we think he has done, that the law contained in Lev. xviii. relates to marriage, and is binding on us as the law of God.

The Christian contemplated, in a course of Lectures delivered in Argyle Chapel, Bath. By William Jay. New York: Robert Carter, 58 Canal-street. Pittsburgh: Thomas Carter. 1844.

Jay's Morning and Evening Exercises have become so generally household books in Christian families, that all our readers are probably familiar with his peculiarly felicitous style of presenting religious truth. It is clear, simple, pointed and forcible; but its greatest exellence is the appropriate and beautiful illustrations from the scriptures, with which his works everywhere abound. If any of our readers should happen not to have seen the lectures before us, they

The

will be able to form some conception of their plan and value, from the following schedule of the author's design, taken from the introduction to his first lecture: "It is to hold up the CHRISTIAN to your view, in some very important and comprehensive conditions and relations. To this design we dedicate twelve lectures. The first will lead you to contemplate the Christian in CHRIST. The second in the CLOSET. The third in the FAMILY. The fourth in the CHURCH. fifth in the WORLD. The sixth in PROSPERITY. The seventh in ADVERSITY. The eighth in his SPIRITUAL SORROWS. The ninth in his SPIRITUAL JOYS. The tenth in DEATH. The eleventh in the GRAVE. The twelfth in GLORY." We need hardly say, that the spirit of the Book is richly evangelical. In mechanical execution, this volume is uniform with Mr. Carter's series of 18mo. books, and is in all respects commendable.

Droppings from the Heart: or, Occasional Poems. By Thomas Mackellar. Philadelphta: Sorin & Ball, 311

Market street. 1844. 18mo. pp. 144.

Many of the fugitive pieces in this volume have a sacred character; some of them breathe a spirit of peculiar devotion; and they all have a moral bearing. The style and versification are good, in some instances eminently so. But that which should give a special attraction to the work, is that it is the production of a working-printer in Philadelphia, and, if we are rightly informed, of a journeyman.

Sermons and Discourses. By Thomas Chalmers, D. D. LL. D., Professor of Theology of the Free Church of Scotland. First complete American edition, from the late Glasgow stereotype edition, revised and corrected by the author. In two volumes. New York: Robert Carter, 58 Canal-street. Pittsburgh: Thomas Carter. 1844.

These volumes complete Mr. Carter's reprint of the Glasgow edition of Dr. Chalmers's Theological works. They are uniform with his reprint of the Lectures on the Romans, in compact double columns, but in good sized and clear type, on good paper, and at a price, which a few years ago, would have been deemed incredibly low. Some idea may be formed of the mass of matter comprised in these volumes from the fact that they contain ninety-seven sermons including the Commercial and Astronomical Discourses, fifteen in number, be