Mrs. Chapone was asked why she came so early to church 2–" Because,” said she, “it is part of my religion never to disturb the religion of others.”

I never loved those salamanders that are never well but when they are in the fire of contention. I will rather suffer a thousand wrongs than offer one : I will suffer an hundred rather than return one : I will suffer many, ere I will complain of one, and endeavour to right it by contending. I have ever found, that to strive with my superior, is furious; with my equal, doubtfus; with my inferior, sordid and base; with any, full of unquietness.-HALL.

Most sure it is, and a true conclusion of experience, that a little natural philosophy inclineth the mind to atheism; but a further proceeding bringeth the mind back to religion.—LoRD BAcos.

It should be remembered, that the formation of virtuous habits, and the acquirement of a virtuous temper of mind, is the work of God's Holy Spirit, blessing our endeavours, answering our prayers, and gradually changing us into the likeness of our Maker. —JEREMY TAYLOR.

Prayer is the peace of our spirit, the stillness of our thoughts, the spring of true-reflection, the seat of meditation, the rest of our cares, and the calm of our tempest; prayer is the issue of a quiet mind, of untroubled thoughts; it is the daughter of charity, and the sister of meekness.-JEREMY TAYLOR.

Reason is the test of ridicule, not ridicule the test of truth.-WARBURTON.

To think well, is the way to act rightly. —PALEY.

THE ORGAN QUESTION.

In our last number we gave the resolution moved by the Rev. William Chalmers, together with the amendments and the result of the division thereon. The original resolution, as then stated, was carried by a majority of four, and before referring to the other business disposed of by the Synod, we think it better to bring together, and so complete, the proceedings on this question. Mr. Duncan, of Newcastle, on Friday morning, April 24th, read the reasons of dissent from the finding of the Synod on the organ question, as follows: — “First. Because the decision of the Synod from which we dissent is in contravention of the Barrier Act, inasmuch as, without sending down the matter to the Presbyteries, it actually sanctions the use of instrumental music hitherto employed in a few exceptional cases without sanction and virtual legislation upon the subject. “Second. Because this decision casts contempt upon the authority of the Presbytery of Lancashire, dutifully, forbearingly, and patiently exercising its efforts to obtemper the injunction of last Synod. “Third. Because the Synod, in this decision, contradicts its own resolution of last year, and contravenes its declarative deliVerance. “Fourth. Because we feel that the effect of this decision will be to encourage disobedience to authority, by giving rise to the belief that where a dominant party in

any congregation desire the introduction of any innovation, it has only to be bold and defiant in introducing, and pertinacious in maintaining it, in order to induce the Synod to concede the point.

“Fifth. Because the obvious tendency of this decision is to agitate the peaceful Sessions and congregations of this Church on the subject of instrumental music, and to lead to painful divisions, and possible serious schisms.

“Sixth. Because this decision is the first professedly authoritative act which seriously interferes with the Scriptural and timehonoured simplicity of our Presbyterian worship, and bears the appearance of an attempt to conform to the modes of worship of others—an attempt which cannot fail to diminish the esteem in which this Church is held in England, as well as to interfere with the entire and cordial harmony hitherto subsisting between the Presbyterian Churches in England and the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland and Ireland.”

The Clerk also handed in the following reasons on behalf of himself and Mr. Robinson :

“First. Because the finding amounts to such a change in the worship of our Church as cannot be constitutionally agreed upon in this Synod without having been sanctioned by the Presbyteries in the terms of the Barrier Act.

“Second. Because that change amounted 183

to a subversion of the Scriptural simplicity of our Presbyterian worship, and seems painfully to indicate a tendency towards practices against which, in the best times, the Presbyterians of England, Scotland, and Ireland, invariably protested. “Third. Because the time and the occasion for making the change are singularly fitted to encourage a spirit of insubordination in the office-bearers and members of this Church, which must tend to the entire subversion of all ecclesiastical authority. *Fourth. Because this finding is fraught with the elements of disturbance and con

gregations Mr. Chalmers them moved a Committee to draw up, and on Saturday morning, the 25th, handed in, the following answers to the reasons of dissent from the finding of the Synod in reference to the cases of St. John's, Warrington, and St. George's, Liverpool:— “First. The decision of the Synod, sofar from sanctioning the use of instrumental music in public worship, declares that, though not without precedent, it is not in accordance with the ordinary practice of this Church, and ought not to be introduced in any case without the previous sanction, craved and obtained, of the Supreme Court. This decision therefore can

not be said to contravene the Barrier Act,

when it leaves the Synod at perfect liberty to transmit an overture to the Presbyteries on the general question, in terms of that Act, at any future time before giving its sanction to any particular case. The deci

|sion dissented from was not an act of legis

lation upon the subject of instrumental music. The Synod finding itself called upon to adjudicate in a special case, referred to it—a case attended with peculiar difficulties—was under the necessity of coming to a decision upon it for the peace and satisfaction of this Church; but the deci

introduced, was not of so definite and unambiguous a character as to lay the Presbytery of Lancashire under any imperative obligation to proceed in the case of St. George's, Liverpool—a case, which was never before the Synod, and in regard to which they had received no special instructions. The Synod cannot regard the authority of this Presbytery as “dutifully, forbearingly, and patiently exercised, when, with scarcely a reference to the parallel case within their bounds of St. John's, Warrington, the Presb of Lancashire proceeded, in the case of St. George's, Liverl, against a motion to refer it, on account of its difficulty and delicacy, to the Synod for its counsel and advice, and systematically disregarded all dissents and complaints, whilst the case was one which the dissentients themselves have characterised as marked by ‘peculiarities and specialties which o it exceptional and incapable of being used as a precedent.’ “Third. The Synod in its decision does not contradict or contravene the deliverance of last year, inasmuch as it has not expressed any approval of the introduction of instrumental music. It has merely dealt with the cases of Warrington and Liverpool as exceptional—the course proposed on the motion supported by the dissentients themselves. “Fourth. The motion supported by the dissentients, in proposing to authorise the Presbytery of Lancashire to forbear proceedings, in hoc statu, for silencing the instruments now in use within their bounds, is as open to the charge of encouraging dis: obedience as the deliverance of the Synod is alleged to be, both, in the same sense, “conceding the points;' but, inasmuch as this deliverance expressly prohibits Pres: byteries from permitting any instrumental music to be introduced without the previous sanction of the Synod, no future cases can exhibit these specialities which have induced the Synod to instruct the Presbytery of Lancashire to take no further action in regard to the cases of Liverpool and Warrington. “Fifth. The Synod can anticipate no such results as those contemplated by the dissentients. As its finding expresses no approval of the use of instrumental music, it is difficult to see how it can give rise to agitation in opposition to that which it neither does nor proposes to do; and the Synod can scarcely suppose that the apprehensions of the dissentients arise from the idea that Sessions and congregations will be encouraged to agitate in favour of instrumental music after the conviction expressed by the leading dissentients in their answers to last year's reasons of dissent, that there is “no such feeling on behalf of instrumental music among the members of our Church' as will lead to such agitation: on the contrary, that, with rare exceptions, ‘there is a sound and healthy tone of mind upon this subject.'

“Sixth. The Synod has but to repeat the statement that in its deliverance there is no sanction given to the introduction of instrumental music, and that the two cases of St. George's and St. John's are treated as the dissentients proposed to treat them —as exceptional cases. Whatever conclusions there may be drawn from that deli. verance, as interfering with the scriptural simplicity of our Presbyterian worship, and as to its tendency to alienate other churches from us, may with equal reason be found in the deliverance proposed by the dissentients. These churches will understand that the Synod has simply adjudicated in special cases attended with peculiar difficulties. In the mode of dealing with that case, as was matural, differences of opinion were found among the members of the Synod, and the decision therefore, as might be expected, gave dissatisfaction to some brethren; but when it is considered that out of 106 members who voted in the divisions on this question, 103 recorded their votes in favour of allowing the congregations of St. John's, Warrington, and St. George's, Liverpool, to retain the use of their organs, there is a singular unanimity on the substantial merits of the case, and a remarkable contrast to the decision of last Synod, which was only supported by 58 members of the House.—Signed, in the name of the Committee of Synod, by Wm. Chalmers, Convener.”

The following is the answer to the separate reasons given in by Messrs. Duncan (Greenwich) and Robinson : —

- “In regard to these separate reasons of dissent, the Synod reply, that while in their form they may, in the estimation of the subscribers, have some bearing on their personal consistency, in their substance they meet with their answer in the replies to the other set of reasons.”

Mr. Duncan, Newcastle, had immense satisfaction in this document : 1st. Because its tone was apologetic throughout, showing that their friends were beginning to awaken, 2nd. The lines of circumvalla

tion did not correspond with the statement

of general principles laid down in Mr. Chalmers's resolution. And 3rd. It was an attempt to chop logic and find men guilt

of inconsistency—a quality of special pleading that did very well in a debating society, but not in a church court. He moved that they be sustained and kept in retentis

Thursday, April 23rd. The Synod resumed its sittings at tera o'clock, Mr. Ritchie, Elder, brought up the supplemental Report of the College Comamittee, which was received and sustained. We give the College Reports elsewhere.

The GATES HEAD case.

The Clerk read a petition, signed by 160 seat-holders of the Presbyterian Preaching Station in Gateshead, requesting the Committee to take steps to have them formed into a congregation.

The Clerk read another petition from the Rev. Thos. Knox Anderson and the members and adherents of the Gateshead Presbyterian Church, stating that they, having been unjustly deprived of their churchnearly twelvemonths agoby themortgagee, together with two valuable libraries, etc., and the Presbytery having, since the Synod sanctioned a preaching station in Gateshead, for which there was, in the opinion of the petitioners, no necessity, and which was nothing but the church from which they had been excluded, and in which they had been accustomed for many years to worship, and in which they had an interest of £700, they regarded this as a spoliation and an unworthy attempt to set aside a recent decision of the Synod, and hoped the Synod would feel justified in interposing on their behalf, so as to restore them to the full enjoyment of their rights and privileges under the ministry of one who had been long and sorely tried, and to whom they were sincerely attached. The petition was signed by 191 persons.

Mr. Reid appeared to state the reference, He said they had had no opportunity of examining the documents, and seeing whether the 191 were bond fide adherents to the church. The finding of the Newcastle Presbytery in the case of Mr. Anderson was referred to the Synod, and before the case was entered on, the mortgagee had a claim for interest. The mortgagee, knowing the circumstances of the case, resolved to take possession of the church. The matter went on in the Presbytery, and at the earnest solicitation of several parties connected with the congregation, he did not take possession while the case was before the Presbytery, After the decision of the Synod, the mortgagee at once took possession, he having first given notice to the Minister and various Trustees, and the Presbytery had no hand whatever in taking Mr. Anderson's church from him. Five months o between the decision of the Synod and the appearance of their Gateshead friends, asking them to open a preaching station in teshead. The Presbytery

Agreed.

examined the petition, agreed to consider

185

the case, and appoint a Committee to confor with the leading parties in Gateshead; and the Presbytery received a Report to the effect that they were prepared to grant any sum under £100 for twelve months for the support of a preaching station. They did not tell the Presbytery they were going to open the church as their preaching station. The Presbytery agreed to open the preaching station, and Mr. Anderson was present and entered no dissent. Mr. Storie saw the difficulty in which Mr. Anderson was placed, and dissented, but did not carry his dissent through. Mr. Anderson frequently refused to bring the state of his congregation before the Presbytery, because he said he had no confidence in the Presbytery, but would come before the Synod, and he complained of the way in which Mr. A. had done so. Mr. A. refused to recognise that the Presbytery had any eontrol over him, and the Presbytery at that moment were ignorant that Mr. A. had a Church, a Congregation, a Session, or any standing in Gateshead. A Congregation met in the Church, but no fault could be found with the Presbytery for that. Several members of the Presbytery had preached in the station, the Congregation there had prospered, and the contributions to the support of the station had been all that could be desired under the circumstances. The average attendance was 150; there were forty-five families or parts of families, several Trustees, and some of the old Elders, one of whom was Mr. A.'s Presbytery Elder last year. Mr. Anderson, of Gateshead, having been heard on his own behalf and that of his adherents, and several members of Synod having spoken, Mr. Morton, Elder, moved—“That the Synod grant the prayer of the memorial with the view of having the preaching station formed into a Congregation.”. Colonel Anderson seconded this motion. Mr. Chalmers intended to submit a ounter motion—not a motion to refuse, but to appoint a Committee of Synod to report at a subsequent Meeti While substantially agreeing with his friend Col. Anderson in admitting the Congregation, he there was a question still to be ottled, as to how far they could sanction this Congregation in the place of worship they had got. They must not put into the hands of parties a weapon with which out, down the decision of the court.—

felt considerably embarrassed by its various aspects. There could be no doubt as to the general question that the mortgagee of a church upon which the debt was not paid was entitled to take possession of the building; but in this case the taking possession occurred immediately after a decision of the Synod which freed Mr. Anderson from any p. consequence of the libel which had een served upon him, and which libel had not been confirmed or sustained by the Synod. The circumstances under which the church was taken possession of were exceedingly painful. On the other hand, Mr. Anderson had a right to minister in that place of worship. When the Presbytery consented to grant a preaching station in that Church, they approved, or at least, consented, to the act of the mortgagee in ejecting Mr. A. The Committee first thought they could not sustain the occupancy of that building by the new Congregation until some pecuniary arrangements were made, or some time given to enable Mr. A, and his friends to pay off the mortgage; or on the other hand that the new Congregation should contribute in proportion to the value of the property employed. The feeling of the Committee was, that they must guard themselves against sanctioning the act by which a man, possessed of a money claim upon a Church, could eject a Minister in the face of the right which he had to minister in that Church. The Report of the Committee was substantially this: “Refuse to sanction the station in Gateshead in present circumstances as a new charge, but continue it as a preaching station in the meantime.” The effect of that would be, that the parties in possession of this place of worship remain in possession of it. They lost nothing by not being constituted into a new Church; on the other hand, by recogmising it as a new charge, they put the Church in a position which they could not occupy. The Synod had not been put in possession of j. the circumstances which might justify it in recognising it as a new charge; and they could not do that which might expose them to being regarded as sanctioning the exercise of a power by right of property to nullify a decision of Synod, which found that there was mot sufficient ground for libelling him, but not that he was free from blame; they did not find Mr. A. was fully entitled to all the affection and support he might once have enjoyed at the hands of his friends. Mr. A. presumed a great deal too much on the nature of the last deliverance of the Synod, and had made it a very difficult thing for those who sympathised with him to go with him after the appearance he presented on Thursday.

This was an appeal from a deliverance of the Presbytery of Newcastle, in the matter of certain disputes between the Rev. John Storie, and Messrs. John W. Lamb and Terrot Glover, Elders of his congregation, relative to the accounts of the day schools of St. John's Church, South Shields.

Parties having been called, Messrs. Lamb and Glover appeared for themselves; Mr. Reid, Mr. Lonie, and Dr. Paterson for the Presbytery; and Mr. Storie for himself.

Parties being heard and removed from the bar,

Mr. Lewis, of Dudley, moved the ap§. of a Committee to prepare a eliverance, and to report in the morning. This was agreed to, and accordingly on joy the appeal was disposed of as folows :

Mr. Paterson, of Manchester, presented the Report of the Committee:—“Sustain the protest and appeal: find that many charges of a grave and injurious kind were made or insinuated by Mr. Storie against Messrs. Lamb and Glover in printed letter, No. 1; that such charges ought to have been prosecuted before the Session of which Messrs. Lamb and Glover are members: that the printing and partial publication of the said letter was an unconstitutional and most improper mode of proceeding: that the charges and allegations contained in it are unsupported o: disproved or withdrawn; and that the Presbytery having come to that conclusion, and fully acquitted Mr. Lamb, and all others concerned, of any implied charges, insinuations, or suspicions whatever, of mal-appropriation or abuse of any funds, ought to have expressed in their finding their disapprobation at once of the matter of Mr. Storie's letter, and of the manner in which the charges were made, which the Synod hereby does; and further, that the Synod admonish Mr. Storie to be more careful in future how he brings charges of so grave a nature against any of the officebearers and members of this Church in any other than a regular and constitutional way.”

Mr. Blyth, Elder, proposed that the Report be adopted.

Mr. Hood, Elder, with great pleasure seconded the motion. He very much deplored the unconstitutional and imprudent course which Mr. Storie had adopted in this case: and he doubted not that this venerable court would sympathise with that feeling. He rejoiced to think that his friends, Messrs. Glover and Lamb, had so ably and efficiently vindicated their character against the insinuations of Mr. Storie.

Dr. Hamilton hoped some of the expressions might be modified. If they passed a very severe censure on Mr. Storie, and above all, the admonition, they might hereafter find that they have been exceeding justice.

After a discussion, it was agreed that the resolution should end at the word “ does.”

DEPUTATIONS FROM THE FREE CHURCH or sco.TLAND AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY or The Presbyterian CHURCH IN IEELAND.

The Rev. Mr. Lewis, of Dudley, who attended the last General Assembly of the Free Church as a deputation from this Synod, reported that he had conveyed to that Assembly the expressions of esteem and regard with which he had been entrusted. He was received with that kindness which had ever characterized the intercourse between the two Churches, and with expressions of much gratification at receiving a deputation from this Synod. Mr. Lewis then introduced the deputation, which consisted of the Rev. Dr. Wood and the Rev. Mr. Fordyce. The Rev. Dr. Buchanan, and Mr. Hogg, of Newliston (Elder), had also been appointed by the Assembly to form part of the deputation; but both were prevented from being present by indisposition. Dr. Wood then addressed the Synod, expressing the great interest which the Free Church took in the proceedings of the English Presbyterian body, and hoping that it would be the means of promoting the advancement of Presbyterianism in England, which, they were thoroughly convinced, was the best formed of all church polity. Mr. Fordyce, Free Church Missionary at Calcutta, also addressed the Synod. On the motion of Mr. Paterson, of Manchester, seconded by the Rev. Mr. Murdoch, of Berwick, the Moderator conveyed to the deputation the thanks of the Synod for their attendance, and their reciprocal feelings of regard. he Rev. John Moran and the Rev. John Hall were also received from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and had conveyed to them by the