fore them, and the terrors of the Lord insisted on; but there was a silent anguish of heart and inward agony under which the poor children, especially the bigger boys, were melted down before God into the very deepest humiliation. Their great distress seemed to arise from the dreadful sense of the hardness of their hearts, and from their feeling themselves utterly unable to believe on Jesus Christ, and give their hearts to him. It would have touched a heart of stone to witness the bitter sorrow depicted in the looks and gestures of some of these poor children; they stood up as long as they could stand, but, at length, one after another, they sat down, and by the time the minister had finished his address, about thirty of them were seen bowed down with their faces hidden in their hands, whilst the tears were rolling through their fingers, and their deep and quiet sobs betrayed the agony that passed within. It really was a most astonishing as well as affecting sight to see these once proud, iron-hearted, thoughtless boys, formerly so fierce and coarse in spirit, now humbled in the most unfeigned brokenness of heart, with spirits so subdued and softened, that their very language, looks, and voice were altered, so much so, indeed, that we could scarcely think they were the same in dividuals we had lately known so different; the spirits of the bigger lads, especially, seemed to be so truly melted that they were more like little tender infants than great rough boys.

AMERICAN REVIVAL INTELLIGENCE.-DEAR SIR, The past winter has been a season of unusual interest in this city, and, indeed, throughout the land. In Boston, the revival of religion has been probably greater than at any other time since the "great awakening," a century ago. Almost every evangelical church, of every denominatiou, has received a valuable accession to its communicants. Some of them have nearly doubled their number; others have long lists of candidates who have passed a satisfactory examination. The mixture of error of any kind appears to have been as small as could reasonably be expected in the midst of such general and deep feeling. Some unguarded statements have been made in preaching and exhortation, and some measures of doubtful propriety have been used; but these things have been exceptions to the general character of the revival, and their chief scene has not been among the congregational churches. We should remember, however, that without a widely diffused energy of thought, feeling, and action, that, in this imperfect world, will be sure to hurry some men into mistakes, little will ever be accomplished; and then the wildest freak of the weakest zealot among us has not been so great a mistake as he commits who is contentedly inefficient. I make these remarks, not because there is any special need of them on the present occasion, but to shew your readers that we Americans have our eyes on such things, and do not write accounts of revivals without considering whereof we affirm. Throughout the country, so far as I can learn, revivals have not only been unusually numerous and powerful, but very free from objectionable features. I ought to have added, that in some, at least, of the congregations of the city, new instances of awakening continue to shew themselves.

Last week was the season of our religious anniversaries. Those at New York occurred a little earlier, and those at Cincinnati are soon to be held. Ours have been unusually interesting; but I must wait a little before their statistics can be gathered into the compass of a letter. One thing, however, is too cheering to defer. It appears from the annual report of the Prison Discipline Society, that crime, in those parts of the United States from which a sufficient data could be obtained, is decreasing at the rate of about three per cent. annually.

The prospect of our foreign missionary operations, on the whole, is good. Our societies of this kind, like those in England, are all in debt, and for the

ture necessary.

It

same reason the blessing of God on their labours has made larger expendiThe debt of the American Board of Commissioners at its annual meeting in October last, was about 57,000 dollars, or nearly L.12,000 sterling; and a rigid calculation had shewn, that if the missions were all kept from extinction, and the monthly receipts not increased, it would grow to 100,000 dollars in another year. There had been a deficiency for six successive years, notwithstanding the most earnest appeals for help. The board resolved to continue its session till the means of relief should be found. The deliberations were often suspended to unite in prayer. At length light broke in upon their path, and all became plain. Arithmetic had shewn that an increase of 25 per cent. on the donations of the last year was indispensable. was at last seen, that the only way to meet the crisis was, to give the money, and endure whatever effort and self-denial such donations might cost them. The members present, with a very few justifiable exceptions, resolved to do it, and many of them pledged themselves to do more. A statement of the case, with an invitation to follow the example, was circulated through the country. The movement was generally approved; and there is little doubt that at the end of the year the missions will have been sustained, and some of them enlarged, and the debt nearly or quite extinguished. This increase of donations has been made deliberately, and with the full understanding that it will need to be permanent. The news from the missions, too, is generally quite encouraging.

Boston, U. S., June 1842.

ECCLESIASTICAL INTELLIGENCE.

The decision pronounced by the House of Lords in the Auchterarder case, of which we have added a brief report, naturally suggests an inquiry into the bearing which that decision has on the prospects of our church, and the consequences likely to follow from it. Instead, however, of entering at large into a discussion of this subject, we shall for the present satisfy ourselves, by giving a plain historical detail of the various movements which have been recently made, both by our friends and our foes, and leave our readers to gather what the position of our church really is, from a detail of the proceedings in the Court of Session, in Parliament, and in the Commission of the General Assembly.

And first, as to the proceedings in the Court of Session. In our number for April we reported the decision of the Court of Session in the CULSALMOND case, according to which the church courts were interdicted from suspending a presentee from the discharge of his ecclesiastical duties, and also from providing for the ministration of the word and sacraments in the parish during this suspension. Since that decision was pronounced, several other interdicts of a similar kind have been applied for, and almost as matter of form, have been granted. Indeed, it seems now to be

settled law, (in so far as the decisions of the Court of Session are to be regarded as such), that the civil courts are entitled to controul and review ecclesiastical proceedings, of whatever kind, and to issue what orders they please for the direction of the church courts. This is a result which was observed from the commencement of the present struggle as almost inevitable, from the principles which the majority of the judges had assumed in the original Auchterarder case; and although the very idea of such a doctrine was repudiated by many, it has been gradually making progress ever since; and is now implicitly acquiesced in by the very men who once so sensitively recoiled from it as utterly untenable and monstrous. In what way ministers and elders, who have solemnly declared their belief in the statement of the Confession of Faith, that there is a power in the hands of church officers, independent of and distinct from the civil magistrate,' can reconcile such a doctrine with the recognition of a power in the civil magistrate to controul matters of ordination, deposition, and suspension, we do not stop to inquire; but we need not now hesitate to predict, that the civil courts having once assumed to themselves such power in matters ecclesiastical, will continue to usurp it, even in the face of the most glaring inconsistencies. Hence we find, that in two cases, both decided in one day, the Court acted in this manThe one was the case of the Rev. Mr Wilson v. the Presbytery of Stranraer, and the other that of the majority of the Presbytery of Strathbogie v. the minority.

ner.

In the former case, the Presbytery of Stranraer had resolved to libel Mr Wilson, on the allegation of fraud and other charges, whereupon he applied for an interdict, to prevent the investigation of these charges, on the ground that the presbytery's proceedings were vitiated by the participation in them of a quoad sacra minister. The Court (First Division) entertained this application; and although it was admitted that the question as to the right of the quoad sacra ministers was then, as it still is, sub judice, yet on the assumption that greater evils would result from refusing than from issuing the interdict, it was granted. This, at least, was the view taken by the Lord President and Lord M'Kenzie. Lord Ivory, in the Outer House, however, before whom the case, according to judicial form, came in the first instance, as the Lord Ordinary, was of a different opinion, and Lord Fullerton, in the Inner House, concurred with him. Still, although there was thus an equal division among four judges, and hence equity would have suggested that the whole of the other judges be consulted, yet judgment was pronounced, granting the interdict craved, on the ground that one of the members was a quoad sacra minister. Well did Lord Fullerton remark, The question of jurisdic

tion as to this very matter has been raised in another case, and has been deemed of so much importance, that a hearing in presence has been ordered. Considering the great delicacy there is in granting an interdict, when the question of jurisdiction is open, I am inclined to think, that in the present instance, if we are to proceed on grounds of expediency, there is more danger of mischief in granting than in refusing the interdict.'

We leave it to lawyers to say, if, when a point has been raised in one case, and is to be solemnly adjudicated upon per se, it is a usual and a competent proceeding for a minority of the judges to anticipate the judgment of the whole Court, when the identical point is incidentally brought forward in another case. If such be the rules of the Court of Session, we can well understand the proverbial uncertainty of the law; but we do trust that no such violation of judicial propriety and decorum will ever disgrace the courts of the church.

The above decision was pronounced during the sitting of the Assembly, and intended to take effect against that court. Notwithstanding this interdict, however, Mr Wilson was deposed by the Assembly, and now he has brought an action against the presbytery for disregarding the above interdict, and giving effect to the sentence of the Assembly, and praying, that for so doing they may be punished by imprisonment, fine, censure, or otherwise.' This action is not yet determined.

The case of the Presbytery of Strathbogie, to which we have referred, arose out of the election of Major Stewart, and Rev. Messrs Dewar and Leith to represent that presbytery in last General Assembly. The majority having applied to the Court of Session to interdict these members from taking their seats, this case also came before Lord Ivory, who thought that the interdict craved went beyond any previous one, and ought not to be granted. He therefore reported it to the First Division of the Court, when the Lord President declared, that unless they were to stultify themselves, they must grant it, and Lord Mackenzie regarded it as a mere corollary to the former one. Lord Fullerton remarked, that this appeared the most important interdict which had yet been applied for, and that they were no more entitled to grant it than to interdict a member of the House of Commons from taking his seat in that Assembly.' Could anything (his Lordship asked), be a matter more purely ecclesiastical than the right of the General Assembly to determine who are to have seats in it? If, in consequence of improper individuals being permitted to sit, civil interests came to be affected, we may then interfere. But here the only question is, which of a certain number of individuals are to be entitled to sit? I am afraid we are getting step by step into difficulties, which

strikingly illustrate the danger of our once going beyond our jurisdiction. The present appears to me a question of the greatest constitutional importance, and I think, before deciding it, it would be well to consult the other judges.' This advice, however, was not adopted, and the court, or at least two judges, (Lord Gillies was not present on either occasion) granted the interdict. This interdict also was, of course, broken, and now, in regard to it too, an application has been made to punish for the breach of it, by fine, imprisonment, or otherwise, and probably, in the ensuing session, the point will be determined. Why, it may be asked, did the Court of Session not get the above sentence put in immediate execution? Surely, if they were acting within their own province, they could have instantly compelled compliance with their order. But this they did not; no, this they could not do; and so all that remains is to punish for breach of an order which they had no power to enforce !

What a want of dignity, as well as of justice, is this? How contemptible does it make the court in the eye of the public? It is virtually an acknowledgment of the utter incompetency of such proceedings. The above interdicts have been treated as so much waste paper, and have been issued to be trampled upon, leaving the court to vindicate its authority if it can.

The case referred to in the preceding remarks by Lord Fullarton, as still pending, as our readers are aware, is the case of Stewarton. This case has not yet been decided, but it has been fully pleaded, and will, in all likelihood, be decided before our next. In the meantime, we may notice an incidental matter of considerable importance that occurred in the course of the pleadings. In the very able case for the presbytery, prepared by Mr Alexander Dunlop, certain passages were introduced, declaring, that they (the presbytery) could not, as a church court, disregard the injunctions of the superior church judicature, though required to do so by decree of the Court of Session, and that, therefore, whatever judgment was pronounced, they would continue to obey their ecclesiastical superiors. These passages proved very obnoxious to some of the judges, and when the pleadings were closed, the Lord President immediately directed the attention of the court to them. In consequence of this, the court resolved to consider this part of the case separately. This was accordingly done, and on the 1st July the following proceedings took place :

Mr Rutherfurd.-I have the honour to attend your lordships for the respondents, and my learned friend (Mr Dunlop,) and I have discharged the duty which we owe to the parties, by giving our attention to those passages which your lordship found it necessary to notice in the discharge of your very important duty. My Lord, your lordships seem to think that these expressions to which you referred, bore, or at least might bear, a construction that implied