blished equality as to every political right and principle of religion in the eyes of the Government of India."

It is therefore with devout thanksgiving to God that we hope to see at least the introductory steps of this advance now taken. And when begun, it will be soon completed. The way of Christianity in that vast country will be comparatively clear. The hopes we have cherished, and often expressed, of a great religious change in India will be near their fulfilment. For all intelligent witnesses acquainted with the Indian character testify, that there cannot be found on earth another people more ready to appreciate the difference. between Christianity and heathenism; between a Christian and a heathen Government. "If now," says one of the noble spirits of the British nation, "we answer to this powerful appeal, if we and our fellow-countrymen do our duty in the crisis, you may yet hail the day when the Bengal military rebellion broke out; for it may prove, after all, to have been the happiest day in the history of our Indian empire."

This is one of the few events which can be called great in the history of the world. In a religious point of view, in its connection with the progress of the kingdom of Christ on earth, what event during the past year can be compared with this? A Christian Government, holding virtual dominion over one hundred and eighty million heathen, is suddenly shaken to its foundations, and arraigned, as it were, before God, the Church, and its own conscience, for hindering the progress of Christianity among its subjects; not for refusing to engage, as a Government, directly in the propagation of Christianity, for this the Church does not ask of any civil Government, but for hindering the work from being done; for patronizing idolatry; for excluding the Bible from her schools, and putting instead of it the Koran and the Shaster; for expelling the native Christian soldier from her army, and not allowing her native soldiery access to Christian teaching; and for long and powerful resistance, directly and indirectly, in various ways, to the work of Christian missions in her Indian empire. She is arrested by a voice of thunder, which shocks all her people and fills them at once with sorrow and alarm. And what is her plea? The only voice we have yet heard is in answer to this charge of hindering Christianity. And in her grief and humiliation she pleads only guilty to the charge. We mourn, with Britain, the loss of precious life. Some of the blood there shed is that of our own countrymen and friends. It flows, as it were, from our veins. But we rejoice with thanksgiving to hear the voice of her Christian patriotism, lifted up amidst her scenes of grief, acknowledging her fault, and resolving on its correction, and saying, in words which sound like those of heavenly wisdom, "If we but correct our error, we may yet hail the day when the Bengal military rebellion broke out as the happiest day in the history of our Indian empire."

This is very like St. Paul, who stood amidst graves, and under

the burden of mortality, exclaiming, Death is swallowed up in victory! O Death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? It is looking forth from deep and oppressive darkness upon a glorious prospect, and saying, Thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let us be steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as we know that our labour is not in vain in the Lord.

J. W. Y.

CHANGES IN OUR JUDICIAL FORMS.

THE ecclesiastical polity of the Presbyterian Church is eminently wise and scriptural. Occupying the golden mean between Congregationalism and Episcopacy, it is free from the objections of each, while it combines the excellencies of both. Our form of government cannot be essentially changed, without diminishing its fitness as an organization for doing good, weakening the support which it affords to civil and religious liberty, and rendering less sure the happy mingling of justice, equity, and brotherly kindness to all our members. But though we should regard it as a serious evil, to change any of our fundamental principles of Church Government, yet, in perfect consistency with this sentiment, it is, in our view, a question for grave consideration, whether some of our forms of proceeding, especially in judicial cases, do not require revision. In the circumstances of the Church when these forms were drawn up, and for some years afterwards, they appear to have been quite satisfactory. But, for some time past, evils have been felt to exist, particularly in the trial of appeals and complaints, in our higher judicatories, which call for suitable remedies.

The following overture on this subject was sent to the last General Assembly, from the Presbytery of Philadelphia: "The Presbytery of Philadelphia respectfully represent to the General Assembly, that, in their judgment, there is imperative need of a revision of that part of the Constitution of our Church which relates to judicial proceedings." We will refer, simply by way of illustration, to the obscurity of the Book, in respect of the question (in cases of appeal), "Who are the original parties?" to the length of time needlessly consumed in the calling of the roll,-to the unrestrained liberty of discussion allowed to the whole aggregate of members belonging to the lower judicatories,' and, generally, to the prolixity and tediousness which characterize the whole course of procedure in the higher courts of the Church. Owing to this cause, as the Presbytery believe, there is a constant disposition on the part of our judicatories, to evade the hearing of complaints and appeals; and mere technical objections, it is to be feared, are sometimes insisted upon, to a degree, which amounts practically to a denial of justice to the parties concerned.

"The forms now observed may have been quite suited to the Church when it consisted of only a score or two of Presbyteries, but they have, for many years past, been a vexation and an incumbrance.

"We pray, therefore, that your venerable body may take the requisite measures to secure an entire revision of that part of our Constitution herein referred to."

With regard to this overture, the General Assembly adopted the following resolutions :

"Resolved, That this Assembly commit the Book of Discipline,the second book of our Governmental Standards,-to a committee, for revision, to report if any changes are expedient, and if so, what, at the next, or some subsequent General Assembly."

"It was ordered, that the committee under this resolution consist of nine. The Moderator subsequently appointed as this committee, the Rev. Drs. James H. Thornwell, R. J. Breckinridge, James Hoge, Charles Hodge, E. P. Swift, and A. T. McGill, ministers; and Messrs. George Sharswood, Wm. F. Allen, and H. H. Leavitt, ruling elders."

This committee is composed of eminently wise and judicious men; they need no suggestions from us. But, as they are not clothed with authority to amend, but only to propose amendments for the consideration of the General Assembly, and as it is a matter which concerns the whole Church, the minds of our ministers and ruling elders should be directed to this subject, in anticipation of the report of that committee, in order that they may be prepared to act on it, when presented, in an intelligent and judicious manner.

The Rev. Dr. R. J. Breckinridge also presented an overture to the Assembly proposing a change in the mode of constituting the General Assembly, by making the representation Synodical instead of Presbyterial, and so modifying it from time to time as to prevent the Assembly from ever exceeding one hundred members, fifty ministers, and fifty ruling elders. This proposition would require a modification in our form of government, though not in its principles, as is obvious from a moment's reflection. The General Assembly, however, refused to commit the form of government to that Committee, which indicates that, in the judgment of that body, our Church is not now prepared for a revision of that part of our Constitution. Yet this whole subject ought to be duly considered, in order to be acted upon at such time, as our widely extended and extending communion may require some changes of this character. It is probable that many years will not elapse before the Assembly will perceive the necessity of taking definite action on this subject.

One of the general rules which ought, in our judgment, to control the revision of our Book of Discipline is, that the changes should be as few as possible consistently with the object in view, viz., to remedy existing evils. These evils are chiefly of two kinds-obscu rity in the statement of some of our constitutional provisions, and prolixity in carrying them out in the transaction of business. It

needs no argument to show that perspicuity of expression is in all cases important, and hence that the want of it, wherever it exists, should be studiously rectified. But with regard to brevity in business, the endeavour to promote despatch by a modification of our Constitutional provisions must look further and higher than a desire to finish the business in the shortest possible time. The honour of religion requires suitable deliberation; and in judicial proceedings undue haste is unfavourable to the proper administration of discipline. Some caution, therefore, is requisite that the changes proposed be such, and such only, as are necessary to rectify acknowledged evils, and that in remedying these evils, new and opposite ones be avoided.

A second general rule is that the changes ought to be of such a character as will meet the general approbation of the Church. To this end they should not be too radical, nor of doubtful expediency, nor such as to render the attainment of justice more difficult or uncertain. And further they should not be so new as to give our forms of business the appearance of belonging to a new system, even though the changes are not radical. The modifications should be like the retouching of an old portrait, in order to render the features more distinct, and the countenance more vivid, but preserving so carefully its identity that former friends and observers will instantly recognize the likeness. Our Constitution is venerable for age; our people are attached to it; and this attachment should not be weakened by such alterations as would make them feel at a loss to discern in it the venerated original.

I. The particulars complained of on the ground of obscurity are

not numerous.

1. The only instance mentioned in the overture of the Philadelphia Presbytery, relates to the question, Who are the original parties? This difficulty may be easily remedied by inserting a few sentences in our Book of Discipline defining explicitly what is intended by the phrase, original parties, instead of leaving the meaning to be inferred, as is now done, by the connection. The original parties before the higher courts in cases of appeal, are obviously the same as originated the case at first, viz., the prosecutor and the accused. The carrying up of the matters to a higher court by one of these parties, does not change their relation to the questions at issue, nor to each other. Nor does the action of the lower judicatories, one or more, in the previous trial or trials, make them parties either on the one side, or the other. The rendition of their judgment by the judicatory appealed from, excludes the members, as our Book now is, from sitting in the same case in the higher courts; and this circumstance, as we think, is one of the causes which renders the matter obscure, because their exclusion is liable to produce the impression that they are regarded as being virtually a party. And yet it is a fair inference from the Book that they were not so considered by the framers of our Constitution; as in

this view of the case there would be no judicatory left, as such, to be called upon to give their reasons for or against the decision, each member in turn, as our Constitution requires, after the original parties are heard.

The most effectual way to remove this obscurity, would be to admit the lower judicatories to sit in the case appealed from, in the higher courts. And such change, besides removing an obscurity, is, in our judgment, demanded as a matter of principle and justice. If they are not parties, why should they be excluded from participating in the deliberations of the higher judicatory? We do not perceive that the circumstance of their having rendered their judgment once, unfits them to sit again in the same case. In conference with their brethren, composing the higher court, they may see cause for changing their decision; or the minority, if there was one, might change their views, and vote with the majority. But, if neither of these results should occur, they have a right to sit, on the principle that they are a constituent part of the higher court, and, as such, are entitled to a vote in all their deliberations. And further, a judgment rendered by the superior judicatory, without allowing all the members to vote, is the judgment, not of the entire body, but only of a fraction. In our civil courts, we believe, it never happens that a judge, whose decision has been appealed from, is regarded as being thereby disqualified to sit in the same case, in the higher court. Judge Rodgers presided at the Court of Nisi Prius, in the great Presbyterian Church case, and he sat again, in the review of the case by the court in bank.

2. In complaints, a similar obscurity is sometimes felt, as in the case of appeals. Here, the original parties partially or wholly disappear, and new parties are formed, consisting of the complainant and the judicatory complained of. An appellant must be one of the original parties. No other person except one of the original parties can appeal; and he cannot, unless he has submitted to a trial, and a decision has been rendered. But, he can complain for other reasons, when there has been no trial; e. g., for their refusing to act in matters in which he is deeply interested, or for acting irregularly and injuriously; and the minority of the judicatory may also complain, if they see cause, either of a judicial decision, or of other acts deemed by them to be wrong; but, in either case, the judicatory complained of becomes a party, and, of course, cannot sit in the higher court while engaged in determining the matters complained of. The other party is either one of the original parties, in a new relation, or the minority of the judicatory; and when these two parties are heard, i. e., the complainant and the judicatory complained of, the case should be regarded as being fully presented to the higher judicatory, without afterwards calling on the members of the judicatory, as in cases of appeal, to give their reasons, pro and con, concerning the matters at issue. It would simplify the Chapter on Complaints, and also remove