sion. What a palpable absurdity is this! But the allowance for fractions in all the Presbyteries, is calculated to produce a still more extensive inequality. Say that a Presbytery consists of 13 members; every such Presbytery is entitled to two ministers and two elders, or a representation of four members in the Assembly-just half the number allowed to a Presbytery of 48 members.

Nor is it to be supposed that the inequality we have exhibited is a matter of speculation only. It actually exists to a very great extent, in the present method of constituting the Assembly.

The summary statistical report of the last year-we have not seen that for the present year-states the number of ordained ministers in our church to be 1491, and the number of Presbyteries 98; and this will give an average of 15 members to each Presbytery, with only a remainder of twenty-one. Now, as the average number must be diminished by the excess of that number in every Presbytery in which such an excess is found-and it is found in a considerable number of Presbyteries-it is apparent at once, that there must be many small Presbyteries, and that their representation must, agreeably to what we have shown, be far greater, in proportion to their numbers, than that of the large Presbyteries; especially as their numerous fractions have each a representation also. Farther, as it is the exclusive prerogative of the Synods to divide Presbyteries, and thus to increase their number, and as the advantage of small Presbyteries over large ones, in point of representation, is so great and so obvious, there is a manifest temptation laid before Synods, to avail themselves of this advantage, whenever the state of the church is such (as it unhappily is at present) that a superiority of party in the General

Assembly is considered as an object of prime importance.

Let it now be considered that the proposed synodical representation, and the rejection of all fractions, would remove at once and entirely the whole of the inequality, and the temptation to unfairness, which have been exhibited. This we think too obvious to be dwelt on at much length. By throwing all the Presbyteries which compose a Synod into one mass, a fair, and equal, and uniform ratio of representation may be established, throughout the whole church. In this event too, there could be but a few fractions, in comparison with the present number, since there could be but one for each Synod. And we think there can scarcely be a doubt in any reflecting mind, that fractions ought never to be representedTheir representation produces a far greater inequality than their utter rejection would; as will be evident when it is recollected that, as the matter now stands, a single individual-suppose in a Presbytery consisting of 13 members-may be entitled to as large and efficient a representation as 12 others. It is remarkable that the constitution of our church and the civil constitution of our country, which surprisingly resemble each other in most particulars, are exactly opposed, in this matter of fractions. By the constitution of the United States, no individual state is allowed an additional representative in Congress, for any fraction of the number of its inhabitants, till the fraction reaches the prescribed integral number to which a representative is awarded. The eminently wise and discerning men who formed that constitution, saw that a perfectly equal representation was not in all cases practicable; and that by far the smaller evil would be chosen, by rejecting all fractions without discrimination, than by attempting to provide for

them in any case whatever-and in such a matter as this, we know of no reason why an ecclesiastical constitution should differ from that of a well ordered republick. It is surely not necessary to spend many words, in replying to an objection we have heard-that as Presbyteries are the radical judicatories in our church, and the fountain of all power, they ought to be directly represented in our highest courtWe answer, They would be thus represented on the proposed plan, and far more fairly than they now are; and to insist on retaining the name of presbyterial representation, at the expense of connecting it with inconvenience and unfairness, is very seriously to sacrifice substance to sound.

2. A synodical representation seems to be the only practicable mode of fairly reducing the number of Commissioners to the Assembly. -That in some way or other a reduction to a large extent ought to take place is, we believe, the universal conviction. It has been twice attempted, by changing the ratio of representation in Presbyteries; first from six to nine; and then from nine to twelve, ministerial members-as constituting, in every Presbytery, the number for which a representation, consisting of one clergyman and one lay elder, might go up to the Assembly the same representation being also allowed for every excess of the number twelve, although falling short of its duplicate, triplicate, &c.-which we have denominated fractions. But this repeated experiment of changing the ratio, while presbyterial representation is retained, has resulted in a complete failure. Under this experiment, made for the sole and express purpose of lessening the number of Commissioners, that number, so far from being diminished, has constantly and rapidly increased. The number of members in the last Assembly, as we have heretofore

stated, was 235-being fifty more than those of the preceding year; and the probability is, that the next Assembly will be larger than the last, by a hundred members. This constant augmentation, under ratios of representation intended and expected to produce a diminution, is easily accounted for-Our new Presbyteries, with their fractions, have increased the number of commissioners much faster than the new ratios have lessened it; and it might easily be shown, that while every Presbytery and every fraction is allowed a representation, there is no probability that any ratio will or can produce the desired reduction. Such a reduction may be made easily, effectually, and equitably, by the proposed synodical elections; and we know of no other eligible mode, in which it can ever be made at all.

The objections to a multitudinous representation in the Assembly are strong and numerous. The expense of attendance by such a representation is unwarrantably great. The number having a claim on the fund provided for defraying the travelling expenses of Commissioners is so large, that each individual can receive but a small sum-the distant members not half enough to indemnify them for what they actually expend. Beside, all that is expended by members unnecessarily present, is just so much money wasted; which at the present time is greatly needed to aid benevolent institutions and enterprises; and were the number of attending members no larger than it ought to be, those from a distance might have the whole of their travelling expenses discharged. Again-The taking of more than a hundred ministers unnecessarily from their charges, for a number of weeks in succession, is a serious evil, which ought to receive a speedy remedy-Least of all ought it to be countenanced, and its continuance to be perpetuated, by the ministers of the gospel them

selves. Again--Those portions of the church which are most distant from the place where the Assembly convenes, have always had an unequal representation in that body, owing to the difficulty of obtaining representatives who could and would encounter all the difficulties and discouragements of an attendance Few, comparatively, have, in fact, ever attended: And it is obvious, that the effective influence of a few is always diminished, just in proportion as an Assembly is numerous-In a word, their relative influence is lessened by a multitude. This is greatly to be regretted in the case before us; because it is of much importance that the remote parts of our church should be satisfied with the acts and proceedings of the Supreme Judicatory; and they never will be fully satisfied, if their representatives have not their proper share of influence, in making the decisions of the Assembly what they are found to be. If the Assembly were comparatively small, a proper proportion of distant members might easily have the whole amount of their expenses defrayed, and the clerical members might have some satisfactory provision made for the supply of their pulpits in their absence; and thus their general and punctual attendance might be insured. Once more. The General Assembly, as at present constituted, is not favourable to deliberation, to wise counsels, nor to that felt sense of responsibility, which ought to rest with weight on the mind of every member. The complaint was frequently made in the last Assembly, that the speaker could not be heard; and it was unquestionably the fact, that it required a strong voice, or a painful effort of enunciation, for any speaker to be easily and fully heard in every part of the Assembly-What will it be, when a hundred members more are added to the Assembly? In such an Assembly, moreover, there will always

be so many speakers, as to extend debates or discussions beyond all reasonable bounds; and thus to require such prolonged sessions of the Judicature, or the leaving unfinished or untouched some important business, as to give conscientious men no alternative, but either to submit to grievous inconvenience or to desert their duty. Nor is a multitudinous Assembly favourable either to wise counsels or to a sense of responsibility. The celebrated Montesqueiu, in his far famed treatise on the "Spirit of Laws," says, in his curt and pointed manner, "Every body of men more than a hundred is a mob." Without adopting this dictum according to the letter, it may be safely affirmed, as the result of all experience, that a well selected Assembly of a hundred men, will be far more likely to act wisely, and under a deep sense of responsibility, than five times, or three times, or even twice that number. Does any one believe that the Continental Congress that declared the independence of our country, or the Convention that framed the present Constitution of the United States, would have manifested all the wisdom which they displayed, or felt all the responsibility which rested on the mind of every member, if those bodies had each consisted of two hundred individuals? He who thinks they would, must have little knowledge of human nature, or the history of the world. We pretend not to say what should be the exact number of members in a well constituted General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, but we have no hesitation in saying, that it ought not to be half as large as it is likely to be, in that which will next be convened.

We have said so much on the subject of our present number, from a hope that it may possibly have some little influence in satisfying the minds of the members of the next Assembly, that they ought

to do what the last Assembly refused. Many of the remarks which we have submitted, are in substance the same with those which were made and urged, but all in vain, on the floor of the Assembly in May last particularly by the Moderator of the preceding year, Dr. Fisk, who discussed the subject in a very luminous, and as we thought, powerful and conclusive manner. Why that Assembly decided as they did, if not from the belief that it would prove more favourable to the views and wishes of the majority, in regard to the future, that the Assembly should continue to be presbyterially rather than synodically represented that it should remain multitudinous rather than become select-we are unable to conjecture, and must leave it to our readers to determine.

Since writing the above, we have seen Dr. Beman's "Review and Vindication, No. I." We remark,

that when we commenced the series of papers, of which the foregoing is a part, we supposed it not improbable, that we should meet with something very like what we have begun to receive-strictures and assertions, intended to implicate character, confute our opinions, and invalidate our statements: And we determined that we would not be turned from our general purpose, by any thing of this kind-with the single exception, that if we should be convinced that we had committed an error, we would correct it with as little delay as possible. We have seen nothing as yet to correct; and shall therefore only say farther, at present, that it has always been our intention to reply in due time, if others should not do it previously, to every thing militating with our views and reasonings, that should appear plausible in statement or temperate in argument; and to treat every thing of a different character with silent neglect.

As the theatrical campaign for the ensuing winter is about opening in the city where we write, and in all the other cities or towns of the United States where theatres are established, we have thought it very seasonable to publish the following review, extracted from the London Christian Observer, for July last. We have no expectation that on the gay and thoughtless the atre going throng it would be likely to have much effect, even if they should read it. But they will not read it,-indeed we are aware that but few of this class ever look into such publications as the Christian Observer and the Christian Advocate. Our address is to those who have yet left some serious sense of religion, and of the value of their immortal souls; and on them we

mistake, if this review and the quotations it contains will not produce a powerful impression. A lady who was a patient of the late Dr. Rush, and who had, in her illness, become very thoughtful about her eternal interests, asked him, when she was on the recovery, whether she might not innocently go to the theatre, at least occasionally, to please her husband and other friends- "No, Madam," replied the Doctor, "the theatre is the Devil's ground, and do you keep off of it." This was the truth—multum in parvo.

SERMONS ON THE AMUSEMENTS OF

THE STAGE. Preached at St. James's Church, Sheffield. By the Rev. T. Best, A. M. Sheffield, 1831.

"What harm can there be in