was sustained by the court. Indeed, none of the six properly speaking were ever recognised as regular members of the court; for they were not allowed, according to a resolution adopted, "to take any part in the business of Synod till the roll was made out:" and when the roll was finally made out, their names were omitted. How then can they be called "members of that court?"

The Remarker proceeds, same page, to say :-" The first notice taken of this subject in the minutes of Synod is in the following words, viz: 'Information has been given to this Synod, that there are reports from two bodies claiming to be the Presbytery of Albany.'" This is not the first notice taken of this subject in the minutes of Synod. For on the page of the minutes immediately preceding that from which he quotes, we have this record: "Notices were also given by two members claiming to be clerks of the Presbytery of Albany, that Dr. P. Bullions was suspended from the exercise of the ministry; Messrs. Martin and Campbell from their seats in Presbytery." Why does the Remarker quote from the minute of Thursday, as containing "the first notice of this subject," when he knows that the subject referred to was introduced and discussed at some length on Wednesday, immediately after the opening of Synod? Throughout the whole history of the case as exhibited in the pages of the Magazine, there is a studied concealment of the fact that Messrs. Campbell and Martin were "suspended from their seats in Presbytery," by that disorderly body which undertook to act as the Presbytery of Albany. It would never answer to have this fact, as recorded in the above minute, appear in the Magazine; for its appearance there, besides doing other mischief, would spoil one of the prettiest and most literary paragraphs in the whole book, and which is expressed in these terms: "It is mentioned in Mosheim's History, that when Luther understood that the Pope was about to launch the thunder of excommunication at his devoted head, he judged it prudent to withdraw himself voluntarily, that he might thus render the bull of ejection a blow in the air. The [pretended] Presbytery of Albany in this instance thought it advisable to imitate the example of the great Reformer. When they perceived that this corrupt Synod were likely to imitate the example of his Holiness, they thought it advisable to withdraw from them voluntarily, and thus render their suspension a blow in the air-an exercise of authority without an object." (p. 27.) Now, if the Remarker, instead of concealing, had published the fact above noticed, his readers would not have failed to perceive a rivalship in regard to the honor of imitating "the great Reformer:" For Messrs. Campbell and Martin also, it seems, were imitators of that distinguished personage; for when the above mentioned disorderly body, "in imitation of his Holiness," were about to pass the resolution offered by Dr. P. Bullions for their "suspension from their seats in Presbytery," "they thought it advisable to withdraw from them voluntarily, and thus render their suspension a blow in the air-an exercise of authority without an object." But we shall be obliged to notice this matter more particularly hereafter.

On page 10, we meet with the following assertions respecting Mr. Webster's pamphlet:-"It has fully come to light, that the pamphlet was a conjunct concern between him and members of the Presbytery of Albany, and some of the members of the Presbytery of Cambridge." "The most active members of Presbytery [Albany] were deeply implicated in Mr. Webster's publication." "He then showed him a com

munication in the hand-writing of one of the members of the Presbytery of Albany, in nearly the same words in which it was afterwards published in his pamphlet, in which reference was made to certain members of the Presbyteries of Albany and Cambridge, and to a certain professor of divinity, as being privy to and concerned in the same work." "This infamous pamphlet was proved to be false, and its authors proved to be false and malicious slanderers in a court of justice."

"

These assertions betray a great recklessness in regard of truth. It is not true, that Mr. Webster's pamphlet was a conjunct concern" between him and members of the Presbyteries of Albany and Cambridge; and consequently no such thing has "fully come to light." The only light pretended to glimmers forth, it seems, from a "communication" which the late Mr. Irvine addressed to Mr. Webster sometime prior to the publication of his pamphlet. In that letter Mr. Irvine mentioned certain things which "common fame" charged upon Mr. Stark, and which Mr. Webster afterwards published in his pamphlet as "common fame." This is the sum total of the "light," which has led, or rather misled, like an ignis futuus, the Remarker to make the above assertions. From this data who can honestly say, that Mr. Irvine had a "conjunct concern" in the publication of Mr. Webster's pamphlet, as one of its "authors," especially as it can be proved that he was not even aware that the thing was in progress till he saw it in print? But at the same time his letter proves that the charges taken from it did not originate with Mr. Webster: and hence, whether true or false, Mr. W. declared that he published them only as 66 common fame."

But further, it is not true that Mr. Irvine's letter contained any reference to "a certain professor of divinity, as being privy to and concerned in the same work." Mr. Webster has assured us that there was no reference to any professor of divinity, in any shape or way whatever, in the letter in question. And as it is supposed that Professor Beveridge is the person intended by the Remarker, we are authorized by him to use the following disclaimer made in a letter to us :-"I was so far from corresponding with any one about Mr. Webster's pamphlet, or furnishing any materials for it, or advising, or encouraging it, that I had not the least knowledge that such a publication was intended, till I saw a copy of it, sent to another individual."

Nor is it true that the letter in qestion refers to "certain members of the Presbyteries of Albany and Cambridge, as being privy to and concerned in the same work." That letter it appears, does mention the names of a single member in each of the Presbyteries named, but not in a way to identify them in any respect as conjunct authors with Mr. W. in the production of his pamphlet. And all this the editor himself of the Magazine very well knows, as it can be proved, that he has stated to more than one individual, that he believed Mr. Webster's pamphlet to be wholly his own production. Is it not amazing, then, that he should publish to the world the assertions above quoted, together with many others which reiterate the same unfounded accusation?

But again, it is not true that Mr. Webster's pamphlet has been "proved to be false in a court of justice." For there was no testimony taken to prove any such thing. The only witness that was sworn in the case, was the one that testified to Mr. Stark's good charaeter and standing, although at the very time he was giving his testimony, Mr. Stark was under a sentence of suspension by the Associate Synod, on

1

charges deeply involving both his moral and ministerial character. The pamphlet, therefore, could not have been "proved to be fulse in a court of justice;" and the most that can be said of the matter is, that Mr. W. did not appear in court to prove it to be true, but let judgment go against him by default. The editor, therefore, had no just ground for this assertion; and much less for the other connected with it, that the "AUTHORS" of the pamphlet were "PROVED to be false and malicious slanderers in a court of justice."

After this plain statement of facts, in opposition to the groundless and injurious assertions of the Magazine, our readers will hardly be prepared for the following repetition of the same calumnies, and with increased virus, on page 12:-" The method pursued by the Presbytery was exactly such as might have been expected from interested persons, and who were themselves concerned in committing the offences on which they were to sit in judgment. Those members of the Presbytery who had been concerned in the pamphlet, came forward as witnesses, each to prove his own slanders, and after having done so, they sat in judgment on their own testimony. In this manner they proved their own slanders to their own satisfaction, and made such decisions as they might judge most advantageous in the premises. The Presbytery next proceeded to construct a libel against Mr. Stark, out of the slanders contained in Mr. Webster's pamphlet, and in which it is now certain that many of themselves were deeply concerned," &c. &c. A more libellous paragraph perhaps never was written; and if the editor, at the time, did not know that he was publishing to the world one of the grossest of libels, it will be all the better for himself in that day, when it will be "rendered unto every one according to his deeds."

Before proceeding further, it may be proper also to state, that Mr. Irvine never attended a meeting of Presbytery after the affair of Mr. Webster's pamphlet came to be acted on by that court. Sickness and death prevented his attendance: consequently he had nothing to do with any of the Presbytery's proceedings in that case; although the contrary is insinuated, and the uninformed reader is left to conjecture that he had the prineipal agency in those proceedings.

But to proceed, on the same page 10, the Remarker says: "As the most active members of Presbytery were deeply implicated in Mr. Webster's publication, they endeavored to do all they could for him, and passed several resolutions in his favor. Among other things, they voted That the institution of legal proceedings by Mr. Stark against Chauncey Webster, is altogether unjustifiable, wholly subversive of the first principles of church order, and in direct opposition to the authority of Christ and of the Apostle Paul.' But as the Presbytery did not appear to be able to show any scriptural authority for the above curious vote, Mr. Stark did not pay any attention to it."-The "vote" here ascribed to the Presbytery is purely a fiction. They voted no such thing. The following is the resolution voted by Presbytery on that occasion: "Resolved, That it is censurable according to the word of God and the Discipline of this church, for a minister of the gospel to enter a civil suit against a member of his own communion for a supposed injury to his moral character, without first having submitted the matter to the adjudication of the appropriate church court"-and the minutes. of Presbytery add: "Against this decision Mr. Stark protested for reasons to be given in, and Mr. Bullions joined him in his protest." This protest, with the "conjunct" Reasons of Messrs. Stark and Bullions

came before the next Synod. Now, however, Dr. Bullions sees fit to change both the language and character of the Resolution against which he protested, and attempts to father a thing of his own creation upon the Presbytery, and then sneers at it as "a curious vote!"

Besides the Resolution just named, the Presbytery, on that occasion, passed but one more, which bore on the case of Mr. Webster; and that one was moved by Dr. Bullions himself, and is as follows: "Resolved, That a committee be appointed to draw up a libel against Mr. Webster." Yet in the face of these facts, the man who has chosen for his motto the sacred words-Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just-has published, as above quoted, that the Presbytery at the meeting referred to, passed several resolutions in favor of Mr. Webster; and then publishes a fictitious resolution as one of them!

The next thing that engages the attention of the Remarker, is Mr. Webster's so-called "paper of retraction." He asserts, and repeats the assertion some twenty times, that Mr. Webster gave Mr. Stark a paper, in which he acknowledged that the charges made against Mr. Stark in his pamphlet, were wholly "unwarranted and unfounded." It is scarcely necessary to waste time in pointing out the falsity of this' assertion, as it is very much doubted whether any person conversant with the history of the case believes it. And, indeed, whether even charity"that thinketh no evil," can allow that the editor himself believes it, is a nice problem.

Messrs. Campbell and Smart, who were present, and the only persons present, at the time the paper in question was put in the possession of Mr. Stark, have both declared under oath at the bar of the Synod, that Mr. Webster gave the "paper" to Mr. Stark with great "reluctance," and not till after Mr. Stark had "pledged his sacred honor that he would make no use of it whatever, and that it would be as safe in his hands as in Mr. Webster's own pocket;" and both these witnesses also testified, that they considered the "paper," after it was given to Mr. Stark, to be still under "negociation," and that "additions or alterations might still be made, at the suggestion of either party, as they had come to no agreement." In particular, we consider the following Interrogatory, with Mr. Smart's answer, as putting this matter forever to rest with all reflecting ninds: "Question. Does the witness consider Mr. Webster's refusal to give the paper to Mr. Stark, satisfactory evidence that said paper was not assented to by Mr. Webster? Answer. I do, and for this reason, that the object of this paper was to stop civil process on the part of Mr. Stark against Mr. Webster; and I consider, that if Mr. Webster had made up his mind to abide by the contents of that paper, he had no reason to fear any improper use of it; because no improper use could be made of it. The reluctance with which he gave the paper satisfied my mind, that he feared, that, in the progress of the suit, a use might be made to his prejudice of a paper to which he had not fully assented; so that he did not give Mr. Stark the paper until he considered himself sufficiently secured against any contingency that might arise." (See Narrative published by the Presbytery of Albany, p. 7.)

In addition to all this, the minutes of the Presbytery which refer to this matter, most completely contradict the Remarker's assertions. Let the following extracts be carefully perused and the truth will abundantly appear: "The latter, [Mr. Webster] having a difficulty in relation to

the concession to be made to promote this end, [stopping the civil suit,] it was Resolved, That Messrs. Smart and Campbell be appointed to confer with him in order to remove this difficulty.-After conferring with Mr. Webster and calling upon Mr. Stark, the committee returned, and not having fully accomplished their object, it was agreed that Presbytery adjourn till to-morrow morning at eight o'clock." And in the minutes of the meeting held next morning the following record occurs: "Mr.Webster having declared his inability to make the concession required by Mr. Stark, Presbytery agreed to proceed," &c. The above minutes were framed by Mr. Smart, one of the committee, and were assented to by all parties, and even by Dr. Bullions himself. These minutes show that Mr. Webster had a difficulty about the extent of the concessions required by Mr. Stark-that a committee was appointed to endeavor to remove this difficulty-that said committee reported that they had not fully accomplished their object, that is, had not fully removed the difficulty from Mr. Webster's mind-that the matter was then left over, for reflection, till next morning-and that at the opening of the Presbytery next morning, Mr. Webster declared his inability to make the concessions required. Now, all these facts were well known to Dr. Bullions, and yet he publishes over, and over, and over again, that Mr. Webster retracted the charges made in his pamphlet against Mr. Stark, as "unwarranted and unfounded." And on this most palpable untruth are founded many of those slanders, which he has published against the Presbytery of Albany.

In relation to this "paper," the Remarker further states:-" He [Mr. Webster] afterwards affected to deny that this paper contained a full and complete retraction of the slander, but care had been taken to have exact copies of it made before witnesses, so that its contents can easily be ascertained. But the simple fact, that Mr. Webster seized the paper and tore it up, will satisfy every candid person, that it must have contained something that he was then desirous to conceal." The truth, however, is, that Mr. Webster never denied, nor "affected to deny," nor wished to deny, or even "conceal," that the paper in question contained a full retraction. This he has always admitted. But he denies and always has denied, that he gave that paper to Mr. Stark as his retraction, or in any other sense, than as a paper still under negociution, and even that with reluctance, lest some improper use might be made of it. The above assertion, therefore, of the Remarker, is a mere expedient resorted to, in order to cover over the disgrace of the man, who multiplied copies of the said "paper" and distributed them among his friends, after "pledging his sacred honor that he would make no use of it whatever," and by means of such a pledge obtaining the possession of the paper in question!

As the next sentence is a tolerably fair specimen of the Doctor's logic and adds to the "light," through the medium of which he sees so clearly that Mr. Webster's pamphlet was a "conjunct concern," we will take the pains to transcribe it. Here it is:-"And the fact that he [Mr. W.] was permitted to do this [tear up the paper] by the Presbytery, without any expression of their disapprobation, has left an irresistable impression on the minds of all honest men, who are acquainted with these transactions, that the Presbytery must have been concerned in the infamous publication so often mentioned." Indeed! because the Presbytery did not hinder Mr. Webster, or censure him, for destroying a paper of his own, a paper which they had nothing to do with, and