ferred to. Indeed, laying Dr. P. Bullions' testimony entirely out of the question, who doubts that Mr. S. was the author of those infamous pamphlets? Dr. Bullions' testimony, however, has put the matter not only beyond the reach of doubt, if any remained, but beyond the reach even of a reasonable cavil.

The Doctor states in this letter, that he had testified to certain facts which were sufficient to convince him, or give rise to the opinion in his mind, that Mr. Stark was guilty; but he gravely admonishes the judges in the case, that "it might be very unjust to Mr. Stark to convict him on that testimony." As, however, it was not the opinion of the witness, but the facts given by him, that the court was concerned with, let us hear what they were. And they may be summed up in a single sentence, as follows: "I received," says the witness, "the manuscript copy of one of the Anonymous Pamphlets in the hand writing of Mr. Stark, accompanied with a letter from him, requesting, 1 think, that it should be published, which was accordingly done; I myself paying one dollar towards defraying the expense of publication." Now, if the witness did not perjure himself, how could it be "very unjust to Mr. Stark to convict him on that testimony?" Could any thing be more plain and positive? And yet, by this letter, an endeavor is made to create a doubt in the mind of Synod as to Mr. Stark's guilt?

With respect to the remaining part of this letter, relative to the "K. paper," language fails to describe our abhorrence of the witness's conduct in the attempt which he makes to destroy his own testimony. His testimony, given in under oath before the Presbytery of Albany, and which, in this letter he would have us discredit, was as follows: "I received a letter from a gentleman stating that he had a piece, [the K. paper,] which if I thought proper to insert in the Monitor, [being the editor at that time,] he would send on; and that he did not think there would be any objection to publish it, as there was nothing personal in it; but that it would be forwarded only on condition that his concern in it should not be known to the public. I acquiesced in this, and if the paper was not personal, and I thought proper, I would insert it. I thought that the best way to comply with the condition was to send a transcript. [viz: to Mr. Webster, the publisher.] I gave the original copy to Luke F. Newland to be transcribed. The transcript came to the publisher through the post office. I believe that the original copy of the paper and the letter were both in the hand writing of the Rev. A. Stark."

When Mr. Stark was thus proved guilty, and was lying under the odium of a wilful falsehood, in having repeatedly denied the authorship of the "K. paper," the story was invented that that paper had really been written by a person who shortly afterwards left the country, and that Mr. Stark had merely transcribed and forwarded it to Dr. Bullions, who was at that time the editor of the Monitor. But this story cannot be true, because it stands directly opposed to facts, which all the ingenuity of man can never set aside. In the above testimony it is declared that Mr. Stark wished to have his concern in the "paper" concealed. What other concern could he refer to than the authorship! It could not be the concern of transcribing it; for that he himself could easily have avoided by sending the original copy, which, being in the hand writing of a stranger, the publisher could have known nothing about; and this would have saved the trouble of a re-transcribing in Albany, as there would have been no necessity for this in order to "conceal Mr. Stark's

concern in it!" Besides, if according to the story, the real author was a foreigner and soon after left the country, how came Mr. Stark, as was proved by three different witnesses, to attempt to create the impression that the author of that paper was no other than Dr. P. Bullions himself? Again, how could that strange gentleman have begun the "K. paper" with the same sentence with which Mr. Stark had begun a sermon which was not at that time published? Moreover, if this new fangled story have any truth in it, it presents Mr. Stark in no very enviable light; for, according to the testimony above given, it must present him in the light of a plagiarist-of a person playing a gross imposition upon the editor of the Monitor, who was led to believe that Mr. Stark was indeed the author of the paper in question! But who can believe, if Mr. Stark had only been the transcriber of that paper, that he would not have given his friend the editor some hint of the fact?

Now with all these facts before him, facts which are incontrovertible, and which must convince every person of common sense that Mr. Stark was the author of the "K. paper," the Rev. Dr. P. Bullions, in opposition to his own testimony, declares in his letter that he is now satisfied that Mr. Stark was not the author of the K. paper!

We confess that we were much surprised at the decisions of Synod in 1837, respectiug the case of Mr. Stark, but after receiving and duly considering the above three letters of Dr. P. Bullions, which were presented and read in Synod, our surprise in a great measure ceased. For honest minds, who were comparatively unacquainted with the case, must have been greatly perplexed and misled by those letters, coming from one who was supposed to be a principal witness, and who, after having given his testimony under oath before his presbytery, does, in this informal and unsworn manner, volunteer statements which are calculated to throw over it an air of suspicion and doubt.

We cannot account for the last of the above letters of Dr. Bullions, unless it be, that his conscience having thrown him off his guard while giving his testimony, he happened to tell too much truth, and that he wrote this letter with the view of recalling or at least weakening the force of the more important parts of it. For let it be recollected that he occupied about two hours and a half in giving his testimony, which, had he been of a "willing mind," might have been given in less than one-fourth part of that time. A considerable portion of the time allud ed to was spent by the witness in giving evasive answers, or refusing to answer at all, to the questions put to him by the court; and it was not till after long and close dealing with his conscience, by reminding him of the nature of his oath, of his obligation to tell the whole truth, of the Being in whose presence he stood, of his fearful responsibility, &c., that the court obtained from him what they supposed to be the truth in the case. But now, it would seem, he repents of his conduct in allowing the Presbytery to draw out of him so much truth to the injury of a colleague, and therefore the Associate Synod must be informed, that he has changed his opinion, at least in one important point; or to use his own language, that "he is now satisfied that his former opinion was wrong, and that Mr. Stark was not the author of the K. paper;" and with regard to the Anonymous Pamphlets, Synod must also be told, that it might be unjust, notwithstanding his testimony, to convict Mr. Stark of their authorship!

In closing our Review, we think that we are entitled to say, that we

have now made good and established beyond all doubt the correctness of the opinion formerly expressed by us in relation to the contents of this Ass. Presbyterian Magazine, viz: "That they harmonize most com. pletely with the contents of Mr. Stark's Anonymous Pamphlets,-and contain an uninterrupted tissue of falsehood, misrepresentation, slander, Jesuitical sophistry, and pitiful quibbling, which probably has not been far surpassed by any infidel or Popish writer since the era of the Reformation."

It is supposed, that some of our readers will conclude that the editor of the Magazine will surely retract the misstatements and slanders which we have proved upon him; but we have no such confidence in his honesty and candor: On the contrary we suppose he will treat us as he has done our correspondent, "A Transylvanian," viz., select a few unimportant statements, call them the most important, and then assert, without any shadow of proof, or at best without any more than a quibble, that they are falsehoods, wilful falsehoods; and at the same time interlarding the spontaneous effusions of his mind, as usual, with an abundance of hard and ribaldish epithets. But we are determined to

keep him both to the point and to the proof.

We expect that some who are under the influence of prejudice, or at least possessed of great sensibility, will blame us for exposing as we have done the editor of the Magazine. This, however, we cannot help; especially as we have long since found, that there are always some weaklings in society who think it less a crime to falsify, than to expose the falsifier to the gaze of an abused and justly indignant community.

On a re-perusal of a former part of this Review, we think it probable, that an attempt will be made to create the impression that we have been justifying all that Mr. Webster published in his pamphlet. This, however, we disclaim. Nothing was farther from our intention. Indeed, Mr. W. himself, shortly after he had published his pamphlet, became convinced that there were a few things in it which he could not prove, and in the most candid manner he offered to retract them; but Mr. Stark would not accept of this, but insisted on a retraction of those things which both parties knew to be true; and because Mr. W. could not in conscience do this, he had to pay Mr. Stark four hundred dollars as the price of his character.

Finally, in answer to those who may charge us of being guilty of "answering a fool according to his folly," it is sufficient to say, that we have endeavored to act according to Matthew Henry's view of the Scripture referred to. After stating that there are cases, in which it would be wrong to "answer a foo! according to his folly," such as"If he tell one great lie, do not thou tell another; if he calumniate thy friend, do not thou calumniate his; if he banter, do not answer him in his own language, &c."-"Yet in other cases," says he, "a wise man will use his wisdom for the conviction of a fool, and when by taking notice of what he saith there may be hopes of doing good, or at least preventing further mischief, either to himself or others. If thou have reason to think that thy silence will be deemed an evidence of the weakness of thy cause, or of thine own weakness, in such a case answer him; and let it be an answer ad hominem; beat him at his own weapons, and that will be an answer ad rem, or as good as one. If he offer any thing that looks like an argument, answer that, and suit thine answer to his case. If he think, because thou dost not answer him,

what he saith is unanswerable, then give him an answer, lest he be wise in his own conceit and boast of a victory." (See Henry's Commentary on Prov. XXVI. 4, 5.)

ART, II. Partiality of God.

If Universalism be true, the following shows how unjust and partia! a being God must be. The argument it embodies, never has been, and never can be fairly met. It places Universalism not only in an absurd, but a most ludicrous position. The writer is the Rev. Mr. Hall, of Portsmouth, N. H.-Zion's Herald.

The partiality of the Ruler of the world is evinced also, according to Universalism, in the happy removal of the wicked from earth to hea ven, while righteous survivors are still subjected to many sorrows.

The more profligate a man becomes, the more does he shorten his life. According to an inspired proverb the wicked do not live out half their days. They die and are borne to heaven, if Universalism may be credited. Having finished their course with joy, having run a race of glaring iniquity, having contended not against the enemies of the soul, but against the cause of holiness and the servants of God to the last moment, having won the crown of public infamy, having become meet for an inheritance with the devil and his angels, they are ushered by the ministering spirits to the abode of the blessed. The glories of heaven beam around them; the bliss of heaven fills their bosoms; the Holy one lavishes upon them the warmest commendations. But where are the miserable survivors, the devout men whose peace they loved to disturb, whose piety they love to deride, whose beneficent plans they love to embarrass? They are doomed to remain in this vale of tears, to breast additional opposition from the replenished ranks of the enemies of godliness. They must weep and struggle for many a tedious year, before the time of their release shall come. They may yet outlive another annoying generation of the ungodly, before they can be discharged from their earthly imprisonment.

Thus the antediluvians were hurried from a life of insufferable wickedness to a heavenly home; and as they looked down from heaven, with what feelings did they observe the faithful Noah as he pursued his lonely voyage over a buried world? With what emotions did they witness his subsequent misfortunes? They could thank God that they were now safe and happy in heaven, while the inmates of the ark were doomed to spend on earth additional years of perplexity and sorrow. Is this justice?

According to Universalism God shortened the lives of the men of Sodom and removed them prematurely, or rather by a fortunate providence, to the abodes of the blessed. At the same time he prolonged the existence of the faithful Lot, under the most painful circumstances. The unhappy man survived the destruction, or rather the salvation of his daughters, the mournful, or rather the happy end of his wavering wife, the loss of his property and the ruin of his town. Was it an equitable procedure to transfer the vile inmates of that polluted city from earth to heaven, while the aged Lot was left to roam in desolation and grief, a wanderer on earth?

Was it just to doom the favored Israelites to a prolonged life amid the burning sands of the desert, while the pursuers, the Egyptian host, were relieved from the work of malignant persecution and transferred to heaven? In a few minutes the latter were drowned, and then their happiness was complete-for forty years the Israelites bore the sufferings of a sojourn in the desert.

Let a man serve God with pious care, and in ordinary circumstances, he will outlive the abandoned voluptuary. His piety will be rewarded by a long exclusion from the joys of heaven. He must stay on earth till he has seen his fondest hopes crushed a hundred times; he must endure separations that will wring his heart; he must live till he becomes an incumbrance to his friends, till he stands a solitary trunk, stripped of its branches; bowing and trembling under every blast; he must endure. neglect; he must witness the unconcealed avidity of eager heirs to gain possession of his property; perhaps he outlives his reason and remains a helpless wreck, and his dotage exhausts the patience of all around. him. At last death removes the superannuated burden from the world. Let a profligate young man run into vicious excesses. In a fit of inebriation, or in the hope of concealing crime, he commits a murder; the laws of the land doom him to die. Or, in other words, a kind providence thus favors him with a speedier discharge from the woes of earth. Instead of dragging out a long life, he is borne to heaven, ere he has attained mature age. He is blessed with an earlier release from the perils and vicissitudes of earth than the pious man. But where is the equity of this procedure? In all such instances Universalism charges the Almighty with a flagrant disregard of justice.

We do not affirm that the righteous always outlive the wicked, but when they do, the fact furnishes ground for the charge of partiality, upon the principles of Universalism.

ART. III. Missionary Intelligence—Madagascar.

The only intelligence we have lately received from this interesting field of Christian labors and sufferings, comes to us in the Boston Daily Advertiser, from Cape of Good Hope papers to October 10. These papers contain extracts from the letters of a Missionary and several native converts in Madagascar, and also a narrative of the cruel persecutions under which these converts are suffering. We give the abridged account furnished by the Advertiser.

It appears that this persecution is carried on under the express orders of the Queen. The person first sentenced to death was a woman named Rafaravavy. But one of her companions, Rasalama, spoke so boldly in defence of Christianity, that she incurred the anger of the Queen, and was ordered to be put to death. She was severely flogged for several day's successively, before she was put to death. She however continued stedfast in her faith, to the end, and met death with calmness and tranquillity. Her companions were valued and sold, and their property confiscated. About a month after, Rafaravavy was informed that the wrath of the Queen had abated, since the death of Rasalama, and that her irons might be taken off. She was however placed among those reduced to perpetual slavery.

After this the remaining Christians began to assemble in the night, at the house of Rafaralahy, where they read together the words of eternal