practical principles, on which the Presbytery of Philadelphia had been obliged to act in the case of Mr. Barnes; and that the Presbytery had made a wrong decision in regard to these principles, and in consequence of this, had pursued a wrong course, in nearly the whole of their proceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes, subsequently to his installation, was the basis and the substance of the complaints laid before the Assembly. Other Presbyteries also were divided and thrown into parties, by a difference of opinion among the members, in regard to these practical principles. Yet the Assembly say "if they be answered, they had better be discussed and decided in thesi, separate from the case of Mr. Barnes"-Abstract principles to be discussed in thesi, seems to us somewhat like tautology in language. But the words in thesi here, we suppose are to be interpreted (although we must think it a new version of the terms) to mean that the principles must be discussed "separate from the case of Mr. Barnes." And why separate from the case of Mr. Barnes? If Mr. Barnes was innocent, no decision on abstract points could possibly injure him. Yes, but it was seen that a decision of these abstract points would really implicate either him or the Assembly; and therefore, however important to the peace and order of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, and of several other Presbyteries under the care of the Assembly, it was resolved not to touch them. Was this the performance or the dereliction of duty? Let every reader answer the question for himself.

THE BIBLE, TRACTS, AND MISSIONS.

The three following short articles are taken from the London Evangelical Magazine for October

last. The subjects of them we have indicated in the title-subjects of the highest importance; and such short and pithy essays as these, often do more good than long papers. We hope our readers will give them an attentive perusal, and be benefited by the suggestions they contain.

A TEMPERANCE SOCIETY IN MINIA

TURE.

In the spring of 1829, Timothy, the hawker, called at my house with his wares. My servants, who recommend the Scriptures whenever they have an opportunity, talked with this man on the value of the New Testament, and advised him to buy a copy. "Of what use can it be to me," said he, "when I cannot read ?" "Yes, it may be of great service to you. You can carry it to your lodgings and have it read, or you can send it to your family, some of whom can read it. It will do good. Buy one." The man attended to this advice, and carried the book to his lodgings.

We saw nothing more of this man until autumn, when he returned and earnestly entreated a copy of every kind of book we could give him. "You can form no idea," said he, "of the good that book has done which I had here in the spring. There are more than thirty of us who mess together at the same lodgings, and at the time when I. first took home the New Testament, these men spent almost every night at the public house, and returned intoxicated; but now the scene is quite altered. Scarcely a man leaves the lodgings in the evening. There are three among us who can read, and they take it by turns, and the others sit around and listen to them. There is no drunkenness in our party now."

Oh, what an interesting scene would this group have presented to the eye of an apostle! Thirty poor villagers collected together from various parts of the coun

try, listening to one of their number reading the words of eternal life; and, from this circumstance, breaking off from their vices, saving their hard earnings for their families, and acting like rational creatures! How true it is that "godliness is profitable unto all things." What an encouragement to the followers of Christ to make known his holy gospel! If so much good is effected, through the Divine blessing, on one New Testament, what may we not anticipate from the distribution of ten thousand! Even servants may become useful coadjutors in the service of God, when they feel interested in it; and with such proofs before us of the utility of the work, surely we ought not to grow weary or faint-hearted. From the above circumstance, those who have contributed in any way to the circulation of the Scriptures, may see what an honour their God and Father is putting upon them. This is like the first ripe fruit, but an abundant harvest will follow.Amen.

St. Petersburgh.

DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS
TRACTS.

There never has been a period like the present, in respect to the multiplicity of means for the furtherance of the eternal interests of men. The warmest and most ardent zeal may now gratify itself. Facilities for the communication of divine truth present themselves in every form. Bible societies, missionary societies, tract societies, and numerous others, press upon our notice; and, while claiming the assistance of the church of Christ for their support, offer in return the means of evangelizing the world.

There is one method of doing good, which I wish were more generally recognised by individual Ch. Adv.-VOL. X.

Christians. I mean, the distribution of religious tracts. It is one which, both from its simplicity and cheapness, is accessible to the pious of all classes. The loan system is excellent. No minister of the gospel, in places where no society exists for this purpose, should neglect this mode of benefiting the souls of men. I would also earnestly recommend to every servant of Christ, the daily circulation of tracts in every possible way. I never leave my house without having a number of these silent preachers in my pocket, and either give them to persons as circumstances may require, or scatter them in various directions. Such papers as the "Swearer's Prayer," " On Drunkenness," "Poor Joseph," Covey the Sailor," "Sin no Trifle," "On Repentance," &c. will be either partially or wholly applicable to the circumstances of most readers.

I fear these little monitors are not duly appreciated by the Christian publick. God has testified his approbation of them in innumerable instances: The Tract Magazine, published by the Religious Tract Society, contains a large number of highly interesting anecdotes in proof of this assertion. He who can peruse this work, and rise from its perusal unimpressed with the vast importance of religious tracts, as one of that class of agencies employed by God for the conversion of men, cannot be open to conviction. Millions of souls will, no doubt, have to bless God through eternity, for the dissemination of the doctrines of the gospel in the form in question. Bristol, May 12, 1831.

THE BANKER AND HIS BIBLE.

C.

The writer of this was once the guest of a banker in the west of England. His host had long been celebrated as a heavenly-minded

I

and benevolent character. One evening as he came down from his closet, with peace and benignity beaming on his countenance, he said to me, "Do you want any thing." I answered, "No; I have every thing I need." "But I am not satisfied with that answer," he rejoined, "and will tell you why. I have just been reading the third Epistle of John, where the apostle particularly commends his beloved Gaius for his hospitality to the servants of Christ, who, for their Master's sake had 'gone forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles;' and the apostle says that our privilege who stay at home is 'to receive such, and to bring them on their journey after a godly sort, that we might be fellow-helpers of the truth. Now I wish to have this privilege; I wish to be an imitator of Gaius; I wish to help you; therefore you must receive from

REVIEW of a Review in the Christian Spectator, entitled-" CASE OF THE REV, ALBERT BARNESThe Way of Salvation, a Sermon by the REV. ALBERT BARNES."

(Continued from page 652 of our last Volume.)

We have never proposed to go through this review, and notice every thing that we consider exceptionable. This would occupy a space in our pages which we think we can fill with something much better calculated to edify our readers. Beside, the review on which we remark is avowedly a defence of the Sermon of Mr. Barnes; and in our present number we have published the strictures of the Presbytery of Philadelphia on that Sermon-in which a number of quotations, fairly taken from the Sermon, are accompanied by certain clear an

nouncements of doctrine, in the standards of the Presbyterian Church. Let any one candidly look, first at what Mr. Barnes says, and then at what the standards say, and see if he thinks that any explanations can reconcile the two. In several instances, we think the contrasted quotations are of as different import as yes and no. We are willing to leave the whole matter here.

Immediately following the sentence on which we have heretofore remarked, the Spectator says "It is well known that a party in that church [the Presbyterian]-and we are far from wishing to impeach their motives-have long witnessed with jealousy and apprehension, the rapid progress of New England sentiments within the bounds of their communion." Now, if our readers will advert to the proceedings of the last General Assembly,

and recollect Mr. Bacon's letter, they will be able to determine whether there was not good reason for "jealousy and apprehension," in regard" to the rapid progress of New England sentiments" in our church. This jealousy and apprehension however was denounced as secta

rian bigotry, and as grievously injurious to our New England brethren, although the Spectator kindly forbears to "impeach our motives"-when, lo, at the last Assembly, New England sentiments turned the highest Judicatory of the Presbyterian Church into a Congregational Association, in the case of Mr. Barnes; and on a review of the achievement, a Congregational delegate sings, lo triumphe! So much for Presbyterian credulity and Congregational management. The Spectator proceeds

"At length, as if resolved to try the question under circumstances the most unfavourable to themselves, they have taken their stand in the case of a gentleman, whose ministrations were recently followed by one of the greatest revivals of religion ever known in our country; who was called from the former scene of his labours to the City of Philadelphia by the unanimous choice of one of the oldest and most distinguished churches of our land, and who brought with him from the Presbytery to which he previously belonged, the amplest testimonials to his piety and worth, to the soundness of his faith, and the fervour of his zeal in the cause of evangelical religion. As far, then, as the character of the individual, his former stand ing in the church, and the wishes of the people are concerned, it is impossible to conceive of any case, where an impeachment could be less called for or expected, than the present."

Here surely is a very pretty piece of eulogy, but eulogists are apt to be extravagant. We shall see how it is in the present instance. Our principal reason however for introducing this shining paragraph is, that it will form a proper text for some remarks-explanations if you please, gentle reader-which we have been desirous for some time, but lacked opportunity, to communicate to the publick.

The Spectator represents the

Presbytery as having long been desirous of a proper occasion to enter into a conflict with New England sentiments; and as seizing on the case of Mr. Barnes, to show that they were not afraid-allow us the homely but expressive phrase" to take the bull by the horns." Now this was not exactly

so.

Some members of the Presbytery, perhaps a majority of them, had been for a good while dissatisfied and anxious, at the prevalence of New Englandism, both in doctrine and church government. But they were far enough, perhaps too far, from being ready to take a decided stand against the threatening danger. They, on the contrary, shrunk from it-they earnestly wished to avoid it. We have been asked by some who, we thought, ought to have seen, without explanation, the difference between the case of Mr. Barnes, and that of some other persons supposed to be as erroneous as he, "Why did you not begin with them? Why did you reserve your discipline for this young man and a stranger?" We have two answers to these questions-The first is, that there was no printed and acknowledged publication, by a member of the Presbytery, that could be taken as a ground of procedure; nor any other such palpable and undeniable evidence of he

resy, as could be made the subject of judicial process, without much trouble, and a dubious issue. But in the case of Mr. Barnes, there was a printed sermon, to which his name was attached, and of which he was the acknowledged author. Nor was this all, for in the second place, on this printed sermon the Presbytery were absolutely obliged to act. They could not get by it. The people who had called Mr. Barnes had never heard him preach. In the very call which was laid before the Presbytery, the usual words-"having good hopes from our past experience of your labours," &c. were omitted. They could not have been inserted with

truth. Beyond a very few of their number, the people had had no experience of his labours. Copies of this notable sermon had been distributed, to show what were Mr. Barnes' doctrinal views, and his style of preaching. On this sermon his call was predicated; and the Presbytery were to say, under the solemnity and responsibility of their ordination vows, whether the doctrines of that sermon were to be delivered to a congregation, for whose spiritual welfare they were sacredly bound to watch, as setting forth the pure gospel of Christ-as showing "the way of salvation," as it is shown in the Holy Scriptures, and in the standards of the Presbyterian Church. Every member of the Presbytery was to say yea, or nay, on these momentous inquiries, by voting for, or against, the prosecution of the call. In other words, every member of Presbytery was, by his vote, to take, or to avoid, the responsibility of declaring that the doctrines of that sermon were the doctrines of the Bible, and of the Confession of Faith of our church, that might be profitably preached to a congregation of which the Presbytery had the charge. Nay, was the answer which a number gave; and which, it is believed, would have been given, if instant death had been the penalty of such

a vote.

Neither the Presbytery, then, nor any of its members, did, in the case of Mr. Barnes, go a heretick hunting. They did not seize on an occasion for which they had long been wishing and waiting, to come in conflict with "New England sentiments." They were, in the providence of God, called to this conflict, in such a way that, with a good conscience, they could no longer avoid it.

We proceed to notice the assertion that in giving opposition to Mr. Barnes, the Presbytery took "stand in the case of a gentleman, whose ministrations were [had

been] recently followed by one of the greatest revivals of religion ever known in our country." We think this assertion is calculated to produce a material misapprehension.-We say not that it was designed to have this effect. But will the revival at Morristown compare for a moment, with the revival "in our country" in the time of Whitefield? Or with that witnessed a few years since, in the western part of the State of New York? Or with several others that might be mentioned? Did it extend much, if at all, beyond the limits of Mr. Barnes' congregation? And in that congregation itself, were the additions made to the church, although admitted to be large, greater than have been made in some other churches, as the fruits of revivals of religion? We believe that each of these questions must be answered in the negative. And if so, the expression of the Spectator is, we apprehend, calculated to produce a mistake, in regard to the facts of the case, at least in the mind of every cursory reader.

But we have a stronger objection to the assertion on which we remark, than the exaggerated statement it contains, relative to the revival at Morristown. It is, that there is a manifest attempt to make a revival of religion an evidence of the orthodoxy of him under whose ministrations it occurs. Let it be considered to what consequences a test of this kind would lead. There was at Morristown a revival of religion among the Methodists, at the very time when that under the ministrations of Mr. Barnes took place; and the Methodists contend that their revival was more powerful, and more extensive than that among the Presbyterians. Whether such was the fact or not, we pretend not to decide; but if revivals of religion, following certain ministrations, are to be evidence that those who perform these ministrations should be received as ortho