on an tinct avowal of what he and his Once more. In the course of last summer, a member of the committee on the case of Mr. Barnes, told us, without any inquiry on our part, that Dr. Spring, who was on the same committee, had mentioned, that when he and Dr. Beman were together, out of the Assembly, while the votes were being taken for the Moderatorship, for which they were the only candidates, Dr. Beman had admitted in conversation, that he had known for some time that he should, if present, be a candidate for the Moderator's chair; and that he should lose a number of votes by the absence of some members, who, if present, he knew would vote for him. Meeting with Dr. Spring at Princeton, N. J. in September last, we took the opportunity to request him, if he had no objection, to state to us what had passed between him and Dr. Beman, on the occasion referred to. He did so, readily and freely; for it appears there was no obligation of secrecy, either expressed or implied, in regard to this affair, Having occasion to write to Dr. Spring, in November last, on another subject, we took the opportunity, as Dr. Beman's publications were then before the publick, to request a written statement of the verbal communication made at Princeton. We received in reply, a letter dated November 22d, 1881, which is before us while we write, and from which we make the following extract, "How could be say to me, unsolicited and unprovoked, and at the very time when the votes for the Moderator's chair were counting, that he "knew three months ago, if he should be a member of the Assembly, and present at its opening, that an effort would be made to make him Moderator!" and moreover, that there were "eight votes he had lost from the absence of members from Virginia." Let it be noted, that the marks of quotation in this extract, are in the letter, exactly as we have here exhibited them. An indignant voice from Virginia has reached us, through the publick papers, demanding to know the truth of what is here stated; as the substance of it had, some time previously, appeared in one religious newspaper, if not in more. No denial, so far as known to us, has yet appeared, after time quite sufficient for its being made. And now we ask with Dr. Spring, and believe the whole religious community, so far as acquainted with Dr. Beman's VINDICATION, will ask-"how could he say" what he has said? Have we spoken falsely, in saying "it was freely admitted by some who helped to form the majority" of the last Assembly, that there had been " preconcerted plan and effort?" Did not Dr. Beman help to form that majority; and did he not freely admit it-"unsolicited and unprovoked?" And how will his admission to Dr. Spring compare with his 18th article that we have quoted? Is he not "a man of the one hundred and twenty-one, who formed the majority" of the Assembly? And will it now, by him, be "openly, publickly, and honestly denied" that there was any "preconcerted plan and effort" to make the Assembly what it was? Has he not said explicitly, that he knew three months before the meeting, that if present, an “ effort would be made to make him Moderator?" Could this possibly take place without preconcert, and a good deal of it too? Could he be sure that eight members from Virginia would, if present, vote for him, if with them there had been no preconcert? Are we to believe that at the Synod in Winchester, he spent his whole time in religious exer cises, and entered into no preconcert in regard to men and measures" in the next Assembly? Is it credible that he could know, three months before the Assembly, when he was far distant in the south, what he says he did know, if there had not been some special communication between him and his party at the north and east?— And does such a correspondence consist with an open, publick, and honest denial of all plan and preconcert whatsoever? In fine, does not his admission to Dr. Spring, palpably contradict a large part of all that he has said with so much confidence, in his publication entitled "Review and VINDICATION?" We leave the answers to all these questions to our readers themselves-We choose that they, rather than we, should say what are the proper answers. We have a few more items of account to settle with Dr. Beman, if we are spared to the coming month; and then we hope to have done with this unpleasant controversy. We were not aware, till the former part of this article had passed the press, that we had placed a letter more in the name of Dr. Beman than belongs to it-We hope the error will be excused-it was corrected as soon as discovered. Review. REVIEW of a Review in the Christian Spectator, entitled "CASE OF THE REV. ALBERT BARNES The Way of Salvation, a Sermon by the REV. ALBERT BARNES." (Continued from p. 71.) The Christian Spectator, in pronouncing the eulogy of Mr. Barnes, manifestly with a view to show how unreasonable and bigoted must have been those members of the Presbytery of Philadelphia who voted against his reception, boldly and in unqualified terms affirms, that he "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 this was contrary to our recollection of facts, and we found we could do it without much trouble, we asked the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery, in whose hands such documents are always deposited, to give us a sight of the testimonials that Mr. Barnes brought with him. He did so, and we will lay the whole before our readers, that there may be no farther question about the facts of the case. At a special meeting of the Presbytery of Elizabeth Town, duly called by the Moderator, and held June 8th, 1830, for the following, among other purposes, viz. -"To give opportunity to the 1st congregation of Philadelphia, to renew their call for the Rev. Albert Barnes to become their pastor-and to do whatever, connected with this call, may be necessary to bring it to a final issue;"-a minute was made, of which the following is an extract. "Mr. Ambrose White, and Mr. Benjamin W. Richards, appeared as Commissioners, on behalf of the First Church in Philadelphia, to renew the call laid before the Presbytery at their last meeting for the Rev. Albert Barnes to become their pastor." The Commissioners were heard in fa vour of the renewal of the call, when it was resolved, that the call be again put into the hands of Mr. Barnes. Mr. Jonathan Oliver appeared in Presbytery as a Commissioner from the congregation of Morris Town, and produced an attested copy of the proceedings of that congregation, held the 2d inst. This communication contained the following paragraph, viz. "That it is the determination of the Congregation at Morris Town, not to make any objection to the dismission of the Rev. Albert Barnes from this congregation; but wish to express our willingness, that a dismis sion be given him if he desires it."-The Commissioner stated that the vote on this subject was unanimous. Mr. Barnes was then called upon to express his views in relation to this call, when he informed the Presbytery that he still felt it to be his duty to remove to Philadelphia. The roll was then called to give an opportunity to each member to express his opinion on this subject. After which the vote was taken, when it was Resolved, that the Presbytery agree to the translation of Mr. Barnes. Resolved, that the pastoral relation of Mr. Barnes, to the congregation of Morris Town, be, and it hereby is, dissolved; and the congregation of Morris Town is hereby declared vacant. Mr. Barnes applied to be dismissed from this Presbytery to join the Presbytery of Philadelphia-Resolved, that the request be granted-And the Rev. Albert Barnes is hereby dismissed from us, and recommended to the Presbytery of Philadelphia, as a minister in good standing with us. And Mr. Barnes having accepted a call from the First Church of Philadelphia, within the bounds of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, he is hereby required to repair to that Presbytery, that the proper steps may be taken for his regular settlement in that congregation." A true extract-Attest JOHN M'DOWELL, Clerk. No other testimonials than the foregoing were brought by Mr. Barnes from the Presbytery of Elizabeth Town to that of Philadelphia. And now we ask, where are 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?" Is there a single word in this document to authorize the statement in the Spectator? -Not one. There is not a word of any kind in favour of Mr. Barnes, except that he was dismissed from the Presbytery of Elizabeth Town and recommended to that of Philadelphia, as a minister in good standing with the former of these bodies. We thought, when we first heard this certificate read, that it was as negative and naked as any thing of the kind that we ever heard; and we think so still. We had heard great eulogies of the pre-eminent piety and talents of Mr. Barnes, and of the high estimation in which he was held, both by the people of his former charge, and by his ministerial brethren; and we were entirely disappointed, when the foregoing paper was read in the Presbytery. Yet let us not be misapprehended. Neither the writer, nor any other member of the Presbytery, so far as known to the writer, ever objected to this certificate, either publickly or privately, on account of its baldness. It testified that Mr. Barnes was in good standing with the Presbytery he left; that is, free from all censure or process of censure; and as such, it recommended him to the Presbytery of Philadelphia-and this was all that could be demanded. Neither is our private opinion in favour of highly eulogistick testimonials in such cases-especially when quite young ministers are dismissed from one Presbytery to another. Some short expression of fraternal feeling and affection, is all that we think proper. We would, in any instance that could occur, protest against such testimonials as the Spectator affirms were given to Mr. Barnes. But it was to the purpose of the Spectator, to show that the Presbytery of Philadelphia had rejected a very extraordinary young man, and one that had been recommended by the Presbytery he left, in a very extraordinary manner. This article was to be read by the members of the General Assembly, just before the trial of Mr. Barnes; and therefore this sweeping, eloquent and unqualified commendation, for which no foundation existed in truth or fact. We do not mean to say, that the Spectator intended to utter known and wilful falsehood. We think it probable that he had so high an opinion of his friend and coadjutor, that he thought it could not be, that the Presbytery of Elizabeth Town did not give him all that is explicitly declared to have been given him. But we do mean to say, that nothing can justify such reckless and totally unfounded assertions, as those on which we remark; and that the work in which they are found, affords reasonable ground to suspect, that its other statements partake of the same character. We make no additional remark on the sentence which immediately follows that which we have last quoted-We have said in reference to it, in our last number, all that we wish to say. The Spectator proceeds "The attack on Mr. Barnes is, therefore, a warfare against principles; and the question is now to be decided, whether any and every man may be driven from the Presbyterian church, under the painful imputation of heresy, simply for maintaining opinions in which he is supported by the names of DWIGHT and FULLER; and in which he coincides with the thousand clergy of New England, and more than half that number in the Presbyterian church." means Terrifick indeed! " a thousand clergy in New England, and more than half that number in the Presbyterian church," coincide exactly in the opinions of Mr. Barnes. Truly, if this be so, we think it is high time for the friends of sound theology to buckle on their armour, and to prepare themselves with every lawful weapon both of defence and offence, that with some prospect of success they may be prepared to meet this mighty host, in the "warfare of principles." But although we by no think the number of our adversaries contemptible, either in New England or in the Presbyterian church, yet we are not disposed to believe that this statement has been made on any thing like a correct counting of numbers. We believe that here, as in what we have already shown, the Spectator has spoken at random-spoken what his wishes led him to think must be the fact, and not what can be at all sustained by proof. Where did he get his statisticks of numbers and opinions, to authorize this second broad and unqualified assertion? It is all but impossible that he should have any thing of the kind to justify it; and to speak in this manner, on conjecture, however it might serve his favourite purpose of bringing odium on the Presbytery of Philadelphia, and of prejudicing the minds of those who were to decide on the case of Mr. Barnes in the General Assembly, will not, if our auguries do not greatly deceive us, recommend him ultimately to any lover of truth and candour. We are glad to find that we can agree with the Spectator in any thing; and we do agree with him fully, that we are engaged in "a warfare of principles." Let this be kept steadily in view-Men ought to be out of the question, in this controversy. "The principles of the oracles of God the principles of the doctrine of Christ," as laid down in our Standards, are the matter of our polemicks. If, therefore, to the names of Fuller and Dwight, the Spectator had added a hundred, or a thousand more, of men eminent in the church of Christ, it would, in our view, have been nothing to the purpose. Let us explain ourselves a little; and indeed we are right glad of an opportunity to do it. We are represented, we know, as bigoted and uncharitable; and yet we suspect that none of our accusers are more liberal and charitable than ourselves. They only seem to think that it is desirable to make an Olla podrida of all Christian denominations; and we think that, till the Millennium is a little nearer than it is at present, they would better be kept separate. We do verily believe that there have been, and probably now are, real Christians, those who will be acknowledged as such in the great day of final decision will be saved at last, yet some of them, so as by fire"-among almost all denominations of Christians-observing that we do not hold those who deny the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, to be Christians at all. Our charity embraces, among the Roman Catholicks, such men as Thomas à Kempis, Fenelon and Pascal; among the Lutherans, such as Melancthon, Swartz and Jœnicke; among the United Brethren, or Moravians, such as Latrobe, Montgomery and a cluster of missionaries; among the protestant Episcopalians, such as Newton, Scott and Whitefield; among the Quakers, such as Gurney, Murray and Savary; among the Baptists, such as Bunyan, Fuller and Hall; among the Methodists, such as Fletcher, Adam Clark and Somerfield; among the Congregationalists (besides the great body of the Puritans, and thousands of their descendants in England) such, in our own country, as Trumbull, Dwight and Smalley-and very, very many more, that we could name,among the living as well as the dead; although we choose to mention only the dead. We should have put down here the name of the great president Edwards; but he was in sentiment a decided Presbyterian; and left a manuscript in favour of Presbyterian church government; as his son, the second president Edwards, distinctly admitted to us, not long before his death. Besides, the elder Edwards was either a member of the Presbytery of New Brunswick, at the time of his death, or would soon have been so, if his lamented decease, shortly after his becoming president of the college at Princeton, had not prevented. But now, because we entertain charity-even a fervent charityfor such men as we have mentioned, and believe many of them to have been pre-eminently pious, are we bigots, and strait-laced Sectarians, beeause we would object to having them, or those like them, without a change of opinion, in the Presbyterian church? and the most of them, too, as publick teachers? We think not. We love the memory of such of them as are dead, and we love the living who resemble the dead, just where the living now are; but we cannot love to have them in our church. Are we asked why not? For two good reasons, as we think. The first is, they could not come honestly into our church, and we do not wish any one to come in dishonestly. In consistency with their known and |
