own turn to pass over; and large, far larger than I had ever thought of, was the load which I had to throw off; far larger, I am sure, than that of my beloved friend. As I threw off the whole and plunged in, the shock awoke me. One lesson, among others, I have learned from my dream—namely, that we ought to be content to forsake every thing for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord: not merely to acknowledge the doctrines of grace, to discard known sins, and to trust in the righteousness of the Redeemer; but to look to our ways in minor matters; to avoid those lesser incumbrances which appear so conspicuously in my dream, and willingly to cherish nothing, professing to be religion here, which we do not hope may be transported, in spirit at least, to a better world. I do not mean that we should be indifferent to any thing that we consider to be truth, or indulge in licentious laxity of opinion, or esteem all notions alike, or revel in the latitudinarian candour of a time-serving generation: far, very far from it: but, still, it may soften asperities, and promote Christian affection, to distinguish between those things which we must cast one after another upon the heap, and those which we expect in common to retain. I do not think that I ought, in order to please my pious Dissenting friend, to cast away my Prayer-Book, or to blow up the church tower: I think a surplice very comely, an organ very melodious, my Oxford cap very convenient, and even a mitre not mis-shapen: but if we are to meet in heaven, as I trust we shall, there should be some limits to our discrepancies upon earth; neither of us conceding what he believes to be a portion of the great mass of truth, but each bearing and forbearing with the other in love. I do not expect to find all the contents of Mr. Nisbet's book catalogue in heaven; but I will not therefore anathematize any really faithful servant of Christ, because he entertains what appears to me some odd notions on Prophecy and the Millennium; and I think he ought not to anathematize me, because I do not see my way clearly to his conclusion. I will not call another brother a hypocrite, because he says he can conscientiously unite with Neologians and idolaters, with drunkards and swearers, for the distribution of Bibles, but would feel contaminated by the approach of Locke, or Lardner, or Milton: only let him not think me an oppugner of Scripture, and an enemy to the Godhead of Christ, bécause I do not see the consistency of his scruples. I cannot follow some of my friends to what appear to me their semi-Popish views of the sacrament of Baptism; I think them superstitious, and opposed to the spiritual character of the Gospel; but I will not therefore place them beyond the gate of salvation: only let them not reprobate me as an infidel, because my notion of a sign and a seal approaches less visibly the doctrine of the opus operatum. And so, again, of some nice questions on assurance, Calvinism, and other points; things, I mean, not absolutely essential to salvation, and on which good men have differed, and probably ever will differ. At all events, let each begin with casting the beam out of his own eye, and then shall he see more clearly to remove the mote from his brother's eye. W. THE PRESENT STATE OF THE PRESBY◄ When we first announced, in June last, some intention, not then definitely formed, of writing a se ries of papers which we have since entitled, "The present state of the Presbyterian church," we made this declaration "In the statement of facts we shall use our best endeavours to be strictly accurate, and will publickly correct any error into which we shall be convinced that we have been betrayed. Our opinions will stand for what they are worth." In our October number, after we had seen Dr. Beeman's "Review and vindication, No. I." and had repeated the above declaration, we added"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." Two topicks are here specified, facts and arguments, to which we have promised, to give such at tention as truth and the proper maintenance of our cause against its opponents, should appear to demand. So far as these topicks are separable, we have only to say that, in our judgment, all the reasonings we have seen, adverse to our arguments, have already been sufficiently answered; or if they have not, valeant quantum possunt valere; let every one give them just as much weight as he thinks they deserve. We are perfectly willing to leave them thus: and as to the squibs, and gossip, and inuendoes, that have been employed against us, let those whom they can gratify, enjoy them unmolested; we shall treat them with the silent neglect which we promised. But as we have given it as our opinion that the reasonings of our opponents have been already sufficiently answered, it is proper to state, in justice to others, as well as to ourselves, that none of the replies have been made by us. We know that it has been whispered, that some of the publications in the Presbyterian have proceeded from our pen, or from our dictation. All such insinuations are without any foundation whatsoever in truth. We explicitly and unequivocally declare, that since the last meeting of the General Assembly, we have neither written nor dictated a single sentence that has first appeared in the Presbyteri an, or in any other publication, except the Biblical Repertory and the Christian Advocate. We know not that it is justly exceptionable, for a writer who is attacked while publishing on any subject, to defend himself under a new and assumed signature, especially if he afterwards make it known that he has done so. This, it is well known, was done by the celebrated Junius. He, under the signature of Philo Junius, replied to some of his assailants, while the series of his papers was in progress; and at the close, he acknowledged the fact. But we have not done thisWe have hitherto left our defence entirely to our friends; and they are solely responsible for all that has appeared in the Presbyterian, or in any other publication, in which our name has appeared, or our cause been advocated. At the request of the writers, we heard them read three or four papers, and no more, relative to our controversy, before they were published; and we suggested the change of not more than three words in the whole. Whether the changes we suggested were, or were not made, we cannot tell. We are thus particular, to prevent, if possible, any unfounded allegations hereafter on this subject. In relation to facts, we have very seriously hesitated, whether we should not leave them on the same ground, on which we have just declared our willingness to leave the reasonings of our opponents. Beyond one verbal inaccuracy—if indeed it be an inaccuracy-no way affecting the substance of our statement, we can still most conscientiously say, what we said on the appearance of Dr. Beman's vindication, No. I.-"We have seen nothing as yet to correct." There is a consideration, however, which has eventually determined us to enter the lists with our opponents, in regard to facts-Our veracity has been impeached-generally in measured and guarded language, and yet with a most manifest design to destroy all reliance, on the accuracy or truth of our statements. Now, we value a character for truth above all price. A sacred regard to truth is an essential element of the character of every honourable man, and especially of every real Christian. Hence, the minister of the gospel who disregards it; who even trifles with it; who is known to shuffle and evade, that he may sustain his cause, or avoid censure; who will say things that may be equivocally true, and yet substantially false; who makes his escape from being a convicted falsifier, only by pleadings and explanations, which at best are only plausible, and not satisfactory-such a man, in the sacred office, must ever be a foul disgrace to the office; and whatever pretensions he may make to piety and zeal, or whatever reputation he may possess for learning or eloquence, he ought, if practicable, to be ejected from his office; and whether he be so or not, he will be abhorred by all lovers of candour, truth and integrity, who know how to appreciate his character. Such are the opinions in regard to this subject, which we have ever endeavoured to impress on our own mind, and on the minds of others. Under the influence of this impression, we commenced the series of papers of which this is one, with the declaration above recited: And we will now state that the sincerity of this declaration has been put to the proof, by an incident not yet made known to the publick. It was the followingWe wrote our third number before the publication of the minutes of the General Assembly; and relying, as we believed, on the clear testimony of a memory, not yet, through the goodness of God, entirely impaired by age, we said, speaking of the committee which the Moderator appointed to nominate a new Board of Missions"On this committee, which was a large one, not an individual was placed, who was likely to act the part of a friend and advocate of the inculpated board—the board of the preceding year." When the minutes were published, on reading them, we found on this committee the name of "W. Anderson." We knew that the Rev. W. C. Anderson had been an avowed and active friend of the old board; and although the printed record exhibited the name in question, without the C, yet, in looking over the list of the Assembly, hastily though repeatedly, we observed no other member by the name of Anderson, except the clergyman we have mentioned; and we therefore concluded that the omission of the C. was an error of the clerk, or of the printer. Under this conviction, we immediately sat down to redeem our pledge, wrote an article for the Presbyterian, acknowledging our error, and concluding it with saying, that "whatever use might be made of this acknowledgment, we owed the making of it to the publick, to the moderator, and to ourselves." Some time after, on a more leisurely and careful perusal of the minutes, we found, in the list of elders, the name of William Anderson, without a C; and on examining the yeas and nays on a motion of postponement, made on the very morning of the day, in the afternoon of which the committee to nominate a new board was appointed, we found William Anderson voting against the postponement; and by so doing, as clearly expressing a wish to change the old board, as if this had been the formal object of his vote. On making this discovery, we hastened to forbid the publication of the article sent to the Presbyterian; and had little time enough to prevent the exhibition to the world of a precipitate zeal to confess error, when none at all had been committed-Had the publication been made, our opponents might have had a laugh at our expense; and if they choose, they may laugh still. We regard the incident we have narrated, as providentally permitted, to furnish a decisive proof of our readiness to redeem our pledge. The paper referred to, is still in the printer's or editor's hands, if it has not been destroyed, and if it has, they can testify to the truth of our state ment. Ever since the occurrence to which we have referred, we have carefully examined, as they have come out, all the showings of our opponents to which we have had access; to see if they could make out that any of our facts had been misstated; and with the exception at which we have already hinted, and which shall be distinctly noted in the sequel, we now declare it to be our solemn conviction, that they have not invalidated one of them. That there has been much specious, half sided representation, and much of what lawyers call special pleading, that will naturally mislead those who read nothing, or but little, except what appears in their publications-all this we readily admit. But we do not admit that in a just and whole view of any of the facts or transactions which we have had occasion to mention, they have shown that in a single instance we have said any thing false-any thing as to matter of fact, the plain scope and meaning of which is calculated to make an erroneous impression, on the mind of any candid and attentive reader. It is not our intention, however, in the course we have decided on, to go over the whole ground-This would be tedious, and we deem it unnecessary and useless. We shall select a few points only-chiefly those on which rests the principal weight of nearly all we have said; and if in regard to these it shall appear, that our statements are correct, and those of our opponents incorrect, we shall leave it to our readers to draw their own conclusions as to the rest. Dr. Beman, after keeping up a running fire on us and our first three papers, through the first six numbers of his vindication, charged his blunderbuss* the seventh time, with no less than thirty shot, of the very same materiel that he had hurled at us before; with expectation, no doubt, that at least some of them would hit, and that this mighty discharge, if it did not annihilate us quite, would, at any rate, disqualify us for all farther resistance. What execution he has done on other minds, we undertake not to say; on our own, he has done no more than prove satisfactorily, that if his efficiency had only been equal to his wishes and his zeal, he would have demolished us completely. But we are giving evidence that we still live; and we desire to inform our friends, that we do not feel or fear, that we are mortally wounded. To drop our figure, we are not sorry that the Dr., in his seventh number, has given his summary of thirty articles, numerically marked, of what he supposes he has achieved. It saves us the trouble of hunting for the pith of his objections, through the long and sometimes misty details, in which he had previously involved them. *"Blunderbuss. A gun that is charged with many bullets, so that, without any exact aim, there is a chance of hitting the mark."-Johnson's Dictionary. Our first attention shall be given to the four following articles, all going to the same point. 16. There is a strong similarity between the course pursued by Dr. Green and a writer in South Carolina, who is supposed to be an Infidel of no common standing, and who styles himself "Detector." The former Doctor charges me with a "preconcerted plan" to revolutionize the Presbyterian church; the latter, with an attempt to revolutionize the Republick, by uniting "Church and State." They have both made charges without testimony to sustain them; they both had party objects to accomplish, by giving publicity to these unjust imputations; and the allegations of the one are just as true as the allegations of the other; or, in more simple English, the charges made by both of these writers, are unsupported by truth. 17. Dr. Green has totally failed to sustain the charge of "preconcerted plan" brought against the Low Church. 18. The admission of "preconcerted plan and effort" which Dr. Green says was freely made by some of the majority in the last Assembly, will be denied, openly, publickly and honestly denied by every man of the one hundred and twenty-one who formed that majority. 19. The editor has done great injustice to the Rev. Mr. Kirk, in the account he has given of his speech, and at the same time, deviated greatly from the account given of the same speech by the Presby, terian, a paper in the interests of the High Church. Without stopping to remark on the "strong similarity" which our courteous, benevolent, and charitable moderator, who complained sadly that we treated him unbrotherly, has found "between the course pursued by Dr. Green and a writer in South Carolina, who is supposed to be an Infidel of no common standing,"-let us come at once to the business in hand. The matter in controversy is precisely this-We have said that the majority of the last Assembly, મા was the result of preconcerted plan and effort;" and this is positively affirmed to be an allegation destitute of all truth, by Dr. Beeman, with some aid from Mr. Peters, and Mr. Kirk-to say nothing of the volunteer disavowal of the gentlemen in Philadelphia. Here then, we are at issue on a definite point, namely, "preconcerted plan and effort," for securing a majority in the last Assembly. On this we affirm, and they deny. Now in regard to this point, we wish, first of all, to clear ourselves of the charge of slander; for slander is a species of falsehood of no ordinary malignity. Let it then be well remembered, that leaving out of view the unfairness of bringing into the Assembly men who have no constitutional right to be there-church members and committee men-we have never uttered one word of censure, on using preconcert, plan and effort, to secure a majority in that body. On the contrary, we have, in the very number that has drawn forth the elaborate replies to our statements, that something of this kind was not only admitted without reserve, done by the Old School Presbyterians, in the year past, but have earnestly counselled them, so far to learn of their opponents, as to do far more in this way in the year to come, than they have ever done in time past. We think, and have so said once and again, that when interests of great importance are at stake in a church, it is right and proper for its ministers and members to use all lawful efforts, to send to the supreme judicatory of the church, where such interests are to be decided on, such a representation as they conscientiously believe will make a wise and right decision. Did we then slander the Dr. and his brethren, as we are grievously complained of for doing, by saying that we supposed they did what was done by ourselves, and what we wish still to be done, and what we have repeatedly said ought to be done, when the great interests of the church are in jeopardy? Whether in these opinions we were right or wrong, the avowal of them shows, that we did not apprehend we were writing slander, when we supposed |