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. Beman'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 attention 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 Presbyterian, 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

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 exact aim, there is a chance of hitting the with many bullets, so that, without any 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, "was the result of preconcerted plan and effort;" and this is positively affirmed to be an allegation destitute of all truth, by Dr. Beman, 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, not only admitted without reserve, that something of this kind was done by the Old School Presbyterians, in the year past, but have to learn of their opponents, as to earnestly counselled them, so far 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

that our opponents had acted upon them-just as we had done ourselves, only with more activity and effect. Men do not, we believe, intentionally slander themselves; and Dr. Beman and company have given evidence enough, that they did not consider the case of Mr. Barnes and the great question about missions, as matters of small moment. Truly, when we said "none we suppose will deny or doubt," that Dr. Beman in the south, and Mr. Peters in the north and east, "used all their influence to insure the result which was -witnessed when the Assembly convened," we were so far from thinking that we uttered slander, that we believed we were only stating what it was natural and consistent for men who thought as they did, to do what men of their views and feelings, could hardly refrain from doing. As it is not our belief that their cause was a good one, we cannot say that we think it was their duty, to do what we supposed they did. But we do say unequivocally, that if we believed their cause to be a good one, we should think it was their duty to do exactly what we supposed they did; and that they neglected their duty, if they forbore to speak and act, in the very manner in which they have laboured to show that they did not speak and act. Where then is our slander? and why the plaintive strains of Mr. Petersgoing to show that he had NOT done some very censurable thing with which we had charged him? We never charged him with any thing that we supposed would be wrong, if his cause was right; and we have never even hinted that he himself did not believe that his cause was right. And we now say, without reluctance, that we verily believe he did and does think his cause a good onea sad mistake, in our judgment, but one which we doubt not he labours under. We have never said,

or meant to insinuate, that he visited Presbyteries, merely or chiefly for electioneering purposes. Our language does not require, nor we think fairly admit, of such a construction; or that he even visited Presbyteries at all. We said that if we had been rightly informed, Dr. Beman had attended several judicatories of the church in the south. We certainly had been so informed, and on such authority that we fully believed the information might be relied onotherwise, we would never have mentioned this circumstance in the paper where it is found. Dr. Beman affirms that the fact was otherwise. Be it so we mentioned it but as a circumstance, and this as a matter of information. Yet this mere circumstance is harped upon, both by him and Mr. Peters, as if their proving that they did not attend Presbyteries, was a proof of the fallacy of the most material part of our statement. We deny this-admit that they never attended either a Presbytery or a Synod, (which they allow that they did, when they could not well avoid it,) and our statement that they used their influence, one at the south and the other at the north and east, may notwithstanding be true, in every thing that is material. They might still use influence with individuals in conversation; and such influence, it is well known, may, and probably sometimes does, determine the acts of Presbyteries, when the individuals who used this influence, are a hundred or a thousand miles distant from the scene of action.

In like manner, in regard to Dr. Beman's journey to the southWhat reason had he to make a grievous complaint against us, that we did not mention particularly that he travelled for his health? We have never heard, nor do we at this moment believe, that his health was so impaired that he could not use his influence, in the