way we supposed he used it, with great effect, if not as fully as if his health had been perfect. Could he not converse in private? Could he not make representations favourable to his wishes? Could he not suggest measures that ought to be taken to secure his object? Could he not do all this, and more? And was it not natural to think that he would do it? Would not any one believe that he actually did it, in a greater or less degree, if he had not denied it utterly? His health was not so bad as to prevent "his travelling considerably." He selects this as the solitary part of our statement that is true. We ask no more, to make good all we have supposed that he did at the south. He who could travel considerably, could talk considerably; could persuade considerably; could advise considerably; could plan and counsel considerably; and till we saw his positive denial of all this, we did really think that he had done something of the sort; and had no suspicion of being charged with slandering him, when we "supposed that none would deny or doubt" that, in this way at least, he used his influence at the south. In our second number, two publications had been mentioned by us, viz. numerous extra copies of the Philadelphian, containing the defence of Mr. Barnes, and a series of letters, published by Mr. Peters, in the Cincinnati Journal: and we said that "strong excitement was doubtless produced and cherished by these means, in the minds of those friendly to the person, principles and cause of Mr. Barnes, and to the measures, operations and plans of the Home Missionary Society." Now what is the reply to this?-Take it from the twentieth article of Dr. Beman's summary-"It is strange that Dr. Green should complain of the 'extra copies of the Philadelphian,' and a 'series of letters,' published at Cincinnati, and refer to them as forming a part of a 'preconcerted plan of electioneering; when these publications follow, in point of time, certain publications on his side of the question, and constitute a reply rather than an attack." Mr. Peters, in like manner, labours to prove that we were incorrect, in saying that it was "shortly after" the publication of the extra copies of the Philadelphian, that he issued his Cincinnati letters; and yet he admits that he published two of these letters cotemporaneously with the extra copies of the Philadelphian. Verily, if we never commit a greater error than this, we shall feel very easy on the subject of misrepresentation. Dr. Beman, too, rests the strength of his objections against the influence which we attributed to those publications, on the circumstances that "those publications follow, in point of time, certain publications on his side of the question, and constitute a reply rather than an attack." But he forgot to mention possibly he did not know-that our side of the question had been attacked for three months by the friends of Mr. Barnes, in publications far and near, before any reply whatever was made to their aspersions; and then it was made only in pamphlets, which had a very limited circulation, while the flying sheets of our opponents carried their reproaches against us to every part of our country. But as to the merits of the case-the influence and excitement produced in favour of Mr. Barnes and the Home Miss. Society-it certainly is an immaterial circumstance, which of the publications were first and which last. Theirs followed ours by their own showing; and if it be, as it is commonly thought to be, an advantage in a controversy, to speak last, this advantage was confessedly all their own. But it does appear to us to be nothing better than palpable evasion, to seize on a mere circumstance, which affects not the merits of a cause, and by dwelling on this, endeavour to hide the merits altogether. Our statement was, that these publications produced excitement and partial feelings; and this they certainly had done, at whatever period they were published, during the winter and spring which preceded the last Assembly: and it is manifest that even the circumstances of their publication, were best adapted to the end they were designed to an swer. We had said that there was "good reason to believe" that Dr. Beman and Mr. Peters, "had the chief hand in marshalling the measures and the men that gave character to the Assembly." Here again, Mr. Peters makes a plea, resting entirely on a circumstance, that invalidates nothing we have said. He says, "I had not thought of him [Dr. Beman] as a candidate for the Moderator's chair, until it became the subject of conversation among a number of brethren, on our way to the Assembly, the day previous to his election. This is all the preconcert, in relation to the choice of a Moderator, of which I have any knowledge, among those who voted for Dr. Beman.' Very good and was not the preconcert you admit, sufficient for the purpose of marshalling him as the man for Moderator. But we expect to show, before we end this number, that whatever was the ignorance of Mr. Peters in this matter, there was preconcert somewhere else, at a much earlier period than the day before the election. And are we to believe, that the great concern of ordering matters in the Assembly so as to favour the A. H. M. Society, had no marshalling in the mind or acts of the Secretary, neither before he came to the Assembly nor afterwards, previously to entering on that measure? a measure which, it is well Ch. Adv.-VOL. X. known, had more to do than any other in "giving character to the Assembly;" and such a character too, as it never had before, and we hope will never have again. By the moderator, the committees of the Assembly were appointed, who decided, in the first instance, on all the important concerns of the session, and their reports were generally adopted with little alteration-in the important case of Mr. Barnes, with none at all. The report on the appointment of a new board of missions, was the only one of importance, so far as we recollect, that was either rejected or much modified-several were indefinitely postponed. Now, if all this is not marshalling men and measures, we know not what isto say nothing of the arrangements made out of the house; in which, if they had not protested to the contrary, we should still think "there was good reason to believe that Dr. Beman and Mr. Peters had the chief hand." Presumptive evidence, especially if it be very strong, is always admitted to have weight, and even great weight, in all such cases as that which we are now considering; and we certainly did think, when the Assembly was convened and came to act, that the presumptive evidence was about as strong as it could be, that there had been "preconcerted plan and effort," to render the house such as it actually was. A party that had never formed a majority of the Assembly before, had now, at the very opening of the Assembly, a decided majority; and this, too, when their opponents had taken more pains to prevent such an occurrence than they had ever used, on any previous similar occasion. No rival candidate for the Moderator's chair was nominated by his party -a circumstance of rather rare occurrence. In all the leading measures of the Assembly, the party marched to their object with Q a steady step and an unbroken phalanx, till the case of Mr. Barnes and the missionary question were settled; and then, so many members of that party asked for and obtained dismissions, that they lost their decided majority in the house. Now it is not denied, that the Old School members likewise acted with unanimity; but then it is also admitted that they did use "preconcert, plan and effort" to produce this effect. But Dr. Beman unequivocally denies every thing of this kind in relation to his party. He says, "It needed no preconcerted plan' to impart to it either existence or energy; and it called for no laboured effort' to mould or direct the means by which it should express itself, and breathe forth its benevolence upon the church and the world." Well, who can contradict the Moderator! But that such effects as we have mentioned should have been produced, solely by the causes which he assigns, we may be permitted to say, does appear to us marvellous!-strange, and passing strange! But he positively affirms it was so; and we agree to the maxim, and hope it will be remembered, that "there is no disputing against facts." Within three days of the time we are now writing, we had an interview with a member of the last Assembly-a man of as unquestionable veracity as any one who belonged to that body. We had heard a good while ago, that he had said something about Dr. Beman's being nominated as Moderator, and we asked him to give us a correct statement of what he knew in relation to this point-He complied with our request; and said that Dr. Beman had been an entire stranger to him, till he saw him in the Assembly; and observing that he was very earnest in a debate which took place before the nomination of candidates for the Moderator's chair, he asked a member who sat next or near him, who that speaker was?-He was answered-That is Doctor Beman-he is the man that we intend to make Moderator. Shortly after, nominations for Moderator were called for, and this very man was the one that nominated Dr. Beman; and it was my impression, continued our informant, from his language and manner, and there being no other nomination by that party, that he had been appointed by the party to make it. friend did not know or recollect the name of this gentleman; but said he knew he was a Southern man, and rather believed he was from Virginia. Now, here is one fact, that looks exceedingly as if there had been some "plan and preconcert," for the election of a Moderator-and facts are stubborn things. Our Again. Shortly after the Assembly had decided on the case of Mr. Barnes, a clerical member, who made some figure in the house, accosted a parishioner of Mr. Barnes, in the lobby, in this manner-"Are you not delighted? Mr. Barnes is entirely cleared. I came to the Assembly, pledged to my presbytery, to vote for Mr. Barnes, and to vote down the board of missions; and I assure you I was not alone." Two unimpeachable witnesses of these declarations, have given us what they believe were very nearly, if not exactly, the words which they heard distinctly uttered, on the occasion to which we have referred; and which we have, therefore, given with the marks of quotation. Yet Dr. Beman says, (see Nos. 17 and 18 of his summary,) "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." Now, we ask, whether "preconcerted plan and effort" were not admitted, and even boasted of, by the gentleman whose language we have quoted above? and whether this admission, as well as that of him who nominated the Moderator, was not "freely made?" -without any urging, or other inducement than their own voluntary choice? If so, then we have not spoken falsely in saying that " preconcerted plan and effort were freely admitted by some of the members of the last Assembly." We, however, have in reserve, stronger testimony even than this. But what are we to think of the earnest, and emphatick, and unmeasured declaration of Dr. Beman, in his eighteenth article? The gentleman referred to above, was somewhat distinguished among the Dr's. "one hundred and twenty;" and is he prepared to do what the Dr. assures us 66 every man" of them will do! We hope not-for if he should, it might well be questioned, whether he "HONESTLY denied" all preconcerted plan and effort. He declared, too, that he spoke not for himself, but for his presbytery, and others" I assure you I was not alone." Again. A lay member from the presbytery of North Alabama, "freely admitted," to a gentleman who gave us the information within three hours of our writing, that he was instructed by his presbytery to vote for the acquittal of Mr. Barnes; but not for a change of the Board of Missions-The individual mentioned in the particular immediately preceding this, was from the state of New York-So that it appears, that from nearly the north-east to the south-west boundary of our church, there were at least some presbyteries, and of the Low Church party too, who had even instructed their representatives on the two subjects expected to divide the Assembly. Yet there was no preconcert;_and the one hundred and twenty Low Churchmen, will to a man, "openly, publickly, and honestly deny it." Again. We must still insist that our quondam pupil, the Rev. Mr. Kirk, for whom we feel, and have long felt, real kindness, did actually make the statement, substantially, which we attributed to him in our second number. Indeed, after all he has said, we do not see how his statement differs materially from that made by ourselves. A friend, by no means deficient in acumen, affirmed to us yesterday, that it was his judgment, that Mr. Kirk's representation went as strongly to the point, for the maintenance of which we alleged it, as our own; and we must turn his own language to us on himself, and tell him plainly, that we think "he has, to say the least, risked his reputation for candour and discretion," in his letter to Dr. Beman-far more than we have done, in all that we have said in this controversy. He admits, that "what he said was entirely unpremeditated as a speech;" and so far as we have been able to ascertain, it was the general impression that he spoke under a good deal of embarrassment-which truly he might well feel, in uttering what he did. We are willing, therefore, to believe, and do believe, that others can recollect what he said, rather better than he can himself; and it is in the distinct recollection of many, that he gave a broad intimation, that he, with others, had come to the Assembly to acquit Mr. Barnes, change the Missionary Board, and displace its Secretary. Alluding to his party, he intimated plainly, that they seemed disposed to use a concealment in this matter, which he should throw off, and speak freely-Such was the clear import of what he said, although we pretend not to give his words. And it was for this dis tinct avowal of what he and his party had in view, that Mr. Russell thanked him, with repetition and emphasis, in his reply. Neither is our representation, as Dr. Beman affirms, inconsistent, though not exactly the same, with that which appeared in the Presbyterian; and if it were, we should insist, that those on whose authority we write, were more favourably situated than the reporter, to hear correctly what was said by Mr. Kirk. He seems to think that we treated him with insult, in saying that he went to the Assembly on an "errand”-He says "this is too ungenerous for my venerable teacher and friend." We do assure our beloved pupil, that we had no such intention or thought in our mind, as that which he appears to have imputed to us in this complaint. What did we say?" His errand [to the Assembly] without doubt was that of many others." Now we have been accustomed to think and say, that a man may go on his own errand, as well as on that of another-using the term errand to denote the main object or purpose, for which one goes to a particular place. We believe this is a common use, even in theological writers. One example occurs to us at the moment. Henry, in commenting on the parable of the Pharisee and Publican, [Luke xviii. 10-14] says of the Pharisee, "He went up to the temple to pray, but forgot his errand.” And when we said that many others did what Mr. Kirk did, we are rather surprised that he should suppose, (as it would seem that he did suppose) that it was our intention to impute to him a servile act. We declare that we had no such thought or design. 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 he 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 |