mine Mr. Barnes, arose, and stated that he purposed to vote for the reception of Mr. Barnes, because, from a private interview, he was convinced of his general orthodoxy, in proof of which, he read a written creed prepared by himself, and adopted and signed by Mr. Barnes. This was a proceeding, in our opinion, alike discreditable to both parties; the dignity of Mr. Barnes was compromised in submitting to have his views explained by another, when he was so earnestly solicited to improve the most favourable opportunity of doing it himself, and the dignity of Dr. Ely suffered in condescending to string together a set of nicely adjusted phrases, which, however orthodox their aspect, were evidently intended to cover two schemes of totally dif ferent characters.* It is with reluctance that we advert to such transactions, but we wish our narrative to be recommended by its truth. The vote was eventually taken by ayes and noes, on the motion for receiving Mr. Barnes, and decided in the affirmative, sixteen ministers and fourteen elders voting in the affirmative, and nine ministers and seven elders in the negative.

A paper was then presented to the moderator, containing charges against Mr. Barnes, for his unsoundness in the faith and in arrest of his installation. The moderator, however, decided it to be out of order, as originating a new business at a pro re nata meeting. This opinion was appealed from by Dr. Ely, but the appeal was not sustained. He, and at least two others of the majority, contended that the mere announcement from the moderator of the existence of such a paper of charges, was a sufficient bar to the installation, and yet immediately afterwards, they surmounted the bar and voted for the installation. Strange occurrences take place in over anxiety to give

* It is true, that Mr. Barnes did, on one occasion, rise and promise to make some explanations of his doctrinal views. This he said he would do voluntarily, but not in compliance with a demand, which he was convinced Presbytery had no right to make. The minority were pleased with the promise, although Mr. Barnes was careful to represent it as a mere concession of courtesy; but at the manner in which he fulfilled it, they were not only disappointed, but surprised. It is doubtful if he occupied the floor for five minutes, and in that time explanations could not have been expected, much less satisfactory ones. He acknowledged, it is true, that his sermon was defective, through oversight, on the doctrine of justification, (an acknowledgment which the "Sketch" has forgotten to record) but what he said in brevity, on the other disputed points, only tended to increase the suspicion, and confirm the conviction of his error, in the minds of the minority.

† Upon the presentation of this paper by Mr. Hoff, (whose manner in this whole transaction was characterized by firmness and decision) a curious scene ensued. The moderator, commendable for his general impartiality, decided the paper to be out of order, if it professed to be a copy of charges, but to be in order, if it professed to be a bar to the installation. Now, it so happened, that it came under both these professions, and hence a dilemma. The majority, however, confirmed the decision that it was out of order, and yet determined that it should be read. Dr. Ely, Mr. Biggs, and Mr. Steel professed to regard the paper, before it was read, as a very serious obstacle to the installation; but subsequently, Mr. Biggs found that the charges contained no new matter; Dr. Ely, that they were preferred too late; and Mr. Steel offered no ground for a change of opinion, and they were eventually found united in the vote for installation.

success to a favourite measure, and these sessions of the Presbytery have been prolific of such occurrences. It was decided by regular vote, that Mr. Barnes' doctrinal errors might be canvassed, and it was also decided that they might not be canvassed; it was maintained, that Mr. Barnes might be arraigned when he should become a member of Presbytery, and it was maintained by the same persons, when he had become a member, and an arraignment was attempted, that it was too late to arraign him for acts committed in another Presbytery, and in the full knowledge of which he had been received by this; there were those who declared themselves to be of the old orthodox school, and yet were willing to lend their influence in promoting the interests of the new school, which is any thing but orthodox; it was maintained by the same person, that the same sermon contained false doctrine, and that it contained no false doctrine; some were found who could advocate one side of a cause in their speeches, and advocate the opposite side by their votes; but we forbear; our only comment is, that truth is beautifully consistent with itself. This we honestly believe to be a correct narrative of the proceedings in relation to the case of the Rev. Mr. Barnes, and it has been extorted from us by the officious zeal of those who have attempted to pre-occupy the public attention by their imperfect and garbled sketch.

Hostility to any of the brethren we disclaim. We merely review and condemn that conduct which we consider reprehensible in them as Presbyters. We conscientiously believe that we have stated the truth, and we are willing to defend it. If there must be controversy, we have not sought it, but, obtruded upon us, we will not avoid it.

From a gentleman in New Jersey, dated July 29th, 1830, to "Rev. W. L. McCalla, Philadelphia, Pa.

Rev. and Dear Sir,

I have just received and read a Sketch of the proceedings of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, in regard to the installation of the Rev. Albert Barnes; it is a sketch of one side only. The arguments in favour of the installation of Mr. Barnes and of his doctrines, are given at some length, while those against him are suppressed. There are some persons here who do not think Mr. Barnes that paragon of perfection he is by some represented to be. I think it but fair that the whole of the proceedings should go before the public. I have, therefore, taken the liberty to request you to forward to me the debates against the doctrines of Mr. Barnes; by so doing, you will oblige

Dear Sir,

Your obedient servant."

ANSWER.

Letter I.-The Sketch Exposed.

You have assigned me a difficult task; I will endeavour to perform it as in the presence of my final Judge. You probably think us either very patient or very insensible, to bear, in silence, for so many months, the cross-fire of the Philadelphian and the Sketch. To be wounded in the house of a friend, is a great trial, but it belonged to the cup of our Master's sufferings, and in his cause, we are willing to have our names cast out as evil. The free use which the Sketch has made of names, in blazing them before the public eye, has probably amazed you; but if his cause be right, his course should not be offensive in this particular. If we be guilty, let us be exposed; if we be so full of acrimony and so destitute of tenderness or christian candour, as he says, let the public know our names and our offending. The reporter says, that Dr. Green and his coadjutors "seemed to forget all the laws of kindness and christian fellowship, and gave a loose to their long harboured prejudice against the new school divinity,' as they called it."* Now I am not unwilling to be published as an opposer of the "new school divinity;" and to allow its friends to call me by whatsoever hard names they may think best. And if Dr. M'Auley and his followers have concluded to forsake the old system, and become the protectors, and the uncandid protectors of the "new school

C

Sketch, p. 5.

divinity," let them, by name, get the credit of their achievements. In my account, therefore, of the debate, I may attach their names to their deeds. In doing so, remember, I follow the example of their reporter, the author of the Sketch, in which we are assailed with such severity and unfairness as imperiously calls for a defence.

This writer professes to have been present, and to have noted what passed, except what he calls "a long speech" of mine. It would be too great a waste of time to notice half the errors of this miniature report; permit me to give you a specimen. After the minority of the Presbytery had presented charges against Mr. Barnes, Dr. M'Auley represented them as having prepared these charges long before they were handed in; and (as I understand) he insinuated unworthy motives for such a measure. The "Sketch" makes him say, "Dr. Ely told me yesterday morning that charges were already prepared." The reporter then says, "Dr. Ely explained that it was not in the morning, but afternoon.* Remember, he pretends to have heard and noted the above assertion of Dr. M'Auley, and explanation of Dr. Ely. Yet Dr. Ely, (in the Philadelphian of July 23d) denies having made the above explanation, and denies having heard Dr. M'Auley make the assertion which the reporter attributes to him, as having elicited the explanation. If his own partisans contradict him, it is no wonder that I should deny many other statements and slanderous insinuations of far greater impor

tance.

Besides the inaccuracy of the report, its partiality, to which your letter refers, might be shown at great length. I will trouble you with one sample. We were discussing the question of order, concerning the right of our Presbytery to examine Mr. Barnes, when coming to us with an orderly dismission and good recommendation from the Presbytery of Elizabethtown. The reporter states that Mr. Patterson "quoted from Steuart's collections, two cases, to show that it was not the usage of the Scotch church; that they never did re-examine a minister for installation." The writer does not condescend to report my speech in reply to Mr. Patterson, but only represents it as characterized by "wide digressions," and other things far worse. In compliance with your request, I will endeavour, in a small degree, to supply the defect of this "sketch of one side only," by mentioning two of those "wide digressions," which the reporter thinks so contemptible in comparison with Mr. Patterson's "two cases," as he inaccurately calls them. Mr. Patterson's two authorities from Steuart's Collections, were intended to show that the rules and usages of the Scottish Church are favourable to receiving and installing Mr. Barnes, without examination, by our Presbytery, in which the calling congregation lies. One of his quotations represented "the call as to what

* Sketch, p. 30.

† Sketch, p. 12.

sion-room of the 1st Church, where the Assembly meets of late years. During this time the most important motions, according to my recollection, were eight; some of which were discussed, during the suspension of others by postponement. I shall mention them without regard to chronological order. Three of them related to the calling, receiving, and installing of Mr. Barnes. Three of them related to a judicial process against him, for the errors of his printed sermon. Two of these, made on the 4th and 7th days, were for sending him back to the Presbytery of Elizabethtown for trial. The third, on the 7th day, presented charges against him to be tried before his installation, by this Presbytery, after they had received him. Serious as the charges were, the majority proceeded to the installation, without regarding them.

The two remaining motions of my enumeration related to the examination of Mr. Barnes and his sermon. As to the examination of a minister, subsequent to his ordination, Dr. M'Auley boldly and repeatedly denied, that the principle or the practice could be found in any portion of the church of Christ. The absurdity of this position is so extravagant, as to appear incredible yet I am not apprehensive of contradiction from the Doctor, or any of the Presbytery; for it was this, in a great measure, that gained him the victory. He asserted it so often, with such an oracular tone, and with such an awful majesty of manner, and looked down with such sovereign contempt, upon any authority, or any speaker which came in his way, as to make one feel a shuddering fear, lest insisting upon Mr. Barnes' examination, might bring upon us the double disgrace and guilt of ignorance and blasphemy. This was too much, even for Dr. Ely's new system of HARMONY, which has arisen out of the ashes of his defunct CONTRAST. He, therefore, joined Dr. Green, Mr. Engles, and the minority, in proving, by abundant evidence, that the Presbyterian Church, in Scotland, and in this country, were familiar with the principle and the practice, of judging the character of an ordained candidate for admission to a Presbytery, and of rejecting him, if they were not satisfied with his doctrinal or practical correctness. Take the three following authorities, from our General Assembly, viz. "It is the privilege of every Presbytery to judge of the character and situation of those who apply to be admitted into their own body, and unless they are satisfied, to decline receiving the same. A Presbytery, it is true, may make an improper use of this privilege; in which case, the rejected applicant may appeal to the Synod or the General Assembly." "Every Presbytery has a right to judge of the qualifications of its own members." "The right of deciding on the fitness of admitting Mr. Wells a constituent member of the Presbytery of Geneva, belonged to the Presbytery itself."*

* Minutes of 1825, p. 265. of 1826, p. 28. Digest, p. 325.