Imágenes de páginas

of those who have opposed his sermon, and makes a strong appeal to public sympathy upon the recital of his grievances. And the Editor, in assisting the attempt, represents Mr. Barnes as a “passive lamb," no doubt under the slaughtering hands of his butchers! But why all this pathos ? Are Mr. Barnes' grievances real ? has not his sermon been condemned upon substantial grounds ? has he not confirmed, in his own defence, the views which have been taken of that sermon? The Presbytery never considered Mr. Barnes, as an individual, of sufficient consequence to be the object of a conspiracy, or as the victim of a systematised persecution, why, therefore, should be attempt to secure favour by urging such a plea ? The


of persecution may insure temporary popularity, but it will be but temporary, and he that can descend to such a device, deserves the reward of his ingenuity. We hope the public will duly appreciate those expressions in the defence, which are designed ad captandum vulgus, or, in plain English, to produce a popular impression, and still be induced to form their opinion on the case, according to evidence.


[blocks in formation]




Pastor of the Eighth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia.

[blocks in formation]


It is hoped that every reader of the following publication will keep constantly in mind that the author has been compelled to it in self-defence. But for this he assuredly would never have made it; nor given more publicity to the proceedings of the Philadelphia Presbytery, in the case of Mr. Barnes, than his trial itself occasioned. Not a single sentence would ever have gone from him to the press, nor, he verily believes, from one of the minority, if their opponents had kept silence on their part. To the writer it did seem, that while the case of Mr. Barnes was yet sub judice; while a complaint of the proceedings of Presbytery was yet to be disposed of by the Synod, and perhaps by the General Assembly—the parties in the case, like those in similar circumstances when a cause is yet pending in a civil court, ought not to endeavour to preoccupy and prejudice the public mind, on the one side or the other. But if one side will not consent to this method of

procedure, the other may at length be obliged, in self-defence, to depart from it. Otherwise the public mind may become prejudiced against the silent party; may even take silence for consent; may believe that nothing is said in reply, because nothing to the purpose can be said. Now, let it be remembered, that for three months past, the religious newspapers of our country, far and near, have been teeming with the ex parte representations of the majority; and that some of these representations have been collected into a pamphlet, and very widely distributed, under the title of “A Sketch of the Debate and Proceedings of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, in regard to the Installation of the Rev. Albert Barnes, in the First Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia"—the pamphlet to which the present publication chiefly responds. Yes, reader, for three months in succession, the minority saw and heard themselves represented as stupid dolts, illiberal bigots, or malicious maligners of their brethren, and observed a profound silence. And have you thought that they were silent, because they were unable to plead their own cause, or were conscious that their cause would not bear a defence? Nothing further from the truth than this. It was because the minority-I can at least

speak for one-had such confidence in the superiority of their arguments when they brought them forward in the presence of a large assembly at the trial before the Presbytery, and because they hoped that a superior judicature would ere long do them justice, that they were willing to rest their reputation and ultimate vindication on these grounds, without entering into an altercation with their brethren in newspapers and pamphlets. But every thing has its limits—Christian forbearance itself will be set down for conscious guilt, or dastardly cowardice, if it never speaks a word in its own defence, when insult and falsehood are heaped upon it without measure. When, therefore, the writer was most unexpectedly called upon by the author of the short letter to which this publication is a reply, for “a statement of the other side of the question," he determined that he would give it-both to the letter writer and to the public. This letter was probably addressed to William L. M'Calla, because he had been held up, rather more than

any other individual, at one time as an object of contempt, and at another of abhorrence; and it was probably wished to hear what such a man could say for himself. William L. M‘Calla now says-read and see. He challenges any opponent to deny a single fact that he has stated, and if desired, he pledges himself to prove it, by as unquestionable testimony as ever was demanded in a court of law. If in any instance he has been circumstantially erroneousagainst which he has sedulously endeavoured to guard-he will thank any one, friend or foe, to point it out, and the error shall immediately be acknowledged and corrected. For all the remarks and strictures of the publication he alone is responsible. Let it only be recollected that no reserve as to names and pleadings before Presbytery, and in the public papers, was used by those who compelled him to write, and that he could not reply on equal ground without throwing off all reserve, on his part. He has therefore thrown it offalways, however, feeling that he had a sacred responsibility to his divine Master, not to violate truth, nor to array even an antagonist in darker colours than he deserved to wear; but feeling, at the same time, that this was a case which urgently demanded that the truth should be told plainly, and that things should be called by their proper names. If a reply is attempted, he hopes the replicator will have courage enough to appear with his proper name.

« AnteriorContinuar »