The Reviewer Reviewed: Or, An Answer to Strictures Contained in the Princeton Biblical Repertory ...
:"^Ui: ■-'-^:,.:r"'<': ■■■'<•■*: "'';^-';'^:" )■■!•; *a' ,:■:..-',;■;■:,.•;•.;::;;, -/.;;.!.'.;.;:■; ;;in;i's ■••;::-;-;::;;i.SH^; •!:;;,".r,'aM;-',;;:arJ ,: :;;.; nm.-. v„v'.'':i ■:■,:.,:■ ■-i>in:Mio!-J ■-•.,.i-;;T.':«j||llr- •■"■■"Cr-M:.'ili-'.(i.i ^ 1* t '**^ 41*- ♦< - THE 3X^ S6 HEVIEWER REVIEWED^ bK) AN ANSWER TO S'tRtCTURES bONTAlMED iA TJdE ^ * • • * PRlNCEtON BIBLICAL REPERTORY^ tt)R JtJLY, 1840j t)N DR. HILL'S HISTORY OF THE RtSE, PROGRESS, GENIU8> AND CHARACTER, OF AMERICAN PRESBYTERIANISM. BT SmPLEX V NEW YORK: Sprinted for the attthor. 1643; ^ MOTTOS AIO) MEMENTOS. He that is first in his own cause, seemeth just ; but his neighbor cometk and searcheth him. Frov. 18: 17. Enowest thou it, because thou wast then bom ? or because the number of thy days is great ? Job 38: 21. '' There are som€ clergy, like military cadetsi, or titled and epauletted gen- erals, who are learned in the tactics and technicalities of war ; but who, hay- ing neyer seen action or been tried in the hi^h places of the field, mistake sadly the duties and the spirit of their commission; and seldom or neyer perform any of that sort of humble seryice for which mainly their education and their omce were procured for them. These are not inaptly called the amateur cler- ^^ gy. They are generally theorizers, partisans, and special pleaders ; and withal ^ somewhat remarkably leamed. They are intoxicated with place and power. Jv^ They loye to have the preeminence ; and while yery orthodox in maintaining p^ some of the ideal forms of tbe first table of the decalogue, are seemingly quite ^ too sublimated to make a proportionate honoring of the second table a part or t a measure of their personal piety. At any rate, the fifth commanament, t^ thoufifh the first of tnat table, receiyes yery little illustration frcmi the manner 4 in wnich they treat the yeteians oi the sendee, who were doing &tigue duty ; for the church before their censors were bom." ^ ' '' And there are some leamed and plausible men, whose greatest skill is in misrepresentation. They are specious and powerful ; but the. public always need to be disabused by other pens, after theirs haye spread a too grateful enchantment oy^ plain matters of fact." [tlT" This answer has been long prepared, and would hay€ appeared sooner, had not the delay occurred i&cidentally after the manuscript had passed into the hand of anotnei. g^37 56 5G THE REVIEWER REVIEWED. tmtm^ In the Biblical Repertoiy and Princeton Review for July, 1840, strictures upon Dr. HilPs History of the rise, progress, genms, and character of American Presbyteri^iism, are to be found, of a very peculiar character, which call for some short notice. The publica* tion now to be noticed, is anonymous, and its real patemi^ is a mat- ter of very little consequence. The strong presumption is, that it is either the production of Dr. Hodge himself, or of some friend of his, who wrote it as a mere amanuensis, or under his own eye, and aided by his materials and promptings. ' This publication is designed as a defence of Professor Hodge's Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church, against some crit- icisms, and charges of inaccuracy brought against him by Dr. Hill ; — and if you may ju^e from the style and character of this Princeton review, our learned Professor must have been writhing and smarting under some of the strictures made by Dr.. Hill. This is not much to be wondered at, for Professor H. has certainly acquired considerable distinction as a writer, and has had as much in- cense offered to him as would be safe for most men of his age. I^^Professor Hodge, or his friend fen: him, in the Princeton Review, manifests considerable ing;enuity in endeavoring to shift the grounds of the controversy. Their old position was fou^d an unsafe one, which exposed them to a galling fire from an opponent ; — ^therefore a more safe and sheltered one is sought for. Every intelligent and candid reader of the 1st and 2nd parts of Professor H.'s history must Imow and acknowledge that throughout Ijiis whole work, the posi- tion taken was, tbat tibe entire system of the Kirk of Scotland, as contained in tiie Westminster Confession of Faitk, Form of Govern- ment, and Book of Discipline, as practised by that Church, was adopted at first, and formed an essential feature of American Presby- terianism at its eommencement and ever since. It would be vain to heap up quotations to prove this. I shall make one quotation only as a sample of scores that might be produced upon this subject S^ Professor Hodge's History, Part 1st, p. 20. '' The ypung daughter of the church of Scotland," (meaning the American church,) ^' helpless, and exposed in a foreign land, cries to her tender parent for relief* Wj^ose language is this 1" (says Prof. li.) ^^ Not that of the old side Synod. It is the language of the new side Synod. Both parties in our church have appealed to its early history in support of their peculiar opinions. It is the ob- ject of this work to review that history, in order to show that our church has demanded adherence to the system of doctrines con- tained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, as the condition of ministerial communion, &c." Now we will hear what the Princeton review says upon tliis sub- ject See July No. for 1840. p. p. 323. 324. " Whenever there is controversy, it is desirable to know the state of the. question; to have the point at issue distinctly presented. Prof. H. took the ground th^t our church, from its very organiza- tion in this country, adopted that form of government which had been previously adopted in Scotland, Ireland, Holland, and by the Protestants of France. He described the system intended, as re- quiring the government of particular congregations, to be vested in the pastor and eldership, and not in the brotherhood ; and the asso- ciation of several churches under one presbytery, composed of min- isters and elders i and as providing for provincial and national Synods, in which were vested the authority of review and control, and thfe right id set down rules for the govemmtent of the church. There arfe here three points presented with tolerable distinctness. First, the leading principles of Presbyterianism ; secondly, the pre- valence of this system of government in the plans mentioned ; and thirdly, its adoption by our own church. There is no question here, about the rigor with which the system was enforced— about the authority attributed to it, whether it was of divine right, or apostolic cal example, or mere expediency; w;hether it was essential to the being of a church* or merely the best form of government. J^ot one of these questions was raised. It was merely stated what Presbyterian- ism is' and asserted that certain specified churches were Presbyte- rian. One would think that the only course for an opponent to take, was to attack one or the other of these positions — ^to show that Pres- byterianism does not include the above mentioned principles., or that it was not adopted in that form by the churches in question. This, we admit, would have been rather an adventurous enterprise ; still it was the only thing to be done. But Dr. Hill has seen fit to take a very different course. He first asserts that Prof. Hodge con- tends^ that our church adopted the strict Scotch system, and then he gives the following description of that system, &c." What an inoffensive, and harmless position, according to* this state-^ ment, must Professor H. have taken. And how inexcusable must xhr. Hill have been in misunderstanding and misconstruing these harm* less positions which no body ever disputed. Our author must have been sick of his cause, when he wished to escape from it, by a sub- terfuge like this. It must have required ai considerable degree of hardihood to venture the assertion, that there was no question about ike rigor with which the system was enforced in Professor H.'s Histoid fy. See Part 1st, p. iS. " In the Synod, (i. e. the French Synod,) in 1644-5, it was re- S' orted hy certain deputies from' the maritime provinces, that there arrive to them, from other countries, some persons going by the name of Independents, &c« and that they fiettle their dweUings in this kingdom^ [let the reader remember this word kingdom,] ii thing of great and dangerous c'Ohtsequence, if not in time carefully prevented. Now, this assembly, fearing lest the contagion of this poison should diffuse itself insensibly, and bring in a world of dis- order and confusion upon us, all the provinces are therefore en« joined, but more especially those bordering on the sea, to be exceed- ingly careful that this evil do not get footing in the churches in this kingdamJ*^ Again, says Prof. H. : ^' There are many acts of these Synods, which would make modem ears tingle, and which prove that American Presbyterianism, in its strictest forms, was a suckiuj? dove compared to that of the imme- diate descendants of the rek^rmers. iTo maintain truth and order in the churches, in those days, required a sterner purpose, and firmer conviction than are cOmmoWy to be met with at the present time^ when many are wont to chatige their church and creed, almost ad readily as they change their clothes.* This account of the French church has been given," (says Professor H.,) " because it will ap** pear in the sequel, that there was, at an early period, a strong infu^ sion of French Presbyterianism in the churches of this country, and it is well to know something of its character." There can be no mistake when Professor Hodge uses language like {his. How rude and unmanly was it in Dr. I£ll to assail an inno^ tcent and unoffending Professor, so needlessly, wlien he raised no ques'^ tion abovt the rigor with which his system was enforced^ hut merely m£ant to state in the abstract what Presbyterianism was ? Let us hear the Princeton reviewer once more upon this subject See p. 326. ^'^Should an American Episcopalian say, that his church was the daughter of the church of England, and had adopted the essential principles of her form of government, he certainly would treat with isilence the assertion^ that he thereby claimed the lordly titles^ the Taried power8,andthe exclusive principles of the English Hierarchy 1" But not so fast, Mr. Reviewer ^ in commg to your conclusion* Let * Professor Hodge shonld kave been a little more modest in speaking about people's changing tbieir church and creeds j as readily as tbey change their clothes^ when he recol- lects the doctrines advanced, and sentiments maintained by himself and other Princeton Professors, in the Biblical Repertciry, in the year 1836» respecting the call of a convention to reform a^d pnrify the church, aXka subsequently, when it was evident that a division of the church was intended. Compare that state of things with tlie present, and theniudge Who are the clumgelings. If this will not make his ears tingle, I trust it would^ at least, liufi^lse his dieeks with a blii8h\ 8 us suppose that this American daughter of the English Hierarchy should declare at the same time, that she adopted QOt only the essen- tial principles of the English system, but her entire Prj^yer Book, in- cluding her Articles, form of worship, and administering the ordinan- ces, her form of government, by Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Dea- cons, and so forth, with all their distinctive powers and modes of con-« secration, to the end ; that she was in fact, part and parcel of the same, and bound to carry out all her laws, canons, and enactments, and to follow her example in persecuting dissenters and in enforcing uniformity ; would such declarations satisfy dissenters and others ia this country, who had fled from their homes to escape her tyrannic grasp, that &is young American daughter was a very sweet, harmless^ and mnocent Uttle creature ? ' What was the American daughter of the Scotch Kirk, of which Professor H. speaks so affectionately, as possessing such inoffensive qualities ? Does not the Scotch Confession of Faith, which Professor H. But if Dr. Hill should say a word respecting the objectionable parts of this Scotch system, though he should apologize for her weak-i ness from the darkness of the times, and the spirit of the day, and give all due credit, as he again and again has done, for all the excel-^ lencies of the system, he is now to be classed with papists, and infi-* dels, and enemies of every character, for aspersing the fair fame of thef good old Mother Kirk. It is a little remarkable, that in all the quotations made from Dr. Hill's statements, respecting the principles, of the Scotch Kirk, and all the abusive epithets appli^ to him for so doing, the correctness of the statements he gave of the princi|vles and character of the Church of Scotland has not been called mto question in a solitary instance ; nor an attempt made to prove that he had slandered the kirk. On such evil times have we fallen, that whosoever will not go the whole of this system-^who will not ** swallow the total grist, unsifted, husks and all," must expect to be classed with malignant opposers of all that is orthodox and sound in the church. Such gross man-worshipers, and idolaters of system, have many among us now become ! The soul of the writer holds in contempt such puerility and servility. He i? not to be frightened with, such mem^ces or bugbears as this. 9 No. n. We shall now notice another subject which the Princeton reviewer brings forward with a great flourish, as affording him a complete tri-^ umph, and which so effectually will demolish Dr. Hill as to render useless all that he had said, or might hereafter say on subjects of this pature. The reader should be reminded that Dr, Hill m the first part of bis history bad produced copious extracts from Mosheim's and Neal's histories and others, flatly contradicting Professor Hodge's character of the French Huguenots. We shall give extracts at large from our reviewer, unbroken by repUes, that his wonted vaporing may appear in its full force ; and reserve the privilege of commenting at the close. See Princeton Review, pp. 230, 231, and 232. " It may be admitted that false doctrine had made its appearance among the French Protestants before their great overthrow, and that their descendants departed still further from the faith; and yet every word that Professor Hodge said about this ecclesiastical sys- tem be correct ; and every word that Dr. Hill said be wrong. In other words, the extracts from Mosheim (the historical verity qf whose stdtemmts we are far from admitting) have nothing to do with the subject at issue. Before leaving this subject we will give our readers a specimen of the manner in which Dr, Hill spii)s history out of his imagination, and sets down vague impressions as positive facts. We just quoted one passage in which he gave an account of the state of the French church, when the declaration against the Independents was made. He returns to the subject again and says:) [Here he gives a quotation from Dr. HilL] ' At the time the French Synod, in 1644, passed the act which Prof. H. cites with such appa- rent pleasure, the Protestants in France were in great favor with the reigning king, Francis I, who, out of opposition to Charles V, did many very absurd and inconsistent things respecting the refor- mation. He would patronize or persecute them just as he could make it subserve his purposes of state. He permitted his sister, the queen of Navarre, to establish the reformation in the kingdom of Navarre ; and it was during the days of this prosperity, and when gross darkness rested upon christians of every nation, respecting liberty of conscience, and religious freedom, that these good French Protestants did those wicked things that Prof. H. refers to, and which I did expect he would have noticed, with at least some apol-t ogy or mark of disapprobation. But no ! the poor Independents were to be proscribed and banished forthwith, for fear they would diffuse the contagion of their poison, and introduce a world of dis^ prders into the provinces.' [l^ow hear the reviewer's comment upon this quotation.] " Francis I. [says he] was born in the year 1494?, asceiide4 th© 10 throne in 1515 ; and if stilMiving in 1644, he was in the 129th yeieu^ b£ his reign, and the 150th of his life. According to all other ac- counts he died in 154«7, i. e. ninety-seven years before the date of his great favor to the Protestants. It need be hardly said that all the minor statements of this paragraph are of the same kind with, the preceding. There was, m 1644, no queen of Navarre j and no such kingdom in the sense in which Dr. Hill uses the terms. The t^rotestants, so far from being established and in high favor, or at the right hand of power, were reducied to a state of complete de- pendence. By the acts of Richelieu, under the r^ign of Louis XIII , they had, by fraud or force, beeli despoiled of idl their strong towns ; Bochelle, their last defence, fell in 1629. From this time they were at the mercy of their enemies. Louis XIY. came to the throne ia 1643 ; his mother, Ann of Austria, acting as' regent, and cardinal Mazarin administered the government as prime minister. All, there- fore, that Dr. .Hill has said about the historical circumstances under which the declaration against the Independents was made, is pure fiction. He, of course, had no intention to deceive any body ; for whom could he deceive % But it is evident that he has not the slightest idea of the responsibility of a historian ; that he allows himself to write down just what comes into his head, and that he is the last man in the world who is entitled to speak of others as unworthy of con- fidence." If Dr. Hill can survive this murderous assault, this butchering pro- cess, one might suppose he need fear nothing that may befal him hereafter. We will see, however^ whether any relief can be afforded him after this rough handling; That the reader may see the pbmt and force of these remarks of the Princeton reviewer, it tnay be necessary to explain, a little, the point at issue. Dr. Hill, in reply to the authorities which Professor H. had brought forward id show that the French Protestants were high toned exclusives, who had banished the Independents, who had taken refuge among them, from the persecuting Episcopalians of England; — and that the Presbyterians in America were in their strictest days and most rigorous measures but a Sucking dove to the Huguenots. Professor H. Hill had quoted largely from Mosheim, Neal, and others. These ar- guments and authorities appear to have disturbed Dr. HodgCjand his mends, more than a little. But as people are more apt to use abusive language, and angry re- marks, when hard pushed, instead of better arguments, so here we u find more scurrilous and luigentlemanly language than might have been expected from Professor H. or any of Hs Princeton associates upon this occasion. We shall now give this vituperative extract a little notice. 1. The reviewer admits that all that Dr. Hill had produced from Mosheim respecting false doctrine among the Huguenots might be true, and yet all that Professor Hodge had said respecting ecclesias- tical polity, be strictly true, and all that Dr. Hill had said upon the subject, be entirely wrong. This goes upon the supposition that all that was quoted from Mosheim and others, related to doctrine, and not at all to government; — whereas a reference to those quotations will show that reference was had to their ideas respecting indulgence and tolerance when they were excluding or disciplining those who differed from them in sentiment ; as well as to terms of uniting with others, who differed on non-essential points. But as if afraid to rest Professor Hodge's defence upon so flimsy an argument, Dr. Mosheim's character is about as rudely treated, (and froiii his own admission quite unnecessarily,) as he had just treated Dr. Hill's character. , In a short parenthetical sentence, Mpsheim's veracity as a historian is flatly called in question. " The historical verity of whose stajtefmervts we are far from admitting" After such strange language, one would naturally expect to be told wherein he had falsified, and where better and more authentic historical information could be obtained^ But not a word of this. You lie^ Sir, is all the argument* This is a summary way of ending an argument and claiming a victory. The fact is, that Mosheim's statement so completly answered and refuted what Professor Hodge had alleged, that no alternative seemed to be left, but to deny that Mosheim deserved any credit at all, or to leave Professor Hodge convicted of heing as ignorant of historical facts, as he now undertakes to prove that Dr. Hill was. 2. But suppose Dr. Hill had misplaced some dates and facts, in giving a summary account of the rise and progress of the Protestant reformers in France, or that in haste he had expressed himself loosely and incautiously, (which in candor is readily admitted,) would that inaccuracy in dates affect the main argument, to which these mistakfesi had no relation at all ? Can any one suppose that in giving a hasty and summary account of the rise and progress of the reformation in France, Dr. Hill meant to make all the changes and fluctuations through which Protestantism passed, for about 150 years, synchronize strictly with the persecution of the Independents, which took place in 1644« 1 This is a pitiful captiousness, to which no candid disputant, who could command better arguments, would ever resort. But can Professor H. feel willing to trust to such a quibble to wipe off the stigma of quoting with such apparent approbation the persecuting acts of the French Protestants ; and then commenting upon it as he did ; — and at last attempting to fix such a slander upon American t^resbyterianism as saying that there was a strong infusion of the same principles in that church at an early period of its history 1 3. Our learned and accurate reviewer informs his readers, that in 12 the year 1644, tiie time to which Dr. Hill referred, " there was no Queen of Kavarre^ and no such kingdom, in the sense in which he used that term!^ In what sense he supposed Dr. Hill used the word kingdoni, it is for him to say. Dr. HiU simply asserted that there was such a kingdom at the time alluded to, and that the Protestants were in power in that kingdom. But tfiis our reviewer denies* What meaning can he put on such words as these, which have just "been quoted from Professor H. himself? From the records of Synod (says be) in 1644, "it was reported by certain Deputies from the maritime provinces that there do arrive from other countries some persons going by the name of Independents, and that they settle their dwellings in this Kingdom^ a thing of dangerous consequence if not in time carefully prevented. The King soon followed him in 1643, complaining, in the words of Job, " My soul is weary of lifeP The Protestants had increased greatly in numbers in this reign, though they had lost their power, for they were now computed to exceed two millions. So true is it, that violent measures weaken the church that employs them. Louis XIV was only in the fifth year of his age at the demise of his father. The Queen Mother was appointed sole regent during his minority, and Cardinal Mazarin, a creature of Richlieu's, was his prime minis- ter. The Edict of Nantz was confirmed in 1643 [only one year be*, ^ore the banishment of the Independents] by the Regent, and again by the King, at his majority, 1652.'' It will be left now with the intelligent reader to judge which is the more completely demolished, our learned Princeton reviewei:, or pr. Hill. There is but one way for him to escape from this dilemma, w^hich is the same easy and effectual remedy by which he saved Pro* f essor Hodge from the sttait in which he was placed by the testimony of Mosheim } namely, " The historical verity of whose statement we fii^e far from admitting,,*^ ^*iL h li No. EL. fhe remarks of the reviewer respecting the settlemente made on the west side of the River Delaware are but repetitions of what Professor H. had before said. He has, however, one additional argu- ment by which to prove his point. See p. 339* " The settlement, from New Haven, we infer, from its being noticed by Gordon, in his history of New Jersey, was on the east side*" But mark it. Gor- don does not say it was oil the east side ; but simply mentioned, among other matters, the existence of such a settlement upon the liver Delaware at that time. Is this a sample of Princeton logic 1 The arguments produced by Dr. Hill to show that New England- ers had formed setUements at an early period on the river Delaware^ and especially on the west side, were such as these, 1. Under the charter granted to Lord Baltimore for the colony of Maryland in 1632, his lordship claimed all the territory which lay from Cape Henlopen on the river Delaware as far as the mouth of the Schuylkill ; and the utmost liberty of conscience was guaranteed by said charter to all colonists who would settle within its limits. In 1640, a large body of land was purchased by a company of mer- chants about New Haven, and a settlement was begun there at that time. In 1642, settlers claiming to be Marylanders, formed a settle- ment about the mouth of the Schuylkill, which howevet was soon broken up by the Dutch. In 1682, the settlements upon the Delaweure, which had hitherto been claimed by the Proprietor of Maryland, were confiMed by char- ter to William P^mi, and became part of Pennsylvania. These two colonies were the only places then known where liberty of conscience land religious freedom could be obtained. In the year 1694, only 11 years before the mother presbytery was formed, Sir Lionel Copdy, who was Governor of Maryland^ com- / 14 plained to the fiishop of London, that there were but three Episcopal clergymen in the colony, and these had to contend with double their number of Roman Priests, and a number of wandering pretenders to be preachers, (as he called them,) from New England and other pla- ces, who kept dissenters from the Episcopal church, and even drew off many churchmen by their e;xtemporary prayers and preachments. From such reasons as these. Dr. Hill supposed it might be inferred, what kind of people they were, and what were thar religious senti- ments and predilections, who formed the first Presbyterian congrega- tions in America, and whence they obtained their ministers. Passing over other and sUghter matters contained in the Princeton review, the attention of the reader shall now be called to the only re- maining subject of any importance ; which is, the absurdities and contradictions charged upon Dr. Hill, and the parade of quot'atioms produced from the original minutes, and other documents, to prove them, relative to the firat organization of the churches upon the Pa- tuxent river in Maryland, especially the Scotch congregation, located in upper Marlborough, with Nathaniel Taylor their minister, who came over with them from Scotland. Dr. Balch's letters to Dr. Green are produced again with great confidence, as affording evidence of Dr. HilPs utter incapacity for writing upon such subjects. Here our reviewer claims a second triumph witib such confidence, that many would suppose that Dr. Hill must be smothered at once, or nailed as a counterfeit to the counter, as tmworthy of credit for the future. Let the reader suspend his judgment for a short time, until he shall hear a word on the other side of the question, when he may probably find that all this confident boasting over a^ vanquished enemy was a little premature. Before we meet this formidable array of arguments and documen- tary evidence, we must say, that it should not be thought strange, if Dr. Hill, laboring under the disadvantages which he did, from the want of access to the original papers, which are carefully kept for the exclusive use of his opponents, should not have been precisely accurate in some of his references to old records. He could not meet his antagonist here, upon equal ground. Dr. Hill complained before, that he was assailed by unfair or unlawful weapons, against ivhich he had not the chance of drfending himself. Not only are the minutes and other Presbyterial and Synodical documents kept for the exclusive use of a favored few, or loaned -with such restrictions and limitations, as to be of little use, but refer- ence is continually had to, and authority adduced from, a mass of pri- vate and unpubhshed manuscripts, from which only one side had per- mission to cull and select, to conceal or suppress, at pleasure. But enough of those jumbled quotations and garbled statements have now come to light, to show what credit is due to such ex parte compi- lations. Our obligations are due, however, to our late reviewer, for giving us a little more information than was formerly exhibited, of Dr. Balch's lucid communications, of which so much use has been 15 ma^e, and from which such important conclusions have been draMen, to clear away the mists that rest upon the early history of our church. We may now have an opportunity from the selected parts of thoscj letters, the whole of which we have never seen, (for as yet we have only a few scattering fragments of them,) to form, a judgment of what they are really worth, and have them compare with documents which are authentic. If we should be obliged to stricture those com- munications with some freedom, we utterly disavow any unfriendly feelings toward Dr. Balch, and would wish to treat his memory wim all possible respect, and woidd cautiously avoid saying any thing that might unnecessarily woimd the feeUngs of any member of the respect- able relatives he has left behind him. But the truth is not to be sac- rificed, out of regard to any man ; and the character of Dr. Hill needg protection, as well as that of Dr. Balch; and if his character for ^v- ing correct information upon historical facts should be exhibited m a rather unfavorable point of view, there is no intention to assail his respectability in other aspects of his character. He might have re- ceived incorrect statements froin others, or might not have remem-^ bered distinctly, and might hz^ve written hastily, and without due re- jSection. But if complaint is n^ade against any one, in this matter, it should not be against those who act only on the defensive, but against those who have thus needlessly dragged into light, what more required concealment, or a veil of chari^. Professor H. and his friend the reviewer would have acted more •wisely, and more consistently with friendship for that venerable fa- ther, to have treated those letters as Dr. Green had done, for whose special benefit they were written, and from whom Professor H. tells us hie obtained them. Dr. Green, in his Christian Advocate, vol. 8, p. 467, published in the year 1830, long after he had received and perused Dr. Balch's letters, makes this remark: " The place where Taylor exercised his ministry , the writer has not been able satisJuctO" rily to ascertainy nor the time of his death.^^ Dr. Green must have seen, that there was an irreconcilable difference between Dr. Balch's statements, and the records of the Presbytery, with which be was well acquainted ; for Dr. Balch undertook to tell, both where Taylor ex-^ ercised his ministry, namely, at Upper Marlborough in Maryland, and when he died, namely, in 1703 ; whereas Dr. Green knew from the records' that Taylor was alive and an active member of the Presbytery in 1709, seven years after Dr. Balch had him dead and buried. Dr. Green therefore passed his statements over, as well meant, but mistaken and incorrect, and therefore not worthy of frurther notice. But the zeal of Professor H. and his friend the reviewer, so far outran their discretion, as to determine them not to lose the opportunity of procuring the direct testimony of the only man they could procure, to prove that there was at least, one Scotch minister, and a Scotch congregation in the constituency of the mother Presbytery ; and if Dr. Bsdch should contradict the records of the Presbytery, as they knew he would, they would tax their ingenuity to make even his ab- 16 ibrdities and contradictions redotind to Dr« Batch's credit, as we sliali presently see they have done. To let the reader see the charges of absurdity and contradiction brought against Dr; Hill in their ftill force, the arguments and docu^ ments derived from the records of Presbytery shall now all be given in their true connection, and unbroken oy replies and refutation, till after all the quotation from that quarter shall have been given, fur- ther than a few short explanations between brackets, as we go along, which, if the reader chooses, he may at the first reading pass over, and in so doing he vsdll have the words of the reviewer verbatim. See Repertory, pp. 241, 242. ^' The only remaining case is that of the Bev. Mr. Taylor. Prof. Hodge had stated, on tne authority of the late Dr. Balch, that CoL Ninian Beall, a native of Scotland, having been driven frotn his own tountry by persecution, came to Maryland about 1690 ; that he wrote home to his friends and neighbors to join him, and that in conse- quence of his exertions about two hundred of them came over, bringing the Rev. Mr. Taylor as their pastor, and formed the church and congregation of Upper Marlborough. This account Dr. Hill very unceremoniously rejects. He calls it a story^ a tale ; says Dr« Balch was misinformed ; conjectures that the account was received from him when he wad far gone in second childhood, alid so forth^ He insists that the first account we hear of the church at Marlbo^ rough, was a petition sent to Presbytery, about the year 1715 or 1716, from a few 3coth merchants ana others, for supplies of preach* ing. Two membeisj Messrs. Conn and Orme, Were sent to those regions to missionate, and look after the people of Marlborough and others. Both of these ministers settled west of the Chesapeake, in Maryland, and Mr. Conn was ordained and settled at Marlborough, in the year 1716, as their first minister, as the records of Presby« tery wiU show. The main position of Dr. Hill, and that on which his whole cause depends, is that the congregation of Marlborough is not mentioned in the minutes of Prfesbytery before 1715." [Mark, this expression of Dr. Hill's ; he did not say the people on Patuxent were not mtsntioned, but the congregation, or church of Marlbo- rough, evidently meaning in an organized character, or as having a GLStor. The reviewer proceeds;] "We must premise here, that arlborough lies upon the Patuxent river, hence Dr. Hill sometimes caUs the congregation in cmestiouj Marlborough, and sotiietiines Pa- tuxent. [This is not so ; Dr. Hill used no such language ; it will be seen prescintly what led to this misunderstanding.] The minutes do the same thing; [This is a perversion of the minutes, as we fihall soon see.] In 1715^ it was ordered that a letter be written to the people of Pcstuxent, and we find it addressed to our christian friends at Marlborough^ these^ thm^ according to Dr. JV[r. McNish's case came unier cansideration, and it was determined ^o leave his affair respecting Jamaica and Patuxent to himself, with 4he advice not to delay fixing himself somewhere. [Observe, the Presbytery never use the lai^uage ^^of^th^eongrtgationofPatmxtTUy hnt it often speaks of the people on Patuxent. More of this anon.] The simple ei^planation of this minute [says the reviewer] as this. The Rev. Mr. Taylor, Who Bir. Balch says, was the first pastor 4>f the J^atuxent people. [Dn Balch uses this language, that Mr. Taylor was the first pastor ot Marlborough ; thi« confusion of language belongs (to the reviewer.] The Bev. Mr. Taylor, who. Dr. Balch says, was the first pastor of the Patuxent people died about 1710. [This is strange perversion of the truth, for Dr« Balch says he died 1703.] He was present at Presbytery in 1709, but never appeared again. His congregation being thus left vacant, they called Mr. 'McNisfa, ^This is all gratuitous assumption, or 'spinning history out of tbio ^reviewer's own imagination,'! and he having at the same time re- ceived a call from J^imaica, Long Island, was left to decide between them. He decided in favor of Jamaica, where it was shown he set- tled in 1712, and accordingly supplies became necessary ior Patux- »ent; hence it was ordered that Mr. Wilson do supply the people of Patuxent four Sabbaths | Mr. Henry four Sabbaths, and Mr. Hamp- ton is left to himself to supply sometimes if he can. All this [says the reviewer] was in 1711. So much for the assertion, that there nvas no allusion to the congregaiion before 4716. Dr. HilTs next as- :aertion, namelji^ that Mr. Conn organized the •church at Patuxent, 4md became their first pastor in 1715 or 1716, is of course refuted by the preceding records, which prove, at least, thev«xistence of the ^congregation in 1711. This assertion -is repeated in various forms ^md" with much detail. ' About the year 171V says Dr. Hill, ' two voupg licentiates, or students ^f theology, arrived from England, Jiugh Conn, and John Orme. The next year, 1715, Mr. Conn was ord^ned, and' sent to preach to the people about Patuxent and Bla- 4ensburg ; he organized conffiegations at both of these places, and ibecuae their first pastor, and lived and died ^och."* it wSl Jippear from what follows, that Mr. Conn, so far from ^iii^ iBke firstpastor 'Of Patuxent, was never pastor of that 4^ongvegation«t aH. He was received by Presbytery as a licentiate in 1715, 4is appears frott the foUowinff record: ^Mr. James Gordon having jpresenled a«caU from the {MBOj^e of Baltimore county, in Maryland, unto Mr* Hiq^h Conn, the Presbytery called for, considered, and approved the said Mr. Conn's credentials, as a preacher of the goi^pel, and likewise con- sidered and approved the call, which being presented by the n^ode- Yatear to Mr. Uonn, ha accepted of it ^ wherenpoa it was appointed i; 18 that Mesisrs. Magill, Anderson, Gillespie, ^orther^oon, and Evans, after being satisfied of his ministerial abilities, should solemnly , by- prayer, fasting, and the imposition of hands, ordain him unto the work of the ministry, among the aboYe said people, the third Thurs- day of October next.' He was ordered, therefore, over the people in Baltimore county, and not overihe Patuxent people! [It is ptiinful to have to expose such ignorance and absurdities, as we shall have to do in reply to this.] What makes this matter still more certain f says the reviewer] is, that the Patuxent people had, at this very time, a pastor settled over them. In September, 1715, a month be- fore the ordination of Mr. Conn, it was ordered by the Presbytery, that Messrs. Anderson, McNish, and Gillespie, -write a letter to the eople of Patuxent, in relation to the present posture of their affairs. n this letter the Presbytery say: 'We have much comfort in hearing from our brdther, your reverend pastor, that when (as is our practice) he was interrogated concerning the manner of his people's deportment towards hitn, in his pastoral office, he made his answers wholly to their advantage.' This letter is principally an exhortation to peace, and a caution against Satan^'s attempts to pro- duce divisions among them." p. 344. "Dr. Balch states that after the death of Mr. Taylor, [which, by the bye, he says was in 1703,] the congregation was vacant about three years, [namely, till 1706,] but at last obtained a pastor, the Rev. Mr. Magill, from some Presbytery in Scotland. We have already seen, [but not from Dr. Balch's letters,] that the name of Taylor ceases to appear on the minutes after the year 1709 ; [and why did not Magill's name, who had been Taylor's successor for three years, according to Dr. Balch, appear there also, at this early Seriodll that in 1711, the congregation called McNish, but that he eclined; and in 1713, Magill was received as an ordamed minister, as will be seen from the following extract : [that is, seven years after he had been Taylor's successor at Upper Marlborough, accor- ding to Dr. Balch.] Mr. Robert Lawson, Mr. Daniel Magill, [not Robert Magill, according to Dr. Balch,] and Mr. George Gillespie, having applied to Presbytery for admittance as members thereof, the Presbytery, finding, by their ample testimonials, that they have been legally and orderly ordained as ministers of the gospel, and that they have since behaved themselves as such, did cheerfully and cor- dially receive them, and they took their places.' The 'coincidence |[he should have said discordance] does not stop %ere ; Dr. Balch says Magill was an austere and morose man, got into difficulties with his people, and left them. [Dr. Balch says he and his congre- gation soon partedJ] Accordingly we find that in 1715, two vears after his settlement, [this is according to the reviewer, but if Dr. Balch's statenient be credited, it would have been nine years,] there was trouble in the congregation, and that the Presbytery found it necessary to write to them, and to exhort them to exercise proper feelings towards their pastor ; [this is the same letter that was writ- ten in 1715, just one month before the ordination of Mr. Conn, in which it was said there was so much cordiality and good feeling between that people and their pastor I ! What a change is here Ij Id- and in 1719, Mr..MagHl was without any pastoral charge. Dr. Balch says, tliat after the departure of Mr. Magill,, \_which took place soon after he settled among them, in 1706,. says Dr. Balch,] the congrega- tion obtained, through the intervention of certain London merchants, the Rev. John Orme as their pastor. [Who would have thought that a strict Scotch congregation would have sought a minister from * such, a quarter X] This also fully accords with the minutes ; for in 17^0, Mr. John Orme presented to Synod his testimonials, and was received as a memher. Min. of Pres. p. 51." *' Here, then, [says the reviewer,] are a series of coincidences |[can he he in earnest ! !] which can admit of no other explanation than the truth of Br. BalMs history. According to him, Mr. Taylor came to this country with his people, towards the beginniug of the last century. [Prof. Hod^e says in 1690.] He died early, [Dr. B. says in 1703,] and after an interval of a few years, [Dr. B. says three,]] was succeeded by Mr. Magill, who differed with his people and left them, [Dr. B. says soon after he settled among them,] and iras succeeded by Mr. Orme in 1719. [Our reviewer had just told us, that Mr. Orme was received as a member of Presbytery in 1720.] We learn [says the reviewer] from the minutes that Mr. Taylor was a member of the Presbytery in 1705 ; that he was dead in 1710 ; [what has become of the coincidences which were to prove the truth of Dr. BiBilch's history ?] that as sodn as he died, the Patuxent congregation were without a minister ; that as soon as Mr. Magill ap- pears on the minutes, in 1713, they are found to have a pastor, [the minutes say no such thing, as we shall see presently,] and when he is reported without a charge, Mr. Orme appears, and not before. As these accounts are entirely independent of each other, [he might with great truth, have said contradictory, too,] their agreement ren^ ders their correctness, even on the principles of the mathematical doc^ trine of chanceSyCertodn,^'* This Brincetoiv. reviewer shall never teach the son of him who writes this, the Mathematics, if he caa prevent it. This can hardly be said to he spinning out history frmn, his ovm imaginations, and set^ ting doton bis vague impressions for positive facts ; as he charged against Dc Hill ; but it i& attempting to spia out historical verities from absolute contradictions and. the grossest absurdities. 