Page images

displayed in its Nature and Tendency.” Of this excellent minister the subject of this memoir retained even to his old age an affectionate remembrance; we have often heard him speak of Mr Henderson in terms of the greatest respect. At what precise time he first felt the power of divine grace upon his heart, entered into covenant with God, and consecrated himself to the ministry of reconciliation, we are unable to state. We only know in regard to this portion of his life, that after attending during the usual period the grammar school of Dunbar, he became a student of the University of Edinburgh about the year 1786 or '7.

This ancient seat of learning was at that time adorned by the presence of some whose names are among the most illustrious in the annals of the modern literature of Scotland ; Dr Robertson had not yet retired from the principalship ; Dugald Stewart, Playfair, and Robison were among the professors. We have heard him speak of these eminent men with respect to their religious views and the character of their academic prelections, but the limits within which we must confine ourselves forbid our indulging in a relation of his reminiscences. We would only repeat one observation which we remember to have heard him make respecting the late Dugald Stewart, and which we give as illustrative of the style of moral philosophy taught by that eminent man. Mr Forrest used to say that he did not recollect a single lecture—and he attended the entire course from which it could certainly be determined whether the professor received or rejected the christian revelation.

Having completed the usual scientific course at the university, Mr Forrest commenced the study of theology under the late Dr George Lawson of Selkirk, at that time the professor of Divinity under the Associate (Burgher) Synod, and the successor in that office of the eminently learned and pious Brown of Haddington. Dr Lawson was a man of profound and varied learning, mighty in the Scriptures, of deep and earnest piety, and of singular simplicity of character and manners, -"an Israelite indeed in whom there was no guile.” By all his students, Dr Lawson was not only respected but loved ; it has been our privilege to have intercourse with a considerable number of them, and we have never heard one speak of him in any other terms than those of the warmest regard. Mr Forrest, to his latest day was accustomed to express bis deep sense of the value of his instructions ; indeed he could hardly mention his name without giving some token of the affectionate veneration in which he held his memory. Among his fellow-students at the Hall were the late Dr Henry Belfrage, author of “ Sacramental addresses," and various other practical and popular works; and Dr Andrew Marshall—a man of most vigorous mind, and the father, as he may perhaps be called, of “the voluntary controversy" :-a controversy not yet ended, and destined, beyond a doubt, to work vast changes in the whole social structure of the British empire.

In 1796 Mr Forrest was ordained and installed in the pastoral charge of the Associate congregation of Saltcoats, a town in the west of Scotland. Here he remained in the diligent discharge of his ministerial duties, until the visit of Dr Mason to Great Britain to obtain funds for the Theological Seminary, and a competent number of evangelical ministers to meet the pressing demand then made upon the Synod for the supply of ordinances. As all the documents connected with this important mission have long been before the church, in the appendix to the Synodical minutes for 1802, it will not be necessary to enter into any details of its history; we would only state that Mr Forrest was one of the first to listen to the cry for help of the American church.* His offer was gratefully accepted; and on the 1st of Sept. 1802, he sailed from Greenock, in company with Rev. Dr Mason, James Scrimgeour, Alexander Calderhead, Robert Easton, James Laurie, ministers, and Mr Robert H. Bishop, probationer. They had a prosperous voyage, by the will of God, and reached New York in time to attend the meeting of the Synod, which commenced its sessions in that city on the 21st of October, 1802, and having presented their credentials, were immediately received into christian and ministerial communion. · During the first year after his arrival in this country, Mr Forrest visited various destitute portions of the church, and, if we mistake not, spent some months in Canada-a country in which, there were at that time sundry promising congregations under the inspection of the Synod. On the 26th of April 1804, he was installed in the pastoral charge of the Pearl Street congregation in the city of New York. He remained in this charge until the 14th of June 1808, when, at his own request, the connexion was dissolved. He laboured for some time subsequently within the bounds of the Presbytery of Saratoga, which then included the whole of central and western New York; and on the 15th of January 1810, he was admitted to the pastoral charge of the congregation of Stamford in the county of Delaware. Here he remained, performing with great diligence and faithfulness the duties of the ministerial office, until the growing infirmities of age induced him, in 1843, to ask for a dissolution of the pastoral relation. During the succeeding year he resided in the city of New York, but finding the climate not favourable to his own health, and especially to that of Mrs Forrest, he returned once more to the scene of his pastoral labours amid the hills of Delaware. But his race was well-nigh run ; for half a century he had been permitted to preach the glad tidings of redemption-he had fought a good fight-he had kept the faith, and on the spot where he had so long testified the gospel of the grace of God, he is at last “gathered to his fathers.” Though his health was feeble during the greater part of the last two years of his life, he was still able occasionally to occupy the pulpit, and with the kindest readiness lent his aid to his brethren whenever his strength would permit him to do so. But in the course of the last autumn, he was seized with an illness which confined him to his chamber from that time up to the period of his decease. He bore his protracted, and often very severe sufferings, with exemplary patience, sustained by the grace of that Redeemer whose great salvation he had so long preached. “ During his affliction,” says Mr Gibson in a letter to the writer of this memoir, " he spoke frequently and with deep anxiety of the situation and prospects of the church. He manifested a firm reliance upon that Saviour whose blessed gospel he had preached to others, and by which he had

* He was joined in this by Rev. James Scrimgeour, Mr James Patterson, preacher, and Mr (now Dr) Bishop, student.

been taught patience and resignation to the will of his Father in heaven." He died on the 17th of March, in the 78th year of his age, and 50th of his ministry.

Mr Forrest was a man who thoroughly understood and ardently loved the principles of divine truth and apostolic order, set forth in the Confessions of our Church. He was a thorough Scottish Presbyterian both in his theology, and in his views respecting the government of the church. Yet he had nothing of the narrow-minded bigot about him. While he could not commune with any who rejected what he regarded as a precious gospel truth—who maintained principles at war with the doctrine of grace, he was ready to give, and did give the right hand of fellowship to all who loved the gospel of the grace of God, though they might not agree with him on other points. He was a thorough Presbyterian : the meetings of the various judicatories of the church were attended, and their appointments were fulfilled with the utmost punctuality, and their decisions, unless conflicting with his conscientions sense of right, were obeyed with the utmost respect. Who ever else might be absent from a meeting of the Synod, Mr Forrest, if in health, was sure to be there, and to be among the first on the ground, no matter how distant the place, or how great the inconvenience of reaching it. With him it was a fixed principle never to allow any private considerations to interfere with the perforinance of his public duties.

He loved the church of his adoption, and gave many substantial tokens of his affection. He was not one of those who have not a thought to spare for any beyond the limits of their own congregation ; on the contrary, he felt an interest in every part of the church. Especially was he concerned for the success of the Theological Seminary ; the annual examination he attended as Superintendent, regularly, from the first year of its revival and re-establishment at Newburgh; and its library has been enriched by large donations from his own.

And this leads us to remark that Mr Forrest was a diligent student. He gathered around him a large yet choice library, of which he made good use; he was constantly adding to the stores of knowledge, and thus by keeping his mental powers in constant use, their freshness and force were not diminished by the weight of years. Ever since the revival of the Seminary, he was in the habit of assisting at the spring communion in the Old Church at Newburgh ; and we can testify that the sermons preached by him on those occasions not only possessed uncommon excellence, but from year to year they were marked by a growing richness and unction. His example, in this particular, cannot be too earnestly enforced upon all ministers, and especially upon those who, like himself, are called to labour in rural congregations, and are thus shut out from those intellectual stimulants which city ministers can hardly help feeling. But our limits forbid our enlarging. He has entered into rest. May all his brethren, young and old, hear the voice that speaks to them by the removal of this venerable servant of the Lord, and be stimulated to greater diligence in their work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope.


The readers of this journal cannot have failed to perceive that its support of the Evangelical Alliance is warm and decided. Though strongly participating in this attachment, I do not regard the Alliance with an idolatrous affection ; I do not believe that, in its discussions, individuals have fallen into no error; nor that all its measures are the perfection of wisdom. I am not the apologist of its faults. But I do deeply regret to find, that marvellous misapprehensions exist in the minds of many in regard to the precise position which the Alliance occupies respecting the question of American slavery. One party has misrepresented the facts of the case. They have uttered all kinds of denunciations against the members of that Association,-bave represented them as blasphemers,—the friends and abettors of slavery, and the worst enemies of the slave. I am not careful to reply to such charges. Let the character and deportment of the men who composed the Alliance refute the charges. We are not sure but some of our brethren of the Free Church have expressed themselves in a way tending to confirm the misapprehension, in so far as they havo represented the Alliance as occupying the same ground with themselves, in relation to American slavery. Whether the Free Church be right or wrong in the course it has followed in regard to slavery in America, I do not at present inquire. I hold, however, a very decided opinion on the point. But be that as it may, what I mean to affirm is, that when the Alliance is represented as occupying the same ground, on this question, as the Free Church, injustice is done it, and unfavourable impressions regarding the Alliance produced in the minds of many. I deem it of importance, therefore, to state what are the facts of the case; and trust that in this way, I shall relieve the minds of friends of the Alliance, and correct the misapprehensions of many.

On Friday, the 28th of August, the question of the organization of the Alliance was the subject of discussion. The first article in the paper proposed by the sub-committee ran thus,~" that the Alliance shall consist of those persons in all parts of the world, who shall concur in the principles and objects adopted by the Conference, it being understood, that such persons adhere in their individual capacity." During the course of the discussion on this proposition, it was moved by the Rev. Mr Hinton, “ that in the first clause, after the words those persons' the words - not being slaveholders' be inserted.” This amendment being seconded, brought up the whole question of communion with slaveholders, and it was discussed till the hour of adjournment. When the Conference met in the evening, Dr Patton from New York resumed the debate ; and after long and earnest discussion, Mr Hinton consented to withdraw his amendment in the meantime, and to allow the following motion to take its place, that the motion now before the Conference, the amendment proposed by the Rev. J. H. Hinton_together with other suggestions offered by members of Conference thereon, be referred to the following Committee for mature consideration, and that No. XII. VOL. III.

3 z

they report to the next meeting of the Conference.” This motion was unanimously adopted, and a large committee was appointed.

On Saturday morning the Conference met, as likewise did the committee. The Conference proceeded with other portions of their business, in the hope that the committee might be able to bring up their report before the end of the sederunt; and towards the close they did bring in tlıat resolution which was adopted by the Conference, and which has given rise to such vehement denunciations in certain quarters; and staggered and grieved the minds of many of the friends of the Alliance. I am not going to defend the resolution. I regretted it from the beginning. But let the following things be remembered, and they will go far to extenuate the fault--if fault there were—of the Alliance. It was passed at the very close of a sederunt which had been unusually protracted, and during which intense anxiety, and apprehension prevailed-many feared that the question under consideration of the committee would break up the Alliance, and scatter its fragments to the winds,--holy men trembled lest the labours and prayers of so many Christians, to promote an object so noble, should be lost; and, imagining that they saw in the resolution the means of evading such a calamity, without any compromise of principle, many without due consideration voted for its adoption. It was not, however, unanimously received even then. An amendment, “ that whereas it is impossible for this Conference to legislate for particular cases, or exceptions, no slaveholder be admitted to any branch of the Alliance," was moved and seconded, and warmly supported. Immediately on the adoption of the resolution, the Conference adjourned till Monday. No sooner was the meeting dismissed, and the members had opportunity of calmly considering what had been done, than it was found to involve principles which were satisfactory to no party whatever. It has been affirmed that it was peculiarly distasteful to the American brethren, because of the condemnation of slavery which it contained. What individuals may have said, the writer does not know. But that the American members of the Alliance, as a body, expressed any such dislike is impossible; and in proof of this, it is merely sufficient to state, that at least twenty of the American brethren were members of the committee of forty-six, who brought up the resolution to the Conference; and these twenty were the leading men among them.

The Sabbath was a day of intense anxiety; and, however some may smile in scorn at the statement, it was one of earnest prayer. Monday came—the Conference met the resolution was moved to be rescinded, and rescinded it was. Here lies the chief source of the misapprehensions and misrepresentations to which the Alliance has been exposed. It has been triumphantly said, was it not rescinded on the motion of the Americans ? I answer, in the first place, No; and, second, though it had, let it be remembered that I am not attempting to justify the views of American brethren, but to show, from the facts of the case, that the British portion of the Alliance were and are—with a few unimportant exceptions perhaps-determined not to admit slaveholders, or their supporters into the confederation. The rescinding of the resolution was moved by the Hon. Justice Crampton from Ireland. Whatever his motives might be, the all but universal feeling of the

« PreviousContinue »