.^.^^ ^*>,c'^5 
 
 
 
 ( ' :, ^ W ^ 
 
 g.;>&^:^fc--"c- 
 
 .i4JC=-- 
 
 or'VK 
 
 'wt'\ 
 
 Wf ,«; 
 
 
 
L 
 
 
^' 
 
 Mi5ce)ldPineoMs'Tb\mp< 
 
 Vol 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
4 
 
 m 
 
%, 
 
 I 
 
THE 
 
 'facts 
 
 IN THE 
 
 CASE OF THE REV. ALBERT BARNES 
 
 FAIRLY STATED. 
 
 ADDRESSED TO THE 
 
 MINISTERS, ELDERS, AND PEOPLE AT LARGE 
 
 OP THE 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHES AND CONGREGATIONS 
 
 IN THE 
 
 UNITED STATES. 
 BY MEMBERS OF THE PRESBYTERY AND SYNOD OF PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 1836. 
 
y^biK 
 
 CASE OF THE REV. ALBERT BARNES. 
 
 Fathers^ Brethren, and fellow Christians — 
 
 Nothing can be more evident, than that Mr, Barnes 
 and his coadjutors are using every effort and all 
 their influence, to prepossess the public mind in 
 his favour, and to prejudice it against the Synod of 
 Philadelphia, in the matter of his suspension; and 
 this with a view to insure his acquittal, and the 
 condemnation of the Synod, at the meeting of the 
 General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, in 
 May next. To this method of proceduie they are 
 encouraged, by the remembrance of the success 
 which attended a similar course, when Mr. Barnes 
 was bionght before the General Assembly in 
 1831. Their system of action then, was, in sub- 
 stance, the very same which they are now pur- 
 suing. The explanations which Mr. Barnes gave 
 of the sermon which was the cause of his prose- 
 cution at that time, were published, and sent 
 throughout the lenwih and breadth of the church. 
 The sermon was also republished, and copies of 
 it were distributed largely in the western part of 
 our church; and the editor of the Philadelphian 
 issued a large number of extra copies of that 
 paper, containing the defence of Mr. Barnes, and 
 a crimination of his accusers, and sent them, far 
 and near, to ministers and elders, and other influ- 
 ential individuals, in various parts of our land. 
 Nor was the enlisting of influence in the favour of 
 Mr. Barnes confined to the Presbyterian church. 
 'I'he editors of the Christian Spectator, a monthly 
 periodical published in New Haven, embarked in 
 his cause with great zeal. Of this periodical Mr. 
 Barnes has long been known as a correspondent, 
 and on the occasion alluded to, the editors wrote 
 in favour of their (riend and coadjutor, lauding 
 him in the most extravagant terms, and severely 
 censuring the Presbytery that had commenced a 
 prosecution against him; and they issued the num- 
 ber of the Spectator, that contained these eulo- 
 gies on one hand, and censures on the other, a 
 whole month before the usual time of its publica- 
 tion, and sent forward copies of their pamphkt, 
 in time to be distributed among the members of the 
 Assembly, before the trial of Mr. Barnes should 
 
 lake place. Success attended these extraordi- 
 nary efforts. For the first lime, the New School 
 party had a majority in the Assembly; a majority 
 of nine, as appeared on the vote for a Moderator. 
 The sequel will be noticed in another part of this 
 address. We only add here, that the majority 
 obtained by the New School party in 1831, they 
 were afterwards able to maintain, so far, at least, 
 as to influence that judicatory to discourage dis- 
 cipline, for four years in succession. They con- 
 fidently calculated on retaining their ascendency 
 at the last Assembly, and began to take measures 
 accordingly; but were grievously disappointed, 
 when it appeared by the vote for a Moderator, 
 that the orthodox members present formed an over- 
 whelming majority. 
 
 It is certainly very natural, when a party have 
 lost a majority, to resort to the same measures 
 by which they have gained it, on a former occa- 
 sion. This the New School party are at present 
 attempting, and are doing it with a zeal even be- 
 yond what they have heretofore manifested. Their 
 confidence of success is also great. Ever since 
 the rising of the last Assembly, they have often 
 and openly boasted, that the Assembly of the pre- 
 sent year (1836) will reverse all the most import- 
 ant doings of the last. To produce this result, 
 they avail themselves, as they did before, of the 
 cry of PERSECUTION against Mr. Barnes, extol his 
 talents and his piety, publish, and distribute in 
 every part of Ihe church, his defence and his ex- 
 planations; and bitterly vituperate both indivi- 
 duals and judicatories, who have felt it to be a 
 sacred duty to oppose his errors. The Philadel- 
 phian now, as heretofore, is the chosen vehicle, 
 for sending abroad their commendations, and their 
 accusations and reproaches. Some articles, in- 
 deed, have appeared in that paper, since the sus- 
 pension of Mr. Barnes, which have so outraged 
 all Christian principle, and all sense of decorum, 
 that some of its former patrons have abandoned 
 it in disguit;an(i thus, by overshooting their mark, 
 the editor and his correspondents have rather in- 
 
jared, than aided the cause, which they seek to 
 8U8tiiin. 
 
 In civil courts, it is considered as highly cen- 
 surable, and indeed as a punishable offence, to 
 endeavour to prejudice the public mind, against 
 or in favour "t a party, on any iniporiant liial, 
 while it is still pendinir. It were wel', in our 
 judgment, if ihis weie the case in ecclesiastical, 
 as well as in civil courts. But every restraint ot 
 this kind has, Irom the very first, and invariably 
 since, been utterly disregarded, in the case of Mr. 
 Barnes. For three months in succession, after 
 he was put ufider discipline by the Presbytery of 
 Philadelphia In 1830, that judicatory was pub- 
 licly and vehemently criminated in The Philadel- 
 phian, before any member of the Presbytery ap- 
 peared publicly in its defence; and when the de- 
 fence did appear, it was in a pamphlet form, which 
 had a very limited circulation, and therefore could 
 hare but little influence, in counleractinorthe party 
 statements in his favour, which the flying sheets 
 of the Philadelphian carried into every part of the 
 country. Hence the dis'.ani Presbyteries were left 
 to elect their members, under all the prejudice 
 which they had imbibed from a one-sided view ot 
 the whole subject; and they sent members to the 
 Assembly pledjjed, in many instances, to vote fir 
 the acquittal ol Mr. Barnes. 
 
 It is clear that when one party, in an important 
 ecclesiastical trial not yet terminated, resort to 
 publications calculated to influence the popular 
 mind in their favour, they reduce their opponents 
 to the alternative of eiilier doinir the same, or by 
 refusinij lo do it. hiznrding the loss of their caune 
 in the courts of the church. Here, brethren, is ihe 
 reason and the hiiIp. reasun, that has <;iven rise to 
 the present address, and lo the determination to 
 send it abroad, as widely as may be found prac- 
 ticable. Those concerned in this measure would 
 gladly have remained silent, and siiflTered the ap- 
 peal of Mr. Barnes to irn up to the Assembly, 
 without publishin'/ a word in behalf of the Synod 
 that suspended him, if he and his friends had 
 adopted a similar course. But since we are con- 
 strained lo come before our fellow ('hristians and 
 fellow citizens, we shall embrace the opportunity 
 it affords to disabuse the public mind, in regard 
 to the whole case of Mr. Barnes; for notwith- 
 standing all the noise it has inade in our church, 
 and in our whole country, for five years past, we 
 are persuaded it is not correctly understood, by a 
 large part of Ihe community. Articles in ihe 
 public papers show, that it h-x* been regarded in 
 some places, particularly in those at a distance 
 from Philadelphia, as entirely a local affair, and 
 a mere dispute about words; a petty quarrel 
 among clergymen in ;ind about this city, which 
 they ought for their own credit's salie to hush up, 
 and no longer trouble the church and the country 
 with their unbecominif brawls and bickerings ; 
 especially that they should not continue unre- 
 lentingly to persecute, and interrupt the useful- 
 
 ness, of an able, pious and devoted minister of the 
 gospel. Now, to the whole of this, we plead not 
 Sfuiliy ; and we think we can show, to the satis- 
 faction of all who will give us an attentive and 
 candid hearing, that the case of Mr. Barnes is 
 one in which the whole Presbyterian church is 
 ijeeply concerned ; one that does vitally affect the 
 whole doctrinal system of this church; and that 
 the belief that it has been unnecessarily and 
 wrongfully brought forward and continued before 
 the public, is a belief founded altogether in error 
 — in error arising from the want of information in 
 many, from indifference to the entire subject in 
 a number, and from prejudice created by misre- 
 presentation, in not a few — to say nothing ofa 
 large number , who have deeply sympathised with 
 Mr. Barnes, because his errors are their own.* 
 We purpose, therefore, to give a succinct narra- 
 tive of the whole case of Mr. Barnes, from the 
 lime of his being called to settle in PI iladelphia ; 
 and parliculaily of what took place in relation to 
 him at the Synod, in which he was suspended 
 from the gospel ministry — We shall make a few 
 remarks as we proceed, and add a number at the 
 close of our statement. And we do earnestly en- 
 treat our readers to give us an attentive, impart 
 tial, and patient hearing. We are going to 
 speak of what we are intimately acquainted with; 
 of things of which we have a personal knowledge; 
 and we shall speak under an impressive sense of 
 the account we are shortly to render to the all 
 seeing and heart searching God, for not staling a 
 single thing,contrary to our conviction of its truth. 
 We make no pretensions to infallibility of judg- 
 ment or opinion, but for the simple verity of what 
 we stale as matter of fact, we do feel a deep and 
 solemn responsibility, 
 
 Mr. Barnes was an ordained and settled minis- 
 ter at Morristown, in New Jersey, at the time he 
 received a call, in the Spring of 1830, from the 1st 
 Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. When, in 
 accordance with the constitutional order of the 
 Presbyterian church, leave was asked to prose- 
 
 *VVe are aware that beside all these classes, tliere 
 has been a large one, composed of what have been call- 
 ed moderates, or peace men — men in the main truly 
 orthodox, who nevertheless huvc thoujrht that the 
 errors of Mr. Humes, and of those whose doctrinal 
 creed was similar to his, would best be corrected by 
 arjrumcntalive writing and oral discourse, and that 
 f'iirthcr than this, it would be the wiser course to let 
 them alone, and nnl disturb the pence of the church, 
 liy attcniplinfj to subject them to discipline — in time, 
 it was thought, they w.-)uld probably correct fhcm- 
 sclvcs. This class, wc are ready to believe, by what 
 ai)(>cnred in the last Gcncrul Aspcn)hly, has been much 
 diminished, within the last two or three years. The 
 jjood men who composed it, found, as we think, that 
 I he errors which they hud jud<rcd could be reasoned 
 down, or would die away of tlicuisclvcs, were rapidly 
 incrcasina:, both in iiuinhcr and in boldness, and rcallj 
 tbreatcnid to overwhelm the whole church. 
 
^ 
 
 cute this call, theorranling of the request was op- 
 posed by some members of the Presbytery; ^ul 
 after an ardent and protracted discussion, they 
 were found to be in a minority (Hie vole being for 
 granting leave "21, and against it 12) and the call 
 was accordingly proj>ecuted. Here was the origin 
 of the whole controversy in regard to Mr. Barnes, 
 which has since ensued — a controversy of which 
 the detail of only that part of it that took place in 
 the Presbytery and Synod of Philadelphia, before 
 il went up to the General Assembly, would far 
 exceed the limits of this address — only the prin- 
 cipal facts of the case, therefore, can be stated, 
 and this as summarily as a fair exhibition of the 
 truth will permit. 
 
 But before we proceed to this, we beg a par- 
 ticular attention to a few remarks on the loud cry 
 that has been raised — proclaiming that this whole 
 affair had its origin in a s[)irii of persecution and 
 bigotry. We ask, is there any eviden(^e of this? 
 Has any colourable proof of it, been ever fairly 
 submitted to the public'? We think an affirma- 
 tive answer to these questions will scarcely be 
 hazarded. Yet to justify the allegations that 
 have been made, there ought s'jrely to be. if not 
 palpable proof, at least strong and plausible pre- 
 sumptions, that they are warranted by the facts of 
 the case. But we think n can he shown to 
 the satisfaction of every candid mind, that every 
 presumption is opposed to the truth of these alle- 
 gations. At the time now contemplated, we do 
 not know, or believe, that Mr. Barnes had a per- 
 sonal enemy in the Presbytery — indeed if he has 
 one now, it is unknown to us. He was a stranger, 
 his whole theological education had been in ihe 
 Seminary at Princeton, the favourite institution 
 of those who opposed the prosecution of his call ; 
 there was not a single allegation against his mo- 
 ral character, and he was rejiresented as a young 
 man of eminent piety, whose labours had been 
 crowned with a remarkable revival of religion. 
 There was every thing, not only to exempt him 
 from persecution, but to make him a favourite 
 with every member of the Presbytery. Then, 
 again, the congregation calling him was the oldest 
 and wealthiest of the Presbyterian denomination 
 in the city ; and a number of its members were 
 of high standing, and of great influence among 
 their fellow citizens; and ihey were likely to be 
 greatly dissatisfied and disobliged, if the Presby- 
 tery should refuse them the pastor of their choice. 
 In these circumstances, the opposers of Mr. 
 Barnes' settlement in Phihidelphia, must have 
 been the strangest persecutors that ever existed 
 on earth, if it was a spirit of persecution that 
 prompted their opposition. No, verily, they knew 
 full well, that they were exposing themselves to 
 persecution — to liie persecution of the tongue, 
 and of a powerful influence, in every way in which 
 it could affect them, if they took the pait they 
 did lake. Seldom, when actual martyrdom was 
 not hazarded, were rnen called to deny them- 
 
 selves, more sensibly and severely, than did those 
 who voted to arrest the call which was prepared 
 f jr Mr. Barnes. Why then, it will be asksd, did 
 they endeavour to arrest it? The answer is ready; 
 and it is the only one whicti, with any show 
 of fairness or probability, can he triven. It 
 was to preserve a good conscience; it was 
 to fulfil their ordinalion vow, " to be zealous and 
 faithlul in maintaining the tfulhs of the anspel 
 and the purity and peace of the church, whatever 
 persecution or opposiiion may aris(^ unto you on 
 that account." Here was the true and only mo- 
 tive, which influenced th'^se who opposed the set- 
 tlement of Mr. Barnes. He had never preached 
 to the people who bad called him. and lie was not 
 present to afford the members of the Presbytery 
 an opportunity for any exaininatinn of. or conver- 
 saiioii with him, either as a judicatnrv, or as in- 
 dividuals. All the means of asceriaininor his the- 
 ological sentiments, on which they could safely 
 rely, consisted of a printed sermon, entitled " The 
 Way of vSalvatinn." His call by the conorega- 
 tion was chiefly grounded on this seruion, which 
 had been c-irculaied amono the people; and on 
 the favourable report of, we believe, three mem- 
 bers who h.ul visited bini. and heard him preach 
 at Morristown. This sermon, it was the solemn 
 and deep conviction of those in the Presbytery 
 who objected to forwarding his call, contained 
 fundamental errors — errors affecting the very vi- 
 tals of gospel truth, as set forth in our Confession 
 of Faith and Catechisms. What these errors 
 were, will be seen hereafter; but we sincerely be- 
 lieve that no pains or penalties whatever, could 
 have induced those who opposed the call, to vole 
 for its being approved and sent. The authorship 
 of this sermon, let it be well noted, formed, in the 
 minds of a number of the Presbytery, the single, 
 but insurmountable obstacle, to the reception of 
 Mr. Barnes as a fellow-member, and investing 
 him with the pastoral office, over a people for 
 whose spiritual welfare the Presbytery were 
 bound to watch, under a fearful responsibility for 
 their fidelity to the Great Head of the Church. 
 
 We proceed with our narrative. Mr. Barnes 
 accepted llie call which was sent him, and came 
 to Philadelphia, bringing with him Ihe nsual cer- 
 lificaie of good standing, in the Presbyterv which 
 he left. When that of Philadelphia met for his 
 reception, and to lake measures for his installa- 
 tion, thos6 who had opposed his call, insi-^ted ou 
 their right to question him. in regard to his doc- 
 trinal sentiments, and pleaded truly, that Ibi? had 
 been admiiied. in previous debate, as proper, be- 
 fore his adiiiis<ion to fellowship as a member of 
 Ihe Presbytery. But every idea of this kind was 
 now most determinalely resisted, both bv himself 
 and by those by whom his cause wa« advocated. 
 The ground taken by Ihem was, ihat his good 
 standing in the Presbytery which he left, placed 
 him in the sairie standing in the Presbytery to 
 which he had come; and the motion thai had been 
 
made to examine him, after much and ardent de- 
 bate, was negatived, 18 voting for it, and 20 
 against it. A proposition to table charges against 
 him, founded on the false doctrine of his sermon, 
 was overruled as out of order. A proposition to 
 lemit him for examination to the Presbytery of 
 Eiizabethtown, from which he had come, was ne- 
 gatived ; although ihis had been pieviously indi- 
 cated, by some of the majority, as the propercourse; 
 and the final vole to receive him was carried, 
 30 voting for it, and 16 against it. — His installa- 
 tion took place a few days afterwards. It ought 
 to be mentioned, that on one occasion (it is not 
 recollected whether it was immediately before or 
 after the final vote) Mr. Barnes rose and stated, 
 that although he had resisted ihe right to question 
 him, yet he would voluntarily make sooie expla- 
 nation of his doctrinal views. Yet in doing this, 
 ii is believed he did not occupy the floor for more 
 than five minutes ; and did not, and indeed in that 
 time could not, make any explanation that was 
 definite, or in any degree satisfactory. 
 
 In the meeting of the Synod of Philadelphia in 
 the city of Lancaster, the last week of October, 
 about four months after the installation of Mr. 
 Barnes, the minority of the Presbytery who had 
 resisted that measure, preferred a complaint, in 
 which they staled it as a grievance to themselves, 
 and as dangerous to the purity and stability of the 
 Church, that a man was received into their fel- 
 lowship, and installed in a congregation for whose 
 spiritual welfare they, as a part of the Presbytery, 
 were bound to act the part of guardians, without 
 their being permitted to ask him a single ques- 
 tion, relative to his soundness in the faith ; al- 
 though this soundness had been, in their judg- 
 ment, rendered exceedingly questionable, by a 
 sermon which he had preached and published, and 
 which had been circulated among the people over 
 whom he was now plaeed as a pastor. The Sy- 
 nod spent nearly two days in hearing the parties, 
 and in subsequent deliberations on the case. 
 Every thing was conducted with great order, and 
 strict impartiality. Mr. Barnes read before the 
 Synod a long and elaborate paper, in defence of 
 himself, and in explanation of what had been re- 
 presented as the objectionable parts of his sermon. 
 One noticeable incident during this trial, ought 
 rot to be passed over in silence. A member of 
 Synod addressed to Mr. Barnes the following in- 
 terrogatory, and tiK-arly in the tollowing words : 
 " Mr. Barnes-rr-lt is sintod in one of the answer.^ 
 of our Shorter (/aiuihiism. that • The sinfulness 
 of that eriiate whefeinio man fell consists in the 
 guilt of Adam's first sin. the want of original 
 righteousness, and the corrujition of his whole 
 nature, whioh is comiiionly called original &in,* — 
 Mr. Barnes, do \(>\i believe this !" Answer — '• I 
 do not." 'I'hns, in the fare of ihe Synod, he ex- 
 plicitly denied one of the fninlainenial doctrines 
 of our public Standards. The result of this trial 
 iii lhu8 recorded in the miuuleji of the Syttod-^ 
 
 ♦' The Synod having considered the subject of the 
 complaints preferred by some of the members of 
 the Presbytery of Philadelphia, relative to the 
 proceedings of said Presbytery in the case of the 
 Rev. A. Barnes, and heard the parties in the case, 
 cone to the following resolutions, viz :^ 
 
 1. Resolved, That the Presbytery of Philadel- 
 phia, in not allowing the examination of Mr. 
 Barnes in connection with his printed sermon, 
 previously to his reception as a member of Pre»- 
 bytery, and especially before his installation as 
 pastor of the first Presbyterian Church, gave just 
 ground of complaint to the minority. 
 
 2. Resolved, That the complainants be refeTfed 
 back to the Presbytery of which they are mem- 
 bers, with an injunction to that Presbytery, to 
 hear and decide on their objections to the ortho- 
 doxy of the sermon of Mr. Barnes, and to take 
 such order on the whole subject, as is required 
 by a regard to the purity of the church, and its 
 acknowledged doctrines and order." — The ayes 
 and noes were called on these resolutions, when 
 it appeared that on the first resolution, the ayes 
 were 30, and the noes 8. On the second resolu- 
 tion the ayes were 28 and the noes 10. — As all 
 the members of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, 
 being parties in this trial, had no vote on the 
 foregoing resolutions, the large majorities in fa- 
 vour of the eon>plainants, show whAt was the 
 prevalent o in)on of their brethren, after a full, 
 fair, and patient hearing, of both the parlies con- 
 cerned. It must also be noted and remembered, 
 in order to understand the subsequent proceedings, 
 that after the decision of the Synod, the preceding 
 majority and minority, in the Presbytery of Phi- 
 ladelphia, changed places — what had been the 
 majority, and the supporters of Mr. Barn«8, r>ow 
 became the minority ; and the minority, that had 
 opposed his reception, now becante a decided ma- 
 jority. Does not this prove that the more his 
 case was examined, the more untenable it was 
 found ? 
 
 In compliance with the resolutions of Synodv a 
 meeting of the Presbytery,/>rore nata, was called 
 for the trial of Mr. Barnes. It was probably at- 
 tended more numerously than any other meeting 
 of this Presbytery that ever coihvened. It con- 
 sisted of 59 members, 35 ministers, and 24 elders. 
 Tiie variety of shifw and evasions which were 
 practised by the friends of Mr. Barnes, to prevent 
 the examination of the points of false d^etrine 
 contained in his sermon, we shall ruH attempt lo 
 detail. We never witnessed any thing ljk» it, till 
 the last meeting of our Synod; when the same 
 party reacted the same scenes, with some modifica- 
 tions, adapted to the circumstaiices of th<; occasion. 
 The great plea was, that it was uncousitu-tional to 
 examine and pronounce an opinion on thi.<^sermon, 
 without tabling charges against the aulkor., and 
 suhjeciiHg him to a regular trial — a position, it will 
 be remembered, that the last General Assembly 
 virtually condemned, by expounding the constttuf 
 
lion exactly as the majority did, at the time of this 
 trial; that is, by declaring that it is proper, and 
 may be expedient, to examine and decide on the 
 doctrines of a publication, before the commence- 
 ment of any prosecution against the author.* 
 But the friends of Mr. Barnes entered a formal 
 protest against this procedure; and he read a 
 paper, requesting that he might be put on trial, on 
 the specification of formal charges. Yet, when 
 charges were offered to be tabled) against him, 
 before his installation, his friends, then a ma- 
 jority, overruled the proposition. But the Sy- 
 nod having now expressly enjoined " the Pres- 
 bytery to hear and decide on their objections 
 [those of the complainants] to the orthodoxy of the 
 sermon of Mr. Barnes, and to take such order on 
 the whole subject as is required by a regard to the 
 purity of the Church, and its acknowledged doc- 
 trines and order," a strict obedience to this injunc- 
 tion was impracticable, without examining and 
 deciding on the orthodoxy of this publication. 
 Whether a prosecution of the author should, or 
 should not, be commenced, was to be decided 
 afterwards. But the friends of Mr. Barnes, when 
 it was ultimately determined to examine the ser- 
 mon as the primary proceeding, declared they 
 would neither speak nor vote on the case; and Mr. 
 Barnes asked and obtained leave to withdraw, al- 
 though earnestly requested to remain, and to give 
 every explanation he might think proper, on any 
 part of his sermon, as it passed under review — 
 but he was inflexible, and left the Presbytery. 
 
 We shall now give the result of the scrutiny 
 into the orthodoxy of this far famed sermon ; and 
 we do hope, although the document is of consider- 
 able length, that our readers will do themselves, 
 as well as us, the justice, to inspect narrowly every 
 article, point by point, and judge for themselves, 
 whether it be possible to reconcile the fairly 
 quoted passages of Mr. Barnes' discourse, with 
 the quotations from the doctrinal Standards of the 
 Presbyterian Church, with which they are con- 
 trasted — to see and judge, not merely whether the 
 quotations do not differ, but whether they are not 
 directly opposite and contradictory, and this on vi- 
 tal and fundamental points. The final decision 
 was as follows viz- 
 
 FINAL DECISION. 
 
 "The Presbytery of Philadelphia, agreerbly to 
 the direction of the Synod at (heir recent meeting 
 in Lancaster, having considered the>ermon of the 
 Revd. Albert Barnes, entitled the Way of Salva- 
 tion, are of the opinion that it contains specula- 
 lions of dangerous tendency, on some of the prin- 
 cipal points in Christian theology, and ought not 
 therefore to be sanctioned as expressing that 
 
 * As the minutes of the Assembly are not yet pub- 
 lished, we cannot give llie very words ot the decision; 
 but its purport we arc confident we have given cor- 
 ructly. 
 
 view of the great truths of God's word, which the 
 Presbyterian Church has uniformly adopted, and 
 which is exhibited in their authorised Confession 
 of Faith. 
 
 Tn stating the doctrine of original sin, the au- 
 thor employs a phraseology which is calculated 
 to mislead, and which appears evidently to con- 
 flict with the spirit and letter of the standards of 
 the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 1. He denies that the posterity of Adam are re- 
 ponsible or answerable for Adam's first sin, 
 which he committed as the federal head of his 
 race. Thus, p. 6, " Christianity does not charge 
 on men crimes of which they are not guilty. It 
 does not say, as I suppose, that the sinner is held 
 to be personally answerable for the transgressions of 
 Adam, or of any other man,''^ 
 
 Although the word transgsessions is here used 
 plurally, yet it is evident from the whole tenor of 
 this division of the discourse, that the prime sin 
 of Adam, which constituted his apostacy from 
 God, is meant. Again, he says, p. 7, "Neither 
 the facts, nor any proper inference from the facts 
 affirm, that I am in either case personally responsi- 
 ble for ivhat another man (referinj to Adam) did 
 before I had an existence.''^ And he explicitly de- 
 clares, that if God had charged upon mankind 
 such a responsibility, it would have been clearly 
 unjust, vide p. 6. The doctrine of responsibility 
 here impugned is clearly expressed. Ccn. of F. 
 chap. vi. 6. " Every sin, both original and actoal, 
 being a transgression of the righteous law of God 
 and contrary thereunto, doth in its own nature 
 bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound 
 over to the wrath of God and curse of the law, aad 
 so made subject to death, with all miseries spirit- 
 ual, temporal and eternal." 
 
 2. In accordance with the above doctrine, that 
 mankind are not responsible for Adam's sin, he 
 affirms, p. 7, that "Christianity affirms the fact, 
 that in connection with the sin of Adam, or as a 
 result, all moraUagents will sin, and sinning will 
 die." And then proceeds to explain the principle 
 upon which the universality of sin is to be ac- 
 counted for, by reprevsenling it to be the reault of 
 Adam's sin, in the same sense, as the misery of a 
 drunkard's family is the result of his intempe- 
 rance. Here it would seem, the author mnintains 
 that the same rt'lationship subsists between every 
 man and his family, as subsisted between Adam 
 and his posterity ; that the same principle of mo- 
 ral government applies to both cases alike, or in 
 other words, that mankind hold no other relation- 
 ship to Auam, than that of children to a natural 
 progenitor. 
 
 The public federal or rppresentaiive character of 
 Adam is thus denied, contrary to the explicit 
 statement in the answer to the 22 Q. of Larg. Cat. 
 '*The covenant being made with Adam as a pub- 
 lic person, not for himself only, but for his pos- 
 terity ; all mankind descending from him t>y ordi- 
 
6 
 
 nary generation sinned in him, and fell with him, 
 in that first transgression." 
 
 3. He declares, p. 7. that " the notion of imput- 
 ing 9in is an invention of modern limes," contrary 
 to Con. of F. Chap. vi. 3, "They being the root 
 of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, 
 and the same deaih in sin and corrupted nature 
 conveyed to all their posterity, descending from 
 them by ordinary generation." 
 
 4. In p. 5, he admits that his language on the 
 subject of orijrinal sin differs from that used by the 
 Confession of Faith on the same subject, and 
 then accounts for this difference, on the ground of 
 the difficulty of affixing any clear and definite 
 meaning to the expresj,ion " we sinned in him and 
 fell toilhhim." This expression he considers, as 
 far as it is capable of interpretation, as " intended 
 to convey the idea, not that the sin of Adam is im- 
 puted to us, or set over to our account, but that 
 there was a personal identity constituted between 
 Adam and his posterity, so that it was really our 
 act, and ours onhj, after all, that is chargeable on 
 us. 
 
 The whole of this statement is exceedingly in- 
 cautious and improper. The language \ the 
 Confession of Faith on one of the 'cardinal doc- 
 trines is held up as obscure and unintelligible, or, 
 if possessing any meaning, as expressing an ab- 
 surdity. The framcrs of this confession ate 
 charged with the absurdity of maintaining the 
 personal identity between Adam and his posterity, 
 when their language conveys no more than a 
 federal or representative relationship. This whole 
 view of the doctrine of original sin, is, in the 
 opinion of the Presbytery, obscure, perplexed, 
 fruitful of dangerous consequences, and therefore, 
 censurable. 
 
 The statements of this sermon on the doctrine 
 of Atonement, are also, in the opinion of Presby- 
 tery, in some important features, erroneous, and 
 contrary to the orthodox views. 
 
 I. At p. 11. He says " this atonement was for 
 all men. It was an offering made for the race. It 
 had not respect so much to individuals, as to the 
 law and perfections of God. It was an opening 
 of the way of pardon, a making forgiveness con"^ 
 sisteiit, a preservation of truth, a rnagnifyinsj of 
 the law, and had no particular reference to any 
 class of men." 
 
 Here it is denied that tlie atonem-^nt had any 
 special relation to tlie elect, which it had not also 
 to the non-elect. IJui if it be true that the atone- 
 ment offered by ("hrist. had no "respect to indi- 
 viduals," "no particular relerence to any class 
 of men," upon what principle can it be regarded 
 as a satisfaction to divine justice for the sins of 
 rnen ? or in what proper sense ran (Christ be con- 
 sidered as a vicarious sacrifice ? unless the atone- 
 ment he a satisfaction for the sins of individuals. 
 upon what principle can it open the way of par- 
 don, make forgiveness consistent, preserve truth 
 or majjnify the law? The special reference ol 
 
 the atonement to a chosen people, in opposition 
 to this view, is taught Con. of F. cap. viii. 5. 
 " The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and 
 sacrifice of himself, which he, through the Eter- 
 nal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully 
 satisfied the justice of his Father, and purchased 
 not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inherit- 
 ance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those 
 whom the Father had given unto him." Again, 
 in answer to Q, 44 L. C. " Christ executeth the 
 office of a Priest in his once offering himself a 
 sacrifice without spot to God, to be zT reconcilia- 
 tion for the sins of his people," &c. 
 
 2. At p. 11. He says " the atonement of itself 
 secured the salvation of no one;" and again "The 
 atonement secured the salvation of no olie, except 
 as God had promised his Son that he should see 
 of the travail of his soul, and except on the con- 
 dition of repentance and faith." This language 
 is incautious and calculated to mislead; as it 
 seems to imply that the atonement of itself does 
 not secure its own application, and therefore may, 
 by possibility, fail in its design. It is improper 
 to suspend its eflicacy upon conditions, when the 
 conditions themselves are the results of its effi- 
 cacy, see Con. of F. chap. viii. 8. " To all those 
 for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he 
 doth certainly and effectually apply and commu- 
 nicate the same ; making intercession for them, 
 and revealing unto them, in and by the word, the 
 mysteries of salvation ; effectually persuading 
 them by his Spirit to believe and obey," &c. 
 
 3. At p. 10. He unequivocally denies that 
 Christ endured the penalty of the law. " He did 
 not indeed endure the penalty of the law, for his 
 sufferings were not eternal, nor did he endure re- 
 morse of conscience; but he endured so much 
 suffering, bore so much agony, that the Father 
 was pleased to accept of it, in the place of the 
 eternal torments of all that should be saved." 
 Here it seems to be inculcated that Christ did not 
 satisfy the precise claims which a violated law 
 had upon the sinner, but that he did what might 
 be considered a substitute for such satisfaction; 
 or it is implied that God remitted or waived the 
 original claim, and accepted of something less. 
 And that this is the sentiment of the aullior, is 
 evident from his language p. 11. "Christ's suf- 
 ferings were severe, more severe than those of 
 any mortal before or since ; but they bore, do far 
 as we can see, only a very distant resemblance to 
 the pains of hell, the proper penalty of the law. 
 Nor is it possible to conceive that the sufferings 
 of a/cti' Aour.i, however severe, could equal pains, 
 thoufjh far less intense, eternally prolonged. Still 
 less that the sufferings of human natuie in a sin- 
 gle instance, for the divine nature could not suf- 
 fer, should be equal to the eternal pain of many 
 millions." Here it is affirmed that Christ was 
 not capable of enduring that penalty which the 
 justice of God had exacted of the sinner, that his 
 sufferings bore a very distant reaeixtblance to it. 
 
and by consequence that the penalty of the law 
 has been either relaxed or ia yet unpaid, and that 
 the justice of God has waived its original demand, 
 or is yet unsatisfied. 
 
 The whole of this lanjuage seems derogatory 
 to Christ as an all sufficient Redeemer ; it judges 
 of the human nature of Christ as if it were a com- 
 mon human nature, it leaves out of view the infi- 
 nite support which the divine nature was capable 
 of imparting to the human nature of Christ, and 
 is very different from the view of this subject 
 given by the framers of our standards, in the an- 
 swer to the 38 Q, of L. C. "It was requisite 
 that the Mediator should be God, that he might 
 sustain and keep the human nature from sinking 
 under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of 
 death; give worth and efficacy to his sufTerings, 
 obedience and intercession ; and to satisfy God's 
 justice," &c. &c. 
 
 In discoursing on human ability, the sermon 
 contains expressions which do not seem to be 
 well judged. In p. 14, it is said, "it is not to 
 any want of physical strength that this rejection 
 is owing, for men have power enough in them- 
 selves, to hate both God and their fellow men, 
 and it requires less physical power to love God 
 than to hate him ;" and on the same page he re- 
 presents man's inability as solely in the will ; and 
 on p. 30, that men are not saved simply because 
 they will not be saved. Here physical ability is 
 represented as competent to the performance of a 
 moral action, which is an improper application of 
 terms, and human inability as resulting merely 
 from the will, and not from total depravity, which 
 is contrary to Confession Faith, chap. vi. 4. " From 
 this original corruption, whereby we are utterly 
 indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all 
 good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed 
 all actual transgressions," and Confession of 
 Faith, chap. ix. 3. " Man, by his fall, into a state 
 of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any 
 spiritual good accompanying salvation, so, as a 
 natural man being altogether averse from that 
 which is good, and dead to sin, is not able by his 
 own sirpnirih. to convert himself, or to prepare 
 himself tiif-re-unlo." 
 
 Still furilier, the language of the sermon, on 
 the subject of conformity to the standards of the 
 church, if sanctioned, would give to every indivi- 
 dual, after adopting these standards, the liberty of 
 dissenting from them as much, and as often, as he 
 might desire. Thus p. 6 he says, " It is not de- 
 nied that this language varies from the statements 
 which are often made on thi.s subject, and from 
 the o|)inion which has been entertained by many. 
 And, it is admitted, that it does not accord with 
 that used on the same subject in the Confession 
 of Faith, and other standards of doctrine." And 
 again, p. 12. " The great principle on which the 
 author supposes the truths of religion are to be 
 preached, and on which he endeavours to act is, 
 that the Bible is to be interpreted by all the ho- 
 
 nest helps within the reach of the preacher, and, 
 then procaimed as it is, let it lead where it will, 
 within, or without the circumference of any ar-' 
 rangement of doctrines. He is supposed to be 
 responsible, not at all for its impinging on any 
 theological system ; nor is he to be cramped by 
 any frame work of Faith that has been reared 
 around the Bible." This language would seem 
 to imply, that an individual may enter the bosom 
 of a church by a public reception of its creed, and 
 continue in the communion of thut church, al- 
 though he should subsequently discover that its 
 creed was not founded on the word of God. 
 Whilst the liberty of every man to accept or re- 
 ject any particular creed, is fully acknowledged 
 by this Presbytery, yet they do deny, that any 
 minister, whilst he remains in the communion of 
 the Presbyterian Church, has a rioht to impuirn 
 its creed, or to make a public declaration that he 
 18 not bound by lis authority. 
 
 In^n^y a, whole view o\' this di-scourse seems to 
 warrant the belief, that the grand and fundamen- 
 tal doctrine of justification, as held by the Protes- 
 tant Reformers, and taught clearly and abundant- 
 ly in the standards of the Presbyterian Church, is 
 really not held, but denied in this sermon. For 
 the imputation of Adam's sin is denied; and the 
 endurance of the penalty of the law by Christ, is 
 denied; and any special reference of the atone- 
 ment to the elect of God, is denied ; and the right- 
 eousness of Christ as the meritorious ground of 
 our acquittal and acceptance with God, is not once 
 mentioned, although the text ot the discourse 
 naturally points to the doctrine : and when it is 
 considered that the imputation of Adam's first sin 
 to his posterity, and the imputation of the sins of 
 God's people to their surety Saviour, and the im- 
 putation of his finished righteousness to them, do 
 all rest upon the same ground, and must all stand 
 or fall together, and that it has been found in fact, 
 that those who deny one of these, do generally 
 deny the whole, and to be consistent, must neces- 
 sarily do so, it is no forced conclusion, but one 
 which seems inevitable, that the sermon does really 
 reject the doctrine of justification, as held by the 
 Reformers, and as taught in our Confession of 
 Faith and Catechisms ; that it does not teach as 
 the answer to the question on justification in our 
 Shorter Catechism asserts, that "Justification is an 
 act of God's free grace, wherein he par.Honeth all 
 our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his 
 sigkL, only for the righteousness of Christy imputed 
 to us, and received by faith alone.'* 
 
 It is not satisfactory, that the sermon says, that 
 " Christ died in the place of sinners ;" that it 
 speaks of" the merits of the Son of God, the Lord 
 Jesus Christ"— of '^ the love of Christ," of " put- 
 ting on the Lord Jesus Christ," of being " willing 
 to drop into the hands of Jesus, and to be saved by 
 his merit alone," ofGod, "sprinkling on the soul 
 the blood of Jesus, and freely pardoning all its 
 sins," einee this language may be used, and is ac* 
 
8 
 
 tually used, by some who explicitly deny, that 
 Christtook the law place ot'sinners, bore the curse 
 of God's law in their room and stead, and that they 
 are saved only by the imputation to then:> of his 
 perfect rinrhteoiuyiess. 
 
 On the whole, the Pret^bytery express their 
 deep regret, that Mr. Barnes should have preached 
 and published a discourse, so hisrhly objectionable, 
 and so manifestly, in some of its leading points, 
 opposed to the doctrines of the Confession of Faith 
 and Catechisms of the Presbyterian Ciiurch; ihey 
 earnestly recommend lo Mr. Barnes, to reconsider 
 and renounce the ernwieous matter contained in 
 his printed seniKm, &.< specified in the foregoing 
 decisions of Presbytery : nnd with a view toafliird 
 time to Mr. Barnes tor retlection ami reconsidera- 
 tion, in reference to the errors of his sermon, and 
 for opportunity tor such of the brethren, as may 
 choose to converse freely with him on tlie subject, 
 the Presbytery do suspt^nd tiieir final decision (Mi 
 the case, until their ne.\l slated meeting." 
 
 It was then moved by Mr. Engles, "that 
 Dr. Green, Mr. M'Calla, and Mr. Latta, be a 
 committee to wait on Mr. Barnes, to communicate 
 to him the result of the deliberations of this Pres- 
 bytery in the e.xauiination of his sermon, and to 
 converse with him freely and atfectionately, on the 
 points excepted to in that sermon ; in the hope 
 and expectation, that the interview will result in 
 removing or diminishing the difficulties which 
 have arisen in his c.ise ; and that they report at 
 the next meeting of Presbytery." 
 
 Let candour say, whether the spirit of persecu- 
 tion is discoverable in this award of Presbytery. 
 Is not its whole lanjiuage, manner, and substance, 
 marked with moderaiion. caution, and even kind- 
 ness 1 Can it be denied that the quotaiioiis are 
 fairly made from the sermon 1 and if fairly made, 
 what orthodox man will say that they did not de- 
 mand aniraadverlion 1 and in what form, we ask, 
 could animadversion be more tenderly expressed] 
 On the other hand, can any thing be more evident, 
 than that evasions, from first lo last, were 
 practised, to prevent the bringing of the doctrines 
 of the sermon to a fair comparison with what is 
 set forth in the Standards of the church. 
 
 We wish to add here, thai those who are desi- 
 rous to understand the whole case of Mr. Barnes, 
 will do well to mark atienlively, the objectionable 
 points of doctrine in his sermon, as staled in the 
 decision of the Pieshyiery. They will be found 
 to be the very same, which we shall show, are 
 prominent in his notes on the Romans, for which 
 he is now under suspension by the Synod. — There 
 is indeed more in the notes than in the sermon, 
 but the most objectionable points are the same in 
 both. Hence il appears, that after the space of 
 five years for review and reconsideration, he ad- 
 heres steadfastly to the unsound doctrinal errors 
 he has adopted Time has only served to con- 
 firm him in ihem, and to determine him, at all 
 h»Eard«, lo teach, publish, and endeavour to dif- 
 
 fuse them, as extensively as possible. Scarcely 
 a hope is left that he will either change them, or 
 forbear to propagate ihem lo the utmost of his 
 abiliiy. Will this be permitted in the Presbyte- 
 rian church] The next General Assembly will 
 decide the important question. 
 
 'I'o return to oiir narrative. The committee ap- 
 pointed by the Presbytery to converse with Mr. 
 Barnes " freely and affectionately, on the points 
 excepted to in his sermon," allempted to perform 
 the duty assigned them. They went together lo 
 ihe study of Mr. Barnes; but alter receiving them 
 courteously, lie refused to hold any conversation 
 with ihem as a committee, on the subject of their 
 appointment, but said he would be willing lo con- 
 verse with ihern as individuals in private. After 
 reinaininji with him about an hour, when l.iey 
 rose to depart, he delivered to them a paper, in 
 which he had staled in writing the ground of his 
 refu,sal ; which was, in substance, thai he consi- 
 dered the whole proceedings of the Presbytery in 
 his case, since the decision of the Synod, as un- 
 constitutional, and Iherefore could do no act that 
 might seem to imply its legality. The committee 
 made their report lo the Presbytery, and delivered 
 in Mr. Barnes' written answer, al the stated meet- 
 ing in April, 1831, After much discussion, it 
 was resolved, thai without farther action on the 
 case of Mr. Barnes al that time, it should be re- 
 ferred, together with several points of constitu- 
 tional Older, which the discussion on his case 
 had elicited, to the General Assembly, which 
 was to sit in the following month. 
 
 To prevent the members of the Presbytery 
 who now formed the majority, from retaining 
 Iheir representation in the Assembly, lo which 
 they would have been entitled if the case had 
 gone up merely as a reterence, the New School 
 members contrived (for it really required con- 
 trivance) lo connect with the reference two or 
 three complaints, against the proceedings in the 
 mailers referred ; thus giving to the whole the 
 character of a case demanding a judicial process, 
 and of course depriving the Presbytery, as a par- 
 ty, of a vote on the merits of the question, in the 
 court of the last resort. The manner in which 
 the New School majority of this Assembly was 
 secured, has already been indicated ; and most 
 faithfully did that majority act the part for which 
 they were chosen. .After regularly consliluling 
 the court, for the trial in which the complainants 
 had made Mr. Barnes a party on the one side, and 
 the Presbytery a party on the other, they heard 
 the voluminous documents which related to the 
 case; and when those were finished, the repre- 
 sentatives of the Presbytery were surprised with 
 a proposal from their opponents, to leave the cas& 
 to the decision of the court, without argument. 
 A liille time was asked lo deliberate on this pro- 
 position, but the Moderator, Dr. Beman, declared 
 that none could be allowed — the decision must b» 
 made without delay : and thus, taken by surprise. 
 
the Presbyteriul representatives (indiscreetly as 
 we liiink) consented to submit the case to the 
 court without argunnent. As soon as this looit 
 place, a ntjotiou, which had pieviotioly been made 
 ■without success, was renewed, which was, to 
 pubnnil the whole case to a comnoiilee. This com- 
 mittee the Moderator forthwith appointed, putting 
 on it one of the Connecticut delegation, a resident 
 of New Haven. 
 
 In the appointment of this committee, it will be 
 observed, there was a total departure from the 
 usual course in a judicial process; and this de- 
 parture was still more flagrant, when the com- 
 iriittee reported. Although the constitution of 
 the church expressly requires, that in cases 
 of appeal "the clerk shall call the roll, that 
 every member may have an opportunity to ex- 
 press his opinion of the case," this provision 
 was totally disregarded. The roll was not call- 
 ed, and all discussion on the report of the com- 
 mittee was discouraged by the Moderator, and 
 nothing of the kind took place. The resolutions 
 of the committee were adopted almost without re- 
 mark, and entirely without amendment. Thus. 
 after a regular trial was commenced, in place of 
 being carried through, it was dropped ; and this 
 without the consent, and contrary to the wishes of 
 the Presbytery. The Assembly converted itself 
 into a body, resembling the associations of the 
 Congregational churches in New England: and 
 this was boasted of, in a publication issued by 
 the member from New Haven, in reply to some 
 remarks which had been published, on the impro- 
 priety of his appointment as a member of this 
 committee. Along with much in the same style, 
 he tauntingly says : " 1 could not but ask within 
 myself, what is this lauded system of power and 
 jurisdiction worth — these judicatures, court rising 
 above court, in regular gradation what are they 
 worth, if you are afraid to try your system in the 
 hour of need 1 . . . . And when the Assembly 
 and the parties* at last acceded to that proposal, 
 1 supposed that the general conviction was, that 
 it was best to go to work on that occasion, in 
 something like the Congregrational way, rather 
 
 were evaded altogether ; »• the committee being of 
 the opinion that, if ihey be answered, they had 
 better be discussed and decided in t/icsi, separate 
 from the case of Mr. Barnes." And why, we 
 ask," separate Irom the case of Mr. Barnes." Could 
 a just answer to constitutional questions affect. Mr. 
 Barnes ] Yes, and for that reason, beyond a 
 question, they were waived at (his time. Several 
 of them have since been decided, so as to show 
 that if they had been answered, in connection 
 with the pending case of disfipljne. they would 
 have affected it very materially. 'J'wo of these 
 questions were never answered, till the last As- 
 sembly. One related lo the constitutional right 
 of a Presbytery to examine a member applying 
 for admission, and bringing with him a certificate 
 of good standing with the Presbytery which he 
 has left. — The other was, whether it is constitu- 
 tional to examine and pronounce on a publication, 
 without, when practicable, commencing a prose- 
 cution, in the first instance, against tire author. 
 The following were the resolutions pass^ed in 
 the case of Mr. Barnes : 
 
 " 1. Resolved, That the Genera! Asiemhiy, while it 
 appreciates the conscientious zeal for the purity of the 
 church, by whicli the Presbytery of Philadelphia is 
 believed to have been actuated, iu its proceedings in the 
 case of Mr. Barnes; and while it judges that the ser- 
 mon by Mr. Barnes, entitled, ' The Way of Salvation,' 
 contaiuH a number of unguarded and objectionable pas- 
 sages; yet is of the opinion, that, especially after the 
 explanations which were given by him of those pas- 
 sages, the Presbytery ought to have suffered the whole 
 to pass without further notice. 
 
 "2. Resolved, That in the judgment of this Assem- 
 bly, the Presbytery of Philadelphia ought to suspend 
 all further proceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes. 
 
 " 3. Kesolved, That it will be expedient, as soon as 
 the regular steps can be taken, to divide the Presby- 
 tery in such way, as will be best calculated to promote 
 the peace of the ministers and cimrches belonfrino- to 
 the Presbytery." ° " 
 
 We wish it may be noticed and remembered, 
 that even in these lesolutions, passed by a New 
 School General Assembly, the belief of that As- 
 sembly is explicitly declared, that in "the 
 
 than in the Presbyterian way." Reproaches that I!"^^ ' ^V"," ':'"^, o^^.areo, ina m " the pro- 
 can neither be denied or repelled, are more griev- "f '1 of Mr p ''^^ - ?. of Philadelphia, in 
 „..„ „„.j .^.w;f..:„„ .k...L„,uL „„j :„.!...:- the case of Mr. Barnes." that Presbytery were 
 
 actuated by " a conscientious zeal for the purity 
 of the church." This, surely, is something a 
 good deal difl'erent from a spirit of persecution 
 and bigotry. We wish another circumstance may 
 
 ous and mortifying than any other, and into this 
 predicament the Assembly of 1831, had, in the 
 case of Mr. Barnes, placed themselves, and the 
 constitution nf ihe church which they represented. 
 Several quesiions, relative to the construction of 
 the constitution, in which not only the Presbytery 
 of Philadelphia, but every other Presbytery in the 
 church, were deeply interested, were at this lime, 
 referred for decision to the Assembly. These 
 
 * This is incorrect. One of the parties, the repre- 
 sentation of the Presbytery, never acceded to the pro- 
 posal to have their case determined in the way it was 
 issued. On the contrary, they felt deeply aggrieved by 
 being deprived of a regular trial, according to the ex 
 press provision of the constitution. 
 
 be noted in these resolutions; and that is, that 
 Mr. Barnes, although prosecution against him 
 was arrested, got a hint, which it were well if he 
 had remembered, whetv be wrote his Notes on the 
 Epistle to the Romans. The hint is, that the As- 
 sembly "judged that the sermon of Mr. Barnes, 
 entitled 'The Way of Salvation,' contained a 
 number of unguarded and objectionable pas- 
 sages." ^ 
 
 We go OB with our narrative. With some re- 
 ference to the last of the foregoing resoiationa, 
 
10 
 
 Ihe Presbytery of Philadelphia, at their first sla- 
 ted meeting after the rising of the Assembly, de- 
 termined, by a considerable majority, to divide 
 the Presbytery, much as it has sincebeen divided, 
 by the line of Market street. The New School 
 members of the Presbytery were not content with 
 this; and if we rightly recollect, pleaded, as we 
 think they might, that such a division as the ma- 
 jority petitioned for, would not fulfil the intention 
 ofthe Assembly, in their last resolution. In a word, 
 here was the origin o\' elective Presbyteries, and the 
 name which one of the New School members 
 then gave them. These members, therefore, got 
 up a counter petition to the Synod, requesiinw a 
 division that would pui them altogether into a 
 Presbytery by themselves. Both these peiitions 
 were brought before the Synod, which very 
 shortly afterward met in Baltimore ; but the Sy- 
 nod, after an animated and prolonrjed discussion, 
 determined not to grant the prayer of either of the 
 petitions, and that the Presbytery should remain 
 as it was, without a division. Of this the New 
 School members complained to the Assembly, and 
 petitioned that body lo do what the Synod had 
 refused. The Assembly of 1832, to which the 
 complaint and petition were addressed, was the 
 most numerous that ever met in our church, con- 
 sisting of 320 members — both parties having la- 
 boured, throtigh the preceding year, to bring out 
 all their sirenuih. Alter a debate which was con- 
 tinued through a whole week, the New School 
 petition for an elective Presbytery, was granted; 
 including not only those who had petitioned the 
 Synod, but several who never before had peti- 
 tioned any judicatory on this subject. So that 
 the Assembly, after granting what the Synod 
 had refused, acted a3 a court of original juris- 
 diction, having the power to divide and form 
 Presbyierie*, This was believed by the Synod, | 
 and by many not of the Synod, to be plainly 
 unconstitutional; since the constitution gives 
 to the Synod the power "to erect new Pres- 
 byteries, and unite or divide those which were 
 before erected," and it specifies no such powers 
 as belonging lo the General Assembly. The doc- 
 trine contended for by the opposers of the elective 
 affinity Presbytery was, that when a constitution 
 or law, either civil or ecclesiasiical, specifies cer- 
 tain powers as belonging to a particular body or 
 corporation, and does not specify the same or si- 
 milar powers, as belonging to another body, 
 whose existence it recognises and whose prero- 
 gatives it specifies, the former body possesses 
 its specified powers exclusively, and the latter 
 body cannot, by any construction of its preroga- 
 tives, lawfully invade or exercise those powers. 
 It was also warmly urged, that the constitution 
 defines a Pre.nbytery to "consist of all the minis- 
 ters, and one ruling elder from each congregation, 
 within a certain district ;" and that in forming 
 the contemplated elective Presbytery, the consti- 
 tution would unavoidably be infringed; in as 
 
 much as two Presbyteries would exist within the 
 sarne district, and therefore each of those Presby- 
 teries could not include all the ministers and con- 
 gregations within that district. The Assembly 
 notwithstanding, did form the elective Presbytery 
 petitioned for, and it went into speedy and vigor- 
 ous action. 
 
 The Synod of Philadelphia which met in the 
 autumn of this year (1832) refused to recognise, 
 as a constituent part of that body, the elective 
 Presbytery created by the Assembly: and they 
 adopted a remonstrance, addressed to the Assem- 
 bly ofthe following year, against the act by which 
 such a Presbytery had been formed, and appoint- 
 ed a committee to represent and plead the cause 
 ofthe Synod, when it should come before the su- 
 premejudicalory. 'I'he Presbytery of Philadelp )ia, 
 also presented a remonstrance, at the same time, 
 against what they considered as an unlawful and 
 injurious division of their body. The elective 
 Presbytery, on their part, complained to the Ge- 
 neral Assembly of the treatment they had received 
 from the Synod, in not recognising them as a 
 Presbytery. When the papers in which these 
 conflicting viewscame before the Assembly (1833) 
 they were, together with two other complaints 
 from individuals, relative to the same cause, re- 
 ferred to a committee, called in the minutes " the 
 committee of compromise." The committee re- 
 ported that they had seen and conversed with the 
 members, or representatives, of the elective Pres- 
 bytery, and with thirty one members of the Synod 
 of Philadelphia, and recommended to the Assem- 
 bly the following resolution, viz. 
 
 " Resolved, That the complainants in those cases 
 have leave to withdraw their complaints, and that 
 the consideration of all the papers, relating to the 
 2d Presbytery of Philadelphia, be indefinitely 
 postponed. The Assembly then united in prayer, 
 reluming thanks to God, for his goodness in bring- 
 ing this matter to such an amicable adjustment." 
 Notwithstanding all this appearance of cordiality, 
 and the final settlement of the controversy, it 
 afterwards appeared, that the representatives of 
 the Synod had never consented, but were entirely 
 and inflexibly opposed to the report of the com- 
 mittee, and thatthechairman of thatcomrnitteehad 
 made every effort in his power to get a written re- 
 monstrance against the whole proceeding brought 
 before the Assembly, but that his request was de- 
 nied and his paper not permitted to be read. 
 
 When the Synod met at CoLimbia, Pa. in the 
 Fall of this year (1831,) and heard the report of 
 their committee, there was a difference of opinion, 
 as to the best course to be pursued, to get rid of 
 the elective affinity Presbytery; but there were 
 very few members present, who were not entirely 
 of one mind, that in some way or other the evil 
 was to be abated. The measures that were finally 
 adopted are expressed in the following resolu- 
 tions. 
 
 « Whereas, the Reportof the Committee appoinfr> 
 
n 
 
 cd by ihe last Assembly, to whom was referred ; of Wilmington and Lewes. And in answer to an 
 
 the complaint of the Second Presbytery of Phi- '•- — '• '-'=-'" -"- -"-' ^ '- ' 
 
 ladelphia, was founded in the apprehension of 
 that Presbytery and of the Comraiilee, that said 
 Presbytery would be received by this Synod at 
 its present meeting, as a constituent member: 
 
 Therefore, Resolved, 1. That while this Synod 
 reprobate and condemn both the principle on 
 which the Presbytery of Philadelphia was divid- 
 ed, and also the exercise of unwarrantable autho- 
 rity by the Assembly in dividing the Presbytery; 
 and while the Synod expressly forbid any act of 
 theirs in this mailer, to be considered as sanction- 
 ing either the principle or the act above alluded 
 to'and condemned, yet, regarding the peculiar cir- 
 cumstances of this case, and with the above de- 
 clarations of Synod, the Synod do hereby receive 
 the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, aa a con- 
 stituent member of this body. 
 
 inquiry, publicly made and answered in the 
 house at the time, it appeared that the elective 
 Presbytery of Philadelphia contained seven or 
 eight members, more than both the other Fresbyttrief 
 put together; so that it was manifest, that the Sy- 
 nod was formed, not only for the accommodation 
 of this Presbytery, but that, virtually, this Presby- 
 tery was itself erected into a Synod. The Pres- 
 byteries of Wilmifvglon and Lewes, were also ab- 
 stracted from the Synod of Philadelphia, not only 
 without consulting it, but contrary to its known 
 wishes. 
 
 Two other extraordinary doings of this As- 
 sembly, as having some connection with the case 
 of Mr. Barnes, must be rioticed here. A re- 
 spectful and very able memorial was presented to 
 the house, prepared by a number of brethren in 
 the distant West,* and in which they stated that 
 
 2. Resolved, That in the exercise of the right of [ the sentiments of members of thirteen Presbyie- 
 Synod to divide and unite Presbyteries, this Sy- ries in that region, had been consulted. This Me- 
 nod do hereby unite the Second Presbytery of jmorial had been previously circulated in a pamphlet 
 Philadelphia with the Presbytery of Philadelphia, form and had been taken up, acted on and adopted^ 
 and ordain the two Presbyteries thus united to according to the report of the Committee of Over 
 
 be known as the Presbytery of Philadelphia 
 
 3. Resolved, That in the exercise of the sanie 
 prerogative, the Synod do hereby divide the said 
 Presbytery of Philadelphia by the line of Market 
 street in the city of Philadelphia, extending as far 
 east as may be necessary, and west to the Schuyl- 
 kill, then up the Schuylkill to the extremity of 
 the Presbytery; and that the ministers and 
 churches south of said line be known as the Pres- 
 bytery of Philadelphia, and those of the north side 
 be known as the second Presbytery of Philadel- 
 phia." 
 
 As usual, the elective Presbytery came forward 
 to the next General Assembly (1834), with both 
 a complaint and an appeal. A discussion ensued 
 which (with intervals for attending to other ob- 
 jects) lasted for about ten days. The details are 
 too long to be specified, and are indeed not mate- 
 rial to a correct understanding of the issue. That 
 issue was, that the complaint and appeal were 
 both sustained, the vote on the former being 
 Ayes 118, Nays 57, on the latter. Ayes 90, Nays 
 81. A strong protest against this decision was en- 
 tered by the minority, and answered by a com- 
 mittee appointed by the house. We regret to be 
 obliged by our limits to omit these important 
 papers. But the Assembly did not rest here. 
 Having found that the Synod of Philadelphia «yas 
 irreconcilably opposed to the principle of elective 
 affinity, in the constitution of the judicatories of 
 the church, and never would admit a Presbytery 
 formed on this principle as one of its constituent 
 parts, the measure was adopted of forming a Synod 
 on the same principle, or one at least in which the 
 elective Presbytery, already in existence, should 
 have a dominant influence. Such a Synod was 
 accordingly formed, consisting of the elective 
 Presbytery of Philadelphia, and the Presbyteries 
 
 tures, " by eight Presbyteries, eleven church Ses- 
 sions, fifty two ministers, and twenty-four elders» 
 and in part by other Presbyteries." — The Pres- 
 bytery of Philadelphia had adopted it unanimous- 
 ly. The Memorial purported to be " on the pre- 
 sent stale of the Presbyterian church under the 
 care of the General Assembly;" and it laid open 
 in a plain and masterly, but respectful manner, 
 the appalling and numerous errors, abuses and 
 unconstitutional measures, which had found their 
 way into the church; and it called on the Assem- 
 bly, in very urgent language, for a corrective of 
 these evils. This Memorial was treated with 
 marked indignity. It was not even permitted to 
 beread,(thoughitsreadingwas repeatedly urged,) 
 till it had been committed, and reported on, 'with 
 every mark of disapprobation: And when it was 
 at last read, some of the members went out of the 
 house, and others manifested their dislike, not t& 
 say their scorn, by indications not to be mistaken. 
 Not one of the reforms requested was granted; 
 and the opportunity was taken to decide two 
 points of constitutional law— which decisions, as 
 being unconstitutional, were reversed by the last 
 Assembly. The first point was the one on which 
 Mr. Barnes and his advocates had rested all their 
 pleas against his being examined or questioned, 
 when he joined the Philadelphia Presbytery; 
 namely. That clean papers place a man, in any 
 Presbytery to which he may go, in the same good 
 standing which he held in the Presbytery that 
 he has left — consequently, that all inquiry in 
 
 * It was originally signed by sixteen ministers and 
 twenty-three elders, and was addressed, " to the Mode^ 
 rator and members of the Presbyterian church in the 
 United States, to meet in the city of Philadelphia, ott 
 the 15th of May, 1834." 
 
12 
 
 regard to his orthodoxy is completely barred, 
 fhe second point was, thai no publication can be 
 lawfully condemned, as containing heresy or un- 
 sound doctrine, without first commencing a pro- 
 secution against its author, if he be known and 
 accesstbie. Ttie maintenance of this unconstitu- 
 tional prmciple had furnished another main plea 
 of Mr. Barnes and his favourers, in withholding 
 his publi!»hed sermon from a judicial scrutiny, 
 I here were other points on which this Assembly 
 passed decisions of a very exceptionable kind, 
 but we have not space to notice them specifi- 
 cally. Protests, powerful and unanswerable, 
 were offered by the minority against what was 
 done in disposing of the memorial, but they 
 produced no salutary effect. There was indeed, 
 a recklessness in the course pursued by the ma- 
 jority of this Assembly, and an utter disregard 
 of the feelings and remonstrances of the mlno- 
 nty, which we have never seen on any other 
 occasion, in the supreme judicatory of our church, 
 iJut what made the cup of bitterness overflow, 
 was the absolute refusal, evew to admit or notice 
 on the minutes, a motion made by a western mem- 
 ber, lor the Assembly to bear testimony against the 
 numerous and fundamental errors prevalent in our 
 country and church, which he specified in his mo- 
 tion ; and the most important of which were enu- 
 merated and condemned by the last General As- 
 sembly. 
 
 Such were the proceedings which thorough- 
 ly ratified the minority, that they could ex- 
 pect, and the church could expect, no redress of 
 grievances, and no measures calculated to arrest 
 and counteract the evils which threatened to sub- 
 vert our whole ecclesiastical system, till our su- 
 preme judiciary should possess an essentially dif- 
 ferent character from that of the existing General 
 Assembly; and which had, in a considerable de- 
 gree, belonged to all its predecessors from 1831 
 to 1834, both these years inclusive. It was un- 
 der the solemn impression of this conviction, that 
 the minority of the Assembly, in concert with 
 some other brethren who were providentially pre- 
 sent in Philadelphia, and who had, in part, wit- 
 nessed the oppressive and erroneous course of the 
 majority, drew up and passed that Acfand Testi- 
 mony, which, under the blessing of God, had a 
 hap|)y influence in contributing to bring into the 
 General Assembly of last year an overwhelming 
 majority of Old School members, and to restore to 
 that body its former character, as the guardian of 
 the purity of the church, and the corrector of 
 the errors which destroy its peace and order. 
 
 In giving the foregoing narrative, we desire it 
 may be distinctly understood, that we do not im- 
 pute to Mr. Barnes the originating and fostering 
 of all the errors, which, for five years past, have 
 threatened to deluge our church. Such has not 
 been our intention, for such we know has not been 
 the fact. The truth is, that New Schoolism, had 
 long .been sapping the orthodoxy of our church. 
 
 and was ripe for an explosion, when the case of 
 Mr. Barnes occurred, and served as a well adapted 
 torch to spring the mine. He has ever since been 
 connected with the parly who then arrayed them- 
 selves in his favour, and who have continued to 
 make his case a rallying point for their forces; 
 but we do not charge on him all the monstrous 
 aberrations and absurdities, into which some of 
 his party have run. This would be such an im- 
 peachment of his principles, good sense, taste and 
 discretion, as we are pursuaded ought not to be 
 made. We consider him as, in a high degree, an 
 errorist, but he is not a weak, deluded and reck- 
 less fanatic. We lament his want of orthodoxy, 
 but we respect his understanding. How he or 
 any other man, who holds the opmions which he 
 certainly does hold, can conscienciously retain' his 
 standing in the Presbyterian church, under a dis- 
 guise of his real sentiments, is what we cannot 
 discern; but beyond this, his moral character, so 
 far as known to us, is unimpeachable. 
 
 We have already cursorily noticed some of the 
 measures of the General Assembly of the last year, 
 by which certain unconstitutional and pernicious 
 acts and decisions of the preceding year were re- 
 scinded. But among the various reforms, which 
 will render memorable the doings of the Assem- 
 bly of 1835, none were more important than the 
 l^stimony borne against the heretical errors which 
 had become rampant in our church, and the anni- 
 hilation of the elective affinity judicatures, by 
 which those errors were protected and propaga- 
 ted. This latter act was thus expressed : 
 
 " Resolved, That at and after the meetino- of the 
 Synod of Philadelphia, in October next,'^tbe Sy- 
 nod of Delaware shall be dissolved, and ihe Pres- 
 byleries constituting the same shall be, then and 
 thereafter, annexed to the Synod of Philadelphia, 
 and that the Synod of Philadelphia, thus constitut- 
 ed by the union aforesaid, shall take such order 
 concerning ihe organization of its several Presbte- 
 riev.as may bedeemed expedient and constitutional- 
 —and that said Synod, if it shall deem it desira- 
 ble, make application lo the next General Assem- 
 bly, for such a division of the Synod as may best 
 suit the conveniences of all its Presbyteries, and 
 promote the glory of God." 
 A true copy from the minutes, 
 
 Ezra Stiles Ely, 
 Slafed Ckrk of the General Assembly. 
 In conformity with this resolution of the Gene- 
 ral Assembly, the Synod of Philadelphia having 
 met, agreeably to the adjournment of the former 
 year, at York, in Pennsylvania, received into 
 their connection, as a constituent part of their body, 
 the Synod of Delaware, consislinnr of the Assem- 
 bly's 2d Presbytery of Philadelphia, and the Pres- 
 byteries of Wilmington and Lewes. But when the 
 Staled Clerks of the Synod of Delaware and 
 of the several Presbyteries of which it had been 
 composed, were required lo resign their records to 
 the Synod of Philadelphia, of which ihey were 
 
13 
 
 now a part, they posliivdy aird pertinaciously re- 
 fused to obey the requisition ; alleging that the 
 General Assembly had continued the Synod of 
 Delawarfl in existence till the meeting of the Sy- 
 nod of Philadelphia; had not ordered that their 
 records should be surrendered to that Synod; and 
 that as the Presbyteries had been amenable to 
 their own Synod till the meeting of the Synod of 
 Philadelphia, it could not be supposed that they 
 were amenable to two Synods at the same time. 
 That all this was mere quibble and evasion is evi- 
 dent, not only from the plain import and design 
 of the General Assembly's resolution above re- 
 cited, but also from the previous acts of the Synod 
 of Delaware itself, and the Presbyteries of which 
 it was composed. It appeared that the records 
 of these several bodies had actually been brought 
 forward to this meeting of the Synod of Philadel- 
 phia ; and it was admitted by Mr. Barnes that he 
 had come prepared to answer to a prosecution 
 against him before the Synod of Philadelphia, 
 and that he had never heard of the plea now made 
 by his Presbytery against the jurisdiction of this 
 Synod in his case, till he arrived in this place ; 
 yet he did not choose todissent from his brethren, 
 since they had thought pro|>er to make this plea. 
 We have indeed heard, since the rising of the 
 Synod, that there was a conference of some of the 
 New School members, before their arrival in 
 York, in which the measures eventually adopted 
 were planned. If this were so, the plan, we have 
 no doubt, was to go into operation only on the 
 contingency, which eventually took place — that 
 ihe Synod should be found lo consist of a majori- 
 ty of oihordox members. The truth is, the New 
 School members of the Synod of Delaware, had 
 fondly cherished the delusive, hut confident ex- 
 pectaliop, that when they should be amalgamated 
 with the Synod of Philadelphia, they would prove 
 to be a majority of that body, would overrule 
 their opponents, and dispose of the case of Mr. 
 Barnes, and every thing else in the proceedings 
 of the Synoo, in a manner most agreeable to their 
 wishes. To ttake this sure, they brought forward 
 every individual they could muster, and the Pres- 
 bytery of Wilmington ordained one licensed can- 
 didate, who Wis under the frowns of another 
 Presbytery, even after they arrived at York. But 
 all their hopes of a majority were blasted at once, 
 by the vote for Mooerator of Synod. By that vote 
 they saw clearly, thit instead of having a majority 
 in the Synod, they would not only be in a minori- 
 ty, but that minority -6 small one. Then, and not 
 till then.ihey determinsd to withhold their records, 
 (in accordance, it maj be, with a preconcerted 
 plan) and to make the piea we have stated. There 
 cannot be a reasonable doubt, that if they had 
 been, as they hoped to he, the majority of the Sy- 
 nod, their records would all have been surrender- 
 ed without hesitation ; the case of Mr. Barnes 
 would have been tried and issued, as it had been 
 in the court below ; and the Piesbyteries would 
 
 have been all arranged to their mind. Now, what 
 are we to think of men who can act in this man- 
 nerl who will change a right and reasonable course 
 of action, which ihey had deliberately purposed 
 to pursue, because they perceive it will not ter- 
 minate agreeably to their wishes ■? who will plead 
 and inflexibly insist on objections, with a view to 
 embarrass, and if possible, to prevent and defeat 
 a trial in a court of the Lord Jesu» Christ — objec- 
 tions which would never have been heard of, if 
 that trial could have been, as they had hoped it 
 would be, ordered and issued by themselves 7 Do 
 such men act cor>scientiously 1 Who can be- 
 lieve it ? 
 
 No one, not a spectator of what took place in 
 the last meeting of the Synod of Philadelphia, 
 can have any adequate conception of the ingenui- 
 ty, or disingenuily rather, which was employed 
 by the friends of Mr. Barnes, either to prevent his 
 trial altogether, or if they should not succeed in 
 this, to give it the character of an ex parte and op- 
 pressive proceeding. Much of this will appear to 
 any attentive reader of the minutes of the Synod, 
 and still more from a perusal of the report of 
 a stenographer, which has been published in some 
 of the religious newspapers. But both together, 
 give but a very imperfect view of what was wit- 
 nessed, by those present on the occasion. It 
 seemed as if there was to be no end of the de- 
 vices, mancBuvres, objections and evasions, by 
 which delay was produced and embarrassment 
 created. It was said by a member who had spo- 
 ken with peculiar kindness of Mr. Barnes — "it 
 is enough to exhaust the patience of Job." Yet 
 it is not true, as has been represented, that the Sy- 
 nod was disorderly. With the exception of one 
 outrageous speech and action of a single New 
 School man, there was as much order as perhaps 
 can ever be preserved, in a deliberative Assembly 
 of 249 members, when under the excitement of 
 ardent and deeply interesting discussion — far bet- 
 ter order than has too often been seen wanting 
 in the General Assembly. 
 
 The Synod felt it to be an imperious duly 
 which they owned to the church, to issue the 
 case of Mr. Barnes, notwithstanding all the ob- 
 stacles which were thrown in their way. Several 
 members, who came to the Synod under the full 
 impression that the best course would be to send 
 up the appeal to the Assembly, without deciding 
 on it in the Synod, changed their opinion. Never, 
 perhaps, has there been, in this country, a Synod 
 in which the lay representation was proportion- 
 ably so large. It appeared that throughout the 
 whole Synodical bounds, a decision was looked 
 for, and, in some places, earnestly demanded; 
 and that to refuse it, would be considered as a re- 
 proachful shrinking from an unpleasant duty ; and 
 would leave the whole subject in suspense for the 
 ensuing half year. Nor was it by any means cer- 
 tain, if the case went up to the Assembly without 
 Synodical action, that the Assembly would not, as 
 
14 
 
 had been done in other cases, send it back to the on the Synod that 8»»fpended him. When 
 
 Synod; and then a whole year would elapse wilh- 
 
 out a decision of any i<ind. To act in this case 
 
 by the Synod, was clearly most in accordance 
 
 with the spirit and design of the constitution ; for 
 
 there was plainly nothing; special in the case, ex- 
 cept that it had made much noise, and that 
 
 the object of the prosecution was the pastor of 
 
 a lafijre and wealthy congregation in the city 
 
 of Philadelphia, — considerations which certainly 
 
 ought to have no influence to deter a court of the 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ from performing its duty. That 
 
 such considerations do, in fact, too often operate 
 
 powerfully, must be acknowledged, to the shame 
 
 of the church. It is to the praise of the Synod, 
 
 that they did not operate to deter from the trial of 
 
 Mr. Barnes. Well are we persuaded, that if his 
 
 case had been that of an obscure country minis- 
 ter, he would long since have been put out of the 
 
 Presbyterian church, without a clamorous dis- 
 turbance of its peace and unity. The influence 
 
 of wealth and station has been the bane of the 
 
 Christian church, in every period of her history. 
 
 In cases of discipline, especially, it is peculiarly 
 
 diflicult to resist it. 
 
 Mr. Barnes, it is our opinion, suffered no in- 
 jury, from the withholding by his Presbytery of 
 
 the minutes in which his trial and acquittal were 
 
 recorded. The identical charges on which he 
 
 had been tried, with distinct references to those 
 parts of our doctrinal standards with which 
 they were in conflict, and to the award of the 
 Presbytery, with the reasons by which it was at- 
 tempted to be justified, were all before the Synod, 
 verified on oath. The book, for the false doctrine 
 of which he was prosecuted, was likewise pre- 
 sent, and the objectionable parts had been care- 
 fully read and considered by many of the mem- 
 bers. The quotations of the prosecutor, had he been 
 so disposed, could not be unfairly made. Any at- 
 tempt of the kind, would only have prejudiced his 
 cause, when the document quoted was at hand to 
 confront him. But so far as we have seen, or 
 heard, the fairness of the quotations has never 
 been questioned. Now, when this was the state 
 of facts, what did Mr. Barnes lack, in his trial 
 before the Synod 1 Nothing but a speech of ex- 
 planations, with considerations addressed to the 
 feelings more than to the understanding and judg- 
 ment of the court. But not to insist, as we rea- 
 sonably might, that his not pleading was really 
 wholly chargeable on himself and on his Presby- 
 tery, since he was both permitted and urged to 
 make hia defence — we rerily believe his silence 
 did him no injury. We have been truly surprised 
 to see the influence that explanations, as they are 
 called, have had in our ecclesiastical courts — we 
 remember that they were referred to with an espe- 
 cially, when the New School Assembly of 1831, 
 cleared Mr. Barnes, with only a slight censure. 
 But we are persuaded that explanations, if he 
 had mad« them, would have had little influence 
 
 his 
 not making a defence was incidentally referred 
 to, while his case was under consideration, a lay 
 member of the court, who had seen much of legal 
 proceedings, though not a professional lawyl-r, 
 made some remarks on this topic, which we think 
 it were well if every ecclesiastical court in our 
 land had heard, and which we do hope will sug- 
 gest themselves to the minds of the members of 
 the next General Assembly. They were to this 
 effect. 1 consider, said he, that the book before 
 us ought to be treated, just as a publication 
 which is aflirmed to be libellous is treated, in a 
 civil court. What is the question there 1 Is it, 
 that the defendant's counsel has said much to 
 show that the language of the publication can 
 bear such a construction as to free it from the 
 charge of being a libel? No such thing. The 
 question is. Has not the publication been'^viewed 
 and understood as libellous, by those who have 
 read it? Is not the natural and proper import of 
 the language libellous? Yes, and an honest and 
 enlightened jury will give their verdict on these 
 inquiries, let the lawyers give as many explana- 
 tions as they please. And so we must give our 
 verdict on this book in the very same manner, 
 although Mr. Barnes had explained ever so much. 
 No matter if he says that he meant this thing, 
 that, or the other. The question is, what mean- 
 ing does the world take up, in reading bis book? 
 What impression does the book make, and natu- 
 rally make, on the popular mind ? This is to be 
 our guide; and not his explanations, which can- 
 not travel with his book wherever it goes; and if 
 they could, would not make it other than a bad 
 book, after all. It was in accordance with such 
 an estimation as this of ihe j)ublication of Mr. 
 Barnes, that the Synod pronounced their sen- 
 tence. The members were fully convinced, that 
 no intelligent and candid reader of that book, 
 could compare it with the Confession of Faith 
 and Catechisms of our church, without seeing and 
 saying, that they were in direct opposition to 
 each other. And this we do consc/encioosly be- 
 lieve, was a just estimate. We do think, that 
 whoever intelligently and attentively examines the 
 commentary of Mr. Barnes on the Epistle to the 
 Romans, must see that it differs from, and op- 
 poses our doctrinal standards ii essential points. 
 That it denies our covenant relation to Adam, 
 and the inborn moral corru|tion of all bis pos- 
 terity, as the consequence of his fall ; denies the 
 utter inability of an unregenerate man to love 
 God and keep his commandments; denies that 
 the Lord Jesus Christ perfectly obeyed the law 
 of God, and endured all its penalty, iVj tlie room 
 and stead of his redeemed people ; and denies, of 
 course, that his finished righteousness is imputed 
 to them, and being received by faith, constitutes 
 this title to eternal life. And we do solemnly 
 ask, whetht-r any one who denies these things, 
 and publishes and propagates his denial ia tb» 
 
15 
 
 Presbyterian church, can be safely continued in 
 the communion of that church ? 
 
 We cannot but call to mind the inveteracy of 
 error, in the case of Mr. Barnes. His theological 
 training was in the Seminary at Princeton, to 
 which we have understood that he went, at an 
 early period after he became a professing Christian. 
 And he must there have read the authors, and heard 
 the theological lectures, which, if any human means 
 could do it, seemed most likely to have preserved 
 hira from the dangerous mistakes into which he has 
 fallen. But his confidence in himself, appears to 
 have been such, that he not only retained his 
 errors, but soon after he commenced his ministry, 
 published them to the world, in the sermon which 
 has caused so much trouble to himself and to the 
 whole church to which he belongs: And notwith- 
 standing the warnings he received, in consequence 
 of that first publication, from the presbytery and 
 synod of which he weis then a member,, and also, as 
 has been shown, from the General Assembly, to 
 which his case was carried up, he has since pub- 
 lished his Commentary, expressly for the use of 
 Sabbath-schools, — thus seeking to embue the youth 
 of our church, with sentiments palpably hostile to 
 the creed of their fathers, and calculated eventually 
 to change the character of the church, and ulti- 
 mately destroy it, and destroy the church it- 
 self. He stated, explicitly, at the synod held at 
 York, that although, in a new edition of his com- 
 mentary, he had modified some expressions, and 
 changed some of the language which he understood 
 had given offence, he had not altered his senti- 
 ments. In view of all this, what prospect, we ask, 
 is there, that Mr. Barnes will ever, either change 
 his opinions, or cease to propagate them as exten- 
 sively as he canl Rarely, indeed, does it happeu, 
 that a man so self-confident, abandons sentiments 
 which he has long cherished, and which have be- 
 come very deeply seated in his mind ; or that he 
 ceases to inculcate them on others, as often as an 
 opportunity to do it is afforded. 
 
 The charges alleged against Mr. Barnes before 
 the Synod were the following : — 
 
 " The Rev. Albert Barnes (said the prosecutor) 
 is hereby charged with maintaining the following 
 doctrines, contrary to the standards of the Presby- 
 terian Church, viz : 
 
 1. That, all sin consists in voluntary action. 
 Witness his notes on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 
 249, 123, 192, 124, 116. 
 
 2. That Adam (before and after his fall) was 
 ignorant of his moral relations to such a degree, 
 that he did not know the consequences of his sin 
 would, or should, reach any farther than to natural 
 death. Idem. p. 115. 
 
 3. That unregenerate men are able to keep the 
 commandments, and convert themselves to God. pp. 
 164, 165, 108. 
 
 4. That Faith is an act of the mind, and not a 
 principle ; and is itself imputed for righteousness, 
 pp. 94, 95. 
 
 Mr. Barnes is also charged with denying the fol- 
 lowing doctrines, which are taught in the Standards 
 of the Church : viz. 
 
 5. That God entered into covenant with Adam, 
 constituting him a federal or covenant head, and 
 representative to all his natural descendants, pp. 
 114, 128, 111, 115, 120, 121, 128. 
 
 6. That the first sin of Adam is imputed to his 
 posterity, pp. 10. 117, 117, 119, 121, 127, 128. 
 
 7. That mankind are guilty, i. e. liable to punish- 
 ment, on account of the sin of Adam. pp. 123, 128. 
 
 8. That Christ suffered the proper penalty of the 
 law, as the vicarious substitute of his people, and 
 thus took away legally their sins, and purchased 
 pardon. Same as on the 6th and 7th charges, also 
 pp. 89, 90. 
 
 9. That the righteousness, i. e, the active obe- 
 dience of Christ to the Law, is imputed to his peo- 
 ple for their justification, so that they are righteous 
 in the eye of the law and therefore justified, pp. 
 23, 84, 85, 94, 95, 127, 212. 
 
 19. Mr. Barnes also teaches in opposition to the 
 Standards, that justification is simply pardon, pp. 
 28, 29, 110, 124, 127, 128, 182, 217. 
 
 I further charge Mr. Barnes with teaching, as 
 referred to the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, and 10th of the 
 above doctrines, in opposition to the Holy Scrip- 
 tures; and with denying the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 
 9th, of the above specifications, contrary to the 
 Word of God." 
 
 After the prosecutor was heard in support of 
 these charges, and Mr. Barnes was found to 
 persist in his determination to make no reply, 
 the roll was called 'to give each member an 
 opportunity of expressing his opinion in the case.' 
 After the roll was regularly gone through ' a 
 motion was made that the appeal be sustained, 
 and the decision of the lower judicatory be re- 
 versed.' On this motion, the ayes and noes were 
 called, and ordered to be recorded." The vote was 
 declared to stand, ayes 142, noes 16. non liquet 17. 
 excused 1. The majority, it will be perceived, on 
 sustaining the charges and reversing the decision 
 of the presbytery, was uncommonly large — greater 
 than we recollect ever to have known on so im- 
 portant and interesting a question, in any judica- 
 ture of our church; and on examining the list of 
 those who voted in the negative on this question, 
 we find that 12 of the 16 noes, belonged totbe 
 synod of Delaware; leaving but four disinterested, 
 and absolute negative votes, on the motion to sus- 
 tain the charges. 
 
 A committee of nine members, (consisting of six 
 ministers and three elders) was "appointed, to 
 draft a minute, expressive of the sense of synod in 
 the case of Mr. Barnes." The report of the com- 
 mittee contains a recital of the constitutional 
 ff rounds on which the synod had proceeded in the 
 trial of this case, the length of which forbids, we 
 are sorry to say, its insertion at large. The report 
 concluded with rpcommending for the adoption of 
 synod, the three following resolutions — 
 
16 
 
 "Resolved,!. That in view of the proof pre- 
 sented to Synod, and of the whole case, the deci- 
 sion of the (Assembly's) 2<1 Presbytery of Philadel- 
 phia, m the case of the charges of the said Geo. 
 Junkin against the said Albert Barnes, be and the 
 same hereby is reversed, as contrary to truth and 
 righteousness, and the Appeal declared to be sus- 
 tained. 
 
 " 2. That some of the errors alleged in the 
 ciiarges to be held by the said Albert Barnes are 
 fundamental ; and all of them contrary to the 
 standards of the Presbyterian Church, in the 
 United States ; and that they do contravene the 
 system of truth therein taught, and set forth in the 
 word of God. 
 
 "3. That the said Albert Barnes be, and he 
 hereby is, suspended from the exercise of all the 
 functions proper to the gospel ministry, until he 
 shall retract the errors hereby condemned, and 
 give satisfactory evidence of repentance." 
 
 A motion was made to strike out the last of these 
 resolutions, and to insert in its place one, by which 
 It should be " referred to the next General Assembly 
 to decide what judgment shall be rendered in this 
 case; and respectfully petition them to pass such 
 sentence as they may deem most conducive to the 
 glory of God, and the purity and peace of the 
 church." This motion was negatived by a very 
 large majority, and after adopting the third resolu- 
 tion as it stood ;in the original draft, the vote was 
 taken on the whole; and the ayes and nays being 
 called, it appeared that 116 voted in the affirmative, 
 and 31 in negative. There were two non-liquets. 
 Eleven members, some of whom had been excused 
 from voting, and others who had voted in the nega- 
 tive on the resolution suspending Mr. Barnes, were 
 permitted to enter an explanation on the synodical 
 records, stating, that it was •' to avoid even the 
 appearance of injustice or rashness, on the part of 
 the Synod," that they wished to refer it to the 
 Assembly, " to decide what judgment should be 
 rendered in this case." One other member, who 
 voted in the negative, was permitted to enter his 
 explanation, stating that he had doubted the right 
 of the Synod to act as proposed by the resolution ; 
 "and that he would have preferred sending down 
 this case to the Presbytery, to which Mr. Barnes 
 might belong, with instructions to suspend him 
 from the functions of the Christian ministry, if he 
 should not renounce his errors." We are thus 
 particular, that all pretence of unfairness, in this 
 important part of our statement, may be prevented. 
 The Presbytery to which Mr. Barnes belongs took 
 an appeal to the General Assembly, against " the 
 resolutions of Synod, inflicting censure on them, 
 for contumacy in refusing to submit their records." 
 And Mr. Barnes himself, has taken an appeal from 
 the decision "suspending him from the exercise of 
 the funotions of a gospel minister," and announced 
 the intention also to complain, (in connection with his 
 appeal,) ." of the various steps by which the Synod 
 was led to the sentence which thev hove passed" — ' 
 
 This complaint, and the reasons of it, have since 
 been spread before the public. It is made a ques- 
 tion, which the Assembly will decide, whether a 
 party who has not submitted to a trial, has a right 
 to appeal. The constitutional rule on the subject 
 is in these words — " All persons who have submit- 
 ted to a regular trial in an inferior, may appeal to 
 a higher jndiciary." 
 
 Since the rising of the Synod, as we intimated 
 in the introduction of this address, every agency 
 and influence, which Mr. Barnes and his friends 
 can command, have been put into vigorous opera- 
 tion, to prejudice the public mind in his favour, and 
 against the synodical decision in his case; in h^ppe 
 that it will have an effect, in giving character to 
 the next General Assembly, and ensure the removal 
 of the suspension lo which he has been subjected. 
 But we doubt not, that far more than this is hoped 
 for; even the complete undoing of the whole re- 
 form, which was so happily commenced by the 
 last Assembly, and the restoration of ihe lost pre- 
 dominancy of New School men and measures, in 
 the supreme judicatory of our church. We have 
 no question thai it is believed, and we confess 
 we think the belief well founded, that the acquit- , 
 tal of Mr. Barnes, and the reversal of many of the 
 most important acts of the last Assembly, must go ( 
 together. Indeed the acquittal of Mr. Barnes will ' 
 in itself be, virtually, a reversal of the strong con- i 
 demnalion of certain specified errors by the As- 
 sembly of last May; for some of these errors are 
 too palpably apparent in his Commentary on the 
 epistle to the Romans, to admit of a plausible dis- 
 guise. 
 
 Besides the numerous paragraphs which are 
 incessantly sent abroad in the public papers, 
 lauding Mr. Barnes and condemning the Synod 
 that suspended him, extra Numbers of the 
 Philadelphian are employed to carry far and 
 wide 1. His defence before the Presbytery, with 
 additions suggested by what took place at the 
 Synod. 2. His appeal from the decision of the 
 Synod in the matter of his suspension, with his 
 reasons for that appeal, stated at great length. 3. 
 The proceedings of the Session of the church of 
 which he is the pastor, (the first Presbyterian 
 church, Philadelphia,) containing, after an intro- 
 duction, seven resolutions, in which, among other 
 things, it is affirmed that Mr. Barnes has " faith- 
 fully preached to them the same gospel of Jesu;? 
 Christ whicli was proclaimed by his predecessor, 
 the Rev. Dr. James P. Wilson ;" that " the laie 
 unhappy proceedings of the Synod of Philadel- 
 phia, have not, in the least degree, diminished 
 their altaehment to, and confidence in their pre- 
 sent pastor; and that ihey concur wilh the Board 
 of Trustees in their request to call a special meei- 
 ing of thecongrpgaliMu." for a purpose which the 
 trustees had previously specified ; and that tho 
 resolutions passed, be read publicly in the 
 church on the next Lord's day. 4. The proceed- 
 ings of the Congregational Meeting, caMed by the 
 
17 
 
 concurring voice of the Trustees and Session — 
 containing six resolutions, "adopted unanimously, 
 with the exception of the third and fourth, to 
 which there were four or fi»e dissenting votes." 
 These resolutions, beside re-echoing those of the 
 Session, went much farther than the Session, in 
 condemning, and protesting against the doings of 
 the Synod in the case of Mr. Barnes — so that it 
 appears, that three or four members could not go 
 the lengih of the majority. The proceedings of 
 the church in the Northern Liberties, of which 
 Mr. Patterson is pastor, published also in the 
 Philadelphian, are too extravagant to claim a se- 
 rious notice. 
 
 Here, surely, is a novelty in the Presbyterian 
 Church. Sessions and Congregations, under the 
 rare and supervision of a Synod, arraigning and 
 condemning, in unmeasured terms, proceeding? 
 of that Synod, sanctioned by a larger majority 
 than was ever witnessed in that body, on any 
 other litigated subject; and not only so, but ad- 
 dressing the whole church, with a manifest 
 intention, to engage the court of the last resort 
 to favour an appellant, whose cause is yet 
 pending, and the plea of the prosecutor not 
 heard ; giving withal an ex parte statement of the 
 whole proceedings, and making an array of hos- 
 tile exhibitions against the Synod, as if intended 
 to intimidate and overawe the judicatory that is to 
 pronounce a final judgment, in confirmation or re- 
 versal of one of the most solemn and important 
 decisions that a court of the Lord Jesus Christ 
 can ever make. Are such proceedings as these to 
 avail for the benefit and gratification of those who 
 adopt them? The answer — ^yea or nay — ^will be 
 given by the next Assembly. Most sincerely do 
 we regret the necessity to which, we have been 
 reduced, of either permitting such unwarrantable 
 measures to produce (in all probability) an effect 
 siratlai to the one that was witnessed in 18S1, or 
 by a counter statement, to endeavour to prevent 
 so disastrous a result. 
 
 We shall not attempt to follow Mr. Barnes and 
 his people through their voluminous statements 
 and pleadings. Let them stand for what they 
 are vvorlh, after a few brief remarks. No one can 
 fail to observe the tendency, and no doubt the in- 
 tention, of what Mr, Barnes says in the introduc- 
 tion of his defence,* to excite prejudice against 
 his prosecutor, for bringing charges against him. 
 Butletit be remembered that when he and Dr. Jun 
 kin were members of the same Presbytery, he in- 
 sisted that if he was made responsible for the 
 doctrines of his sermon, it should be done in no 
 other way than by tabling charges against him 
 He declared his readiness to meet such charges — 
 he even invited them. And the ground he then 
 
 * The inconsistency between the introduolion and 
 the conclusion of Mr. Barnes' defence is truly surpris- 
 ing. In the conclusion, he bears an explicit testimony, 
 as his Presbytery had previously done, to the Christian 
 spirit with whicli Dr. Junkin conducted his prosecution. 
 
 took has been that which has always been taken 
 by his parly since. It was taken by that party, 
 then dominant, in the General Assembly of 1834. 
 From every quarter of the church, we have 
 heard it asked by New School m«n, why do yoo 
 not bring charges against the individuals who, 
 you say, are corrupting the churchT Try them 
 before their own Presbyteries; the way is open; 
 we want no new rules; bring your charges before 
 the proper judicatures, and let them take the con- 
 stitutional course, and all will be right. But now 
 when they are taken at their word, when their oft 
 repeated demand and challenge are met, there is a 
 grievous complaint of unkindness; of not obey- 
 ing the Gospel injunction of private remonstrance, 
 manifestly intended only for cases of individual of- 
 fence and injury ; and of omitting to mention the 
 equivocal word heresy, when the prosecution is 
 commenced. 
 
 We feel constrained to say a few words, in reply 
 to the following allegation of the Session and 
 congregation, in the praise they bestow on Mr 
 Barnes, viz : "Our beloved pastor, the Rev. Al- 
 bert Barnes, ever since he has performed the du- 
 ties of a spiritual shepherd among us, bas faith- 
 fully preached the same gospel of Jesus Christ 
 which was proclaimed to us by his predecessor, 
 the Rev. Dr. James P. Wilson." — Then follows a 
 specification of the leading doctrines of the gos- 
 pel, as delivered to the congregation by both pas- 
 tors. The manifest design of this is, to identify 
 Mr. Barnes with Dr. Wilson, so that if you con- 
 demn the former, you must condemn the latter al- 
 so. It is extremely painful to us to say any 
 thing on this delicate point; but we owe it to 
 the truth and to the church, to meet it fairly. In 
 doing so, we are disposed to believe that the ses- 
 sion and congregation who have affirmed as above, 
 must have either forgotten a part of what they 
 heard from Dr. Wilson, or misapprehended much 
 that they have heard from Mr. Barnes. The learn-^ 
 ed and pious pastor to whom Mr. Barnes has suc- 
 ceeded, was not a man to preach in one way, and 
 to write and publish in another; and it so hap- 
 pens, that we have his printed and published sen- 
 timents on most of the points in which we 
 think his successor is erroneous ; and therefore 
 have all the advantages possessed by the parties 
 who make the allegation on which we remark, in 
 deciding what were the real opinionsof Dr. Wilson, 
 on the points in question. During bis life and un- 
 der his auspices, a new edition of Ridgeley's Body 
 of Divinity was published in Philadelphia, on 
 several parts of which he wrote copious notes. 
 Not long before his death, moreover, he preached 
 a sermon, and afterward enlarged it into an essay 
 of considerable length, and published it,, with the 
 avowed design of leaving it to his people, as a 
 kind of legacy, containino an exhibition of the 
 leading doctrines of the gn6pel,.as held andtaught 
 by him. From these two publications, viz : his 
 noteti on Ridgely and his essd-y,.it caa be demon- 
 
18 
 
 Blrainrely proved, that he differed from Mr. Barnes 
 on every important point, on which Mr. Barnes 
 13 now charged with error; and that he also differ- 
 ed on one important point, on which Dr. Junkin 
 has omitted to charge him with error, namely,t 
 the eternal sonskip of the Lord .lesiis Christ, 
 which Mr. Barnes in his Commentary on the Ro- 
 mans, unequivocally denies, and Dr. Wilson, in ac- 
 cordance with our public Standards, firmly main- 
 tained. Nothincr but the limits to which we are eon- 
 fined, prevents our proving in detail what we have 
 here asserted, by plain and pointed quotations 
 from the publications of Dr. Wilson, contrasted 
 with similar ones from those of Mr. Barnes— and 
 this, if found necessary, shall be done hereafter. 
 It is due to the memory of Dr. Wilson, that he 
 should not be identified with Mr. Barnes in his 
 errors. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Fathers, brethren, and fellow Christians . If we 
 
 know ourselves at all, it is not from any malig- 
 nant feeling toward Mr. Barnes, nor from any am- 
 bitious desire of victory, in a conflict in which we 
 have been engaged, that, at such length, we have 
 addressed you. It is, as we have already intimat- 
 ed, because, in a crisis of our ecclesiastical affairs, 
 which we sincerely and solemnly believe will re- 
 sult either in good or evil, of the most extensive 
 and lasting kind, our religious community is with- 
 out the knowledge and information necessary to 
 guide it right. Action, fatally erroneous, even 
 when the best dispositions are possessed, may 
 proceed from mere ignorance of important facts — 
 from mistakes, arising from wrong or imperfect 
 views of the subject which calls for action. In 
 the ordering of providence, it has been our lot to 
 be placed in circumstances in which we have been 
 obliged— unwillingly and painfully obliged— to be 
 familiar with the case of Mr. Barnes, from its ori- 
 gin to the present hour ; and we have felt ourselves 
 under an obligation from which we could not es- 
 cape with a clear conscience, to spread what we 
 know before our brethren of the Presbyterian 
 church — that they may not act under the influence 
 
 t In piiges LI, 16, of his Commentary on the Epistle 
 to the Romans, Mr. Barnes thus writes — "It is not 
 affirmed tliat this title (Son of God) was given to the 
 second person in the 'I'rinity before he became incar- 
 riatr, or to suggest the idta of any derivation on extrac- 
 Hon before he was made flesh. There is no instance in 
 which the apptllation is not conferred to express his 
 relation nj'ler he assun)cd human flesh. Of any ditri. 
 ration from (iod, or emanation from him in eternity, 
 the Scriptures are silent." The words marked as em- 
 phatic were so marked by Mr. Barnes himself. Com- 
 pare the above quotation with the Confession of Faith, 
 Chap. II, Sect. III. "The Katlier is. of none, neither 
 bcffotten nor preccdiiigf ; ihc Son is eternally bejjotten 
 of the Father, and the Holy (ibost eternally |>rocce(iinjr 
 i'rotn the Father and the Son." See the same — Laro-er 
 Catechism, in answer to the 10th question. 
 
 of the delusive representations which he and his 
 friends are so industriously sending into every 
 part of our land. We think we havt- shown— 
 
 1. That the prosecutors of Mr. Barnes have 
 not been his persecutors,- that they have had, and 
 securely could have, no other motive in striving 
 to arrest his devious course, and prevent the 
 prevalence of the unsound doctrine he has taught, 
 than the discharge of a sacred duly, which t lev 
 owed to God, to his truth, and to his church- 
 duty inforced by the solemn sanction of ordina- 
 tion vows. 
 
 2. We have shown that the errors of Mr. 
 Barnes are fundamental errors. That he is chrrije. 
 able, not as has been pretended, with merely uSmg 
 some new words and phrases, to express the very 
 doctrines of our standards, but with a real and 
 wide departure from, or rather a direct opposition 
 to what is taught in those standards; and this in 
 matters vital to the whole system of evangelical 
 truth, and affecting the weal or wo of immortal 
 souls. Hence, 
 
 3. It has been shown that the controversy in 
 regard to Mr. Barnes is not a mere local concern, 
 but one in which the whole Presbyterian church 
 is as really, and deeply, if not so immediately 
 interested, as the Synod of Philadelphia and il's 
 subordinate judicatories. It has been shown, thai 
 this controversy has been connected with a change 
 of the character of the supreme judicatory of the 
 Presbyterian church; a change, in consequence 
 of which, that judicatory, in place of acting as 
 formerly, as the guardian of the purity and peace 
 of the church, and the palladium of her disci- 
 pline, has, for years in succession, protected the 
 corruptors of the church — the propagators of false 
 doctrine of the most baneful character; and by 
 creating an elective Presbytery and Synod, as 
 well as by other unconstitutional acts, has pros- 
 trated all effective discipline, and really organ- 
 ized bodies in which the disorderly and unsound 
 in doctrine might find a refuge, and by which a 
 systematic warfare has been carried on, against 
 the adherents to the orthodox faith, which has 
 destroyed their peace, and filled the church with 
 confusion and discord. 
 
 4. We think it worthy of the most special no- 
 tice, that it is the manifest aim of Mr. Barnes 
 and his friends, to turn away the attention of the 
 public mind, from the nature and merits of ihe 
 cause at issue, and fix it on the personal cha- 
 racter of the man, and the unpleasant circum- 
 stances in which he has unhappily involved him- 
 self. With this view, hi& amiable private de- 
 portment, and his religious zeal are proclaimed 
 
 and eulogized. But we do entreat our brethren 
 
 we do not now say to do us the justice, but to do 
 themselves and the church of God the justice, to 
 separate this cause altogether from the individual 
 whom it more immediateiy aflecls. We admit, 
 without the least reluctance, that Mr. Harnes ia 
 amiable in his private character, and that he i* 
 
19 
 
 apparently zealous in religion. But he is in no 
 respect more so, than was Pelagius, some of 
 whose most objectionable sentiments he unques- 
 tionably holds, and endeavours to propagate. 
 The unimpeachable character, and apparent zeal- 
 ous piety of Pelagius, secured him for a time, 
 even from the penetrating scrutiny of Augustine — 
 from the very man who afterwards so nobly and 
 successfully exposed and confuted his pernicious 
 errors — errors which Augustine has most conclu- 
 sively shown, sap the foundations of evangelical 
 truth and vital godliness. Arminius, too, was 
 la amiable and zealous, as well as a very learned 
 man. Yet he gave rise to a system of wide 
 spread error, which remains to the present day ; 
 and by endeavouring to propagate it, while he 
 lived, he introduced contention, confusion, and 
 disorder into the whole Calvinistic church of the 
 United Netherlands, till it was condemned and 
 its influence arrested, by the Synod of Dort. If 
 we act as faithful watchmen on the walls oi 
 Zion, we must distinguish between men and a 
 cause. Again, therefore, we entreat our brethren, 
 to look away from the individuals who will be 
 mmediately concerned in the cause which will 
 go up to the next General Assembly, Look away 
 from us, as well as from Mr. Barnes and his co- 
 adjutors; and examine carefully and conscienti- 
 OJsly for yourselves, brethren, whether there is 
 not a system concerned in this controversy, which, 
 if it prevail, will change the whole character of 
 our church; a system which, while it is bad in 
 itself, all experience shows, has a strong ten- 
 dency to something worse than itself — to avowed 
 Uniiarianism, with all its soul ruining delusions. 
 5. The statement we have made shows, we 
 think undeniably, who have been Ihe culpable dis- 
 turbers rf the peace of our church. For twenty 
 years after the formation of the General Assem- 
 bly, the Presbyterian church enjoyed a state of 
 tiie most enviable unity and harmony. The 
 meetings of her judicatories, from the lowest to 
 the highest, were seasons for the most delight- 
 ful fraternal intercourse; they were looked for- 
 ward to with joyful anticipation, and were pro- 
 ductive of high pleasure and much edification. 
 What has changed this happy state] What, in 
 place of peace and concord, has filled our church 
 with jars, alienation, reviling, and contention. 
 Can any other cause be justly assigned, than the 
 coming in among us of men and principles, not 
 friendly to the genius of our ecclesiastical sys- 
 tem ; men and principles really opposed to the 
 doctrines of our Confession of Faith and form 
 of church government? Here, unquestionably, is 
 the true source of the grievous evils that afflict 
 us. No other cause can be pointed out, which 
 can, even plausibly, account for the existing 
 facts. Who then has destroyed the peace of the 
 church ■? Have not they done it, who, after having 
 been (more kindly than discreetly) admitted into 
 the bosom of our once united and happy family, 
 
 have insisted on acting in it just as they pleased, 
 without regard to its established principles 
 and order; nay, who have sought to take the 
 whole management of the household into their 
 own hands, and even to turn the original occu- 
 pants out of their own house, unless they would 
 quietly submit to the innovations of their guests. 
 Are not the innovators, we ask, the destroyers of 
 the peace of the family, and not they who resist 
 them? The resistance may be the occasion, but 
 the innovators are the criminal cause of all the 
 confusion, noise, and contention which has been 
 produced. 
 
 6. The statement we have made shows how 
 unspeakably important will be the measures 
 adopted by the next General Assembly. Those 
 measures will unavoidably give predominance to 
 the one or the other of the parties which now di- 
 vide the Church: and if the New School party 
 shall dictate these measures — if that parly shall 
 annul the decision of the Synod in the case of 
 Mr. Barnes, (which they certainly will do, if they 
 can ;) if they shall turn back the reform which 
 was commenced by the last Assembly, and re- 
 verse the decisions made by that body on several 
 important points of constitutional law and order; 
 and if, as heretofore, they shall refuse to sustain 
 discipline, and shall provide for the protection of 
 errorists of almost every name, short of unitarian- 
 ism,— then will all the distractions which our 
 Church has experienced from 1830 to 1835, re- 
 turn, with augmented force and aciimony. On 
 the other hand — if orthodoxy shall sway the next 
 Assembly, as it did the last,— if discipline for 
 errors then condemned, shall be sustained, by 
 confirming what the Synod of Philadelphia have 
 done in the case of Mr. Barnes ; if other cases of 
 just discipline that may come before our highest 
 ecclesiastical court, shall be faithfully and" dis- 
 creetly borne out ; and a well tempered firmness 
 be manifested to maintain our Standards of doc- 
 trine and church order, in their integrity, purity, 
 and genuine spirit— ,then will contention in our 
 Church, we verily believe, be nearly at an end, 
 and our peace wil begin to " flow as a river." 
 Some, it niay be, will withdraw from our connec- 
 tion ; but it will be of individuals or judicatures 
 that will promote both our comfort and their own, 
 by leaving us. It should, therefore, be kept in 
 mind, that every vote, given for a commissioner to 
 the next Assembly, should be cast, under a 
 weighty sense of responsibility for its going to the 
 election of the best and wisest eligible m'an that 
 the voter can select ; and every commissioner ap- 
 pointed, should feel an equal responsibility, to 
 overcome every hinderance, not insurmountable, 
 which might prevent his attendance at the open- 
 ing of the Session, and his continuance through 
 the whole. 
 
 7. Finally. Our hope is in God. We desire 
 that our own minds and the mind of every reader 
 of this address, may be deeply and solemnly im- 
 
20 
 
 pressed, with a sense of our entire dependence on 
 the divine interposition, to restore purity and peace 
 to our beloved, back-slidden and bleeding church. 
 For Ofurselves, we have formed an association for a 
 concert of prayer; each individual agreeing that, 
 at an appointed hour on Saturday evening, he will, 
 in his private retirement, go to tlie throne of grace, 
 especially to supplicate, in the name of the Great 
 Intercessor, that a heavenly influence may descend 
 and rest on the next General Assembly — to en- 
 lighten all its counsels, and to bring every discus- 
 sion to that result which shall be most pleasing to 
 God, and most conducive to the welfare of our 
 church : and also, for a copious effusion, on all our 
 churches and congregations, of the Spirit of all 
 grace, that pure and undefiled religion may be re- 
 vived, the children of God be quickened, and genu- 
 
 ine converts be multiplied " like drops of morning' 
 dew." May we be permitted, respectfully to re- 
 commend something of this kind, to all our brethren. 
 We verily believe, that it was in answer to much 
 fervent prayer, that the last General Assembly were 
 led to the salutary measures they adopted ; and it 
 is more, far more, on a similar answer to 'prayer, ' 
 than on any thing and every thing beside, that we 
 look for a happy result of the deliberations of that 
 judicatory, at their next meeting— Brethren, fare- 
 well. Receive our address kindly, and examine 
 it candidly ; and may He who has the hearts of all 
 men in his hand, give it that impression on your 
 minds, which he shall see to be most for his glory, 
 and for the establishment and triumph of th« 
 truth as it is in Jesus. 
 
J 
 
I 
 
 i 
 
^ATE DUF 
 
^igj-^i^y. 
 
 «Jg§v'«'^^s^,^V-y" 
 
 
 '^rr-^'uz.