:X 
 
 X-j 
 
 ^ 
 
 r-av >--&*,,•• 
 
 -< ■" 
 
 
 :y^sai 
 
 )^^ 
 
,r ^, ^U^- 
 
 Q'. -..- ^. 
 
 PRINCETON, '^. J. 
 
 
 Divisiiii . 
 
 Section G r-^ J I 
 
 Shelf. Number . 
 
■ / / y / / /^ 
 
 / -^ / 
 
/,;• 
 V 
 
CORRECT NARRATIVE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PROCEEDINGS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PRESBYTERY OF PIIII.ADEL.PHIA, 
 
 RELATIVE TO THE 
 
 RECEPTION AND INSTALLATION 
 
 OF 
 
 MR. ALBERT BARNES s 
 
 WITH 
 
 THREE LETTERS IN ANSWER TO ONE. RELATIVE TO 
 THE AFORESAID PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 BY 
 
 W. Ii.'M'CAL.L.A, 
 
 Pastor of the Eighth Presbyterian Church, Philadelfihia. 
 
 AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 PRINTED BY RUSSELL & MARTIExN, 22} WALNUT STREET. 
 1830. 
 
TO THE PUBLIC. 
 
 It is hoped that every reader of the following publication 
 will keep constantly in mind that the author has been compell- 
 ed to it in self-defence. But for this he assuredly would never 
 have made it; nor given more publicity to the proceedings of 
 the Philadelphia Presbytery, in the case of Mr. Barnes, than 
 his trial itself occasioned. Not a single sentence would ever 
 have gone from him to the press, nor, he verily believes, from 
 one of the minority, if their opponents had kept silence on 
 their part. To the writer it did seem, that while the caso of 
 Mr. Barnes was yet sub judice ; while a complaint of the pro- 
 ceedings of Presbytery was yet to be disposed of by the 
 Synod, and perhaps by the General Assembly — the parties in 
 the case, like those in similar circumstances when a cause is 
 yet pending in a civil court, ought not to endeavour to pre- 
 occupy and prejudice the public mind, on the one side or the 
 other. But if one side will not consent to this method of pro- 
 cedure, the other may at length be obliged, in self-defence, 
 to depart from it. Otherwise the public mind may become 
 prejudiced against the silent party; may even take silence for 
 consent; may believe that nothing is said in reply, because 
 nothing to the purpose can be said. Now, let it be remem- 
 bered, that for three months past, the religious newspapers 
 of our country, far and near, have been teeming with the ex 
 parte representations of the majority; and that some of these 
 representations have been collected into a pamphlet, and very 
 widely distributed, under the title of "A Sketch of the Debate 
 and Proceedings of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, in regard 
 to the Installation of the Rev. Albert Barnes, in the First 
 Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia" — the pamphlet to which 
 the present publication chiefly responds. Yes, reader, for 
 three months in succession, the minority saw and heard them- 
 selves represented as stupid dolts, illiberal bigots, or mali- 
 cious maligners of their brethren, and observed a profound 
 silence. And have you thought that they were silent, because 
 they were unable to plead their own cause, or were conscious 
 that their cause would not bear a defence? Nothing further from 
 the truth than this. It was because the minority — I can at least 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 speak for one — had such confidence in the superiority of 
 their arguments when they brought them forward in the pres- 
 ence of a large assembly at the trial before the Presbytery, 
 and because they hoped that a superior judicature would ere 
 long do them justice, that they were willing to rest their 
 reputation and ultimate vindication on these grounds, without 
 entering into an altercation with their brethren in newspapers 
 and pamphlets. But every thing has its limits — Christian for- 
 bearance itself will be set down for conscious guilt, or 
 dastardly cowardice, if it never speaks a word in its own 
 defence, when insult and falsehood are heaped upon it with- 
 out measure. When, therefore, the writer was most unexpect- 
 edly called upon by the author of the short letter to which this 
 publication is a reply, for "a statement of the other side of 
 the question," he determined that he would give it — both to 
 the letter writer and to the public. This letter was probably 
 addressed to William L. M'Calla, because he had been held 
 up, rather more than any other individual, at one time as an 
 object of contempt, and at another of abhorrence; and it was 
 probably wished to hear what such a man could say for him- 
 self. William L. M'Calla now says — read and see. He chal- 
 lenges any opponent to deny a single fact that he has stated, 
 and if desired, he pledges himself to prove it, by as unques- 
 tionable testimony as ever was demanded in a court of law. 
 If in any instance he has been circumstantially erroneous — 
 against which he has sedulously endeavoured to guard — be 
 will thank any one, friend or foe, to point it out, and the error 
 shall immediately be acknowledged and corrected. For all 
 the remarks and strictures of the publication he alone is 
 responsible. Let it only be recollected that no reserve as to 
 names and pleadings before Presbytery, and in the public 
 papers, was used by those who compelled him to write, and 
 that he could not reply on equal ground without throwing off 
 all reserve, on his part. He has therefore thrown it off — 
 always, however, feeling that he had a sacred responsibility 
 to his divine Master, not to violate truth, nor to array even an 
 antagonist in darker colours than he deserved to wear; but 
 feeling, at the same time, that this was a case which urgently 
 demanded that the truth should be told plainly, and that things 
 should be called by their proper names. If a reply is attempt- 
 ed, he hopes the replicator will have courage enough to appear 
 with his proper name. 
 
NABRATITE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PHILADELPHIA PRESBYTERY, 
 
 IN HELATIOJf TO THE CASE OF 
 
 MR. ALBERT BARNES. 
 
 [For the following Narrative, the -writer is indebted to a friend who had am- 
 ple opportunities of ascertaining the facts in the case, and he here publishes 
 It without any alteration.] ^^.^/Ct JC^*\^^*^ 
 
 The debates in the Presbytery of Philadelphia, on the recep- 
 tion and installation of the Rev. Albert Barnes, have been re- 
 garded with unusual interest by nnany, as involving points of 
 great moment to the Presbyterian Church, in relation both to 
 her discipline and doctrine. They have not only furnished a 
 pregnant theme for conversation, but a subject for the essayist 
 and reporter. Several of the religious periodicals have lent 
 their aid in circulating statements, from which the spirit of im- 
 partiality and equal justice has been discarded. Even in the 
 earliest stages of the affair, and previous to any decision, this 
 course was pursued, with the evident intention of prejudicing 
 the public mind, and prc-ducing an effect which would influence 
 the final determination of the Presbytery. The truth should 
 never be dreaded, however loudly proclaimed or widely dif- 
 fused ; but when honest intentions are misrepresented, and facts 
 are misstated, alarm is justifiable, and passiveness becomes 
 criminal. 
 
 A pamphlet lately published in the city of New York, pro- 
 fesses to give an accurate and detailed history of the debates 
 in question, in which the names of the speakers are mentioned, 
 and abstracts of their speeches furnished. The writer of it, in 
 our opinion, was totally disqualified for his task ; a disqualifi- 
 cation arising either from entire ignorance of his subject, or a 
 determined dishonesty in its exhibition. He alike conceals the 
 weak points of the majority and the strong points of the mino- 
 rity. He has betrayed little capacity for comprehending the 
 argument, and less discretion in piiblishing his incompetency. 
 In a word, the sketch contains just sufficient colouring of 
 truth, to give plausibility to general misrepresentation. Many, 
 however, may receive his report as true, until they are fur- 
 nished with more authentic information ; and to supply this, 
 we have been reluctantly compelled to abandon the reserve 
 
( ^ ) 
 
 which we had intended to observe whilst the case was under 
 judgment. A report of speeches which occupied a debate of 
 seven days continuance, is not our intention. Such a report, 
 to be honest, should be full, and would not only be tedious, but 
 at this time, impracticable ; and we should consider our can- 
 dour and integrity in jeopardy by an imitation of the writer of 
 the " Sketch," who reports a long speech in three unmeaning 
 lines of a pamphlet. We must, however, be excused in follow- 
 ing his example in one particular ; we mean his freedom in the 
 use of names. In exercising this privilege for the purpose of 
 rendering our narrative intelligible, it will be our aim to " ren- 
 der to Csesar the things which are Caesar's," avoiding the charge 
 of libel, except where the truth may be construed into libel. 
 This much being premised, we proceed to give the promised 
 detail of circumstances in the order of their occurrence. 
 
 In the month of it became the subject of common 
 
 conversation, that thfe^^reftPwiSJjj^rian Church of this city 
 were directing their attention to the Rev. Albert Barnes, of 
 Morristown, N. J. with the intention of presenting him a call to 
 become their Pastor. His talents, ministerial fidelity, and suc- 
 cess, were spoken of in terms of high commendation. At the 
 same time, it was notorious that the candidate had never occu- 
 pied the pulpit of the First Church, and that with the exception 
 of a kw individuals, the congregation were entirely ignorant, 
 as far as their personal experience was concerned, of his minis- 
 terial qualifications. In addition to the verbal testimony of 
 friends, a sermon preached and published by Mr. Barnes, was 
 referred to in proof of his ability. This was freely circulated 
 among the congregation, and the commendations bestowed 
 upon it naturally excited the curiosity of many not connected 
 with this Church, to see and peruse it. A rumour was at length 
 heard, that this sermon contained errors in doctrine, which 
 placed it in direct conflict with the doctrinal standards of the 
 Presbyterian Church, and the truth of the rumour was shortly 
 afterwards confirmed in a review* of the sermon, published in 
 the " Philadelphian." This review proposed to place the ser- 
 mon of Mr. Barnes and the Presbyterian Confession of Faith in 
 juxta-position, that the discrepancies between them might be 
 observed at a glance. This publication was decryed as an un- 
 generous and malignant personal attack upon the author of the 
 sermon, although it speaks for itself, as a temperate exercise of 
 a right which every individual possesses, of canvassing the 
 merits of any published document. A reply from the pen of 
 
 * The writer of this review was the Rev. Wm. M. Engles, whose name 
 was revealed by the Editor, the Rev. Dr. El)', to certain gentlemen belong- 
 ing to the First Church, who had taken umbrage at the review. This was 
 done without his concurrence, and he felt that he had reason to complain, 
 that persons totally unauthorised to make the demand, and who were disposed 
 to make an ungenerous use of the information, should have been gratified by 
 the Editor at the first expresMon of their wish. 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 t 
 
 the Rev. Dr. Wilson soon appeared, and a controversy of consi- 
 derable length between him and the reviewer was conducted 
 and published in the same periodical. 
 
 In the mean time, a congregational meeting had been held 
 in the First Church, and a call was determined upon for the 
 Rev. Mr. Barnes. According to constitutional provision, it was 
 necessary that this call should be submitted to the Presbytery, 
 that they might grant or withhold their permission for its pro- 
 secution before the Presbytery of Elizabethtown, of which Mr. 
 Barnes was a member. At this stage, the ecclesiastical pro- 
 ceedings in the case commenced. When the call was present- 
 ed before the Presbytery, at their stated meeting in April, and 
 permission asked by the commissioners to prosecute it, the ve- 
 nerable Dr. Green arose, and with a manner characterised by 
 kindness and courtesy, solicited the attention of the judicatory 
 whilst he detailed the reasons which would induce him to give 
 a negative vote on the motion then pending. These reasons, 
 he said, were founded upon Mr. Barnes' doctrinal errors, as 
 they had been recently proclaimed to the world in his printed 
 sermon, and upon which he proposed briefly to animadvert. 
 His attempt, however, was hastily interrupted by a comparatively 
 youthful member of the Presbytery, (Mr. Biggs) who affirmed it 
 to be both irregular and unkind, to make the sermon a ground 
 of judgment, as it would virtually amount to an arraignment 
 and trial of Mr. Barnes for heresy, whilst he was beyond the 
 jurisdiction of Presbytery. A motion to this effect was made 
 and seconded, and a debate of considerable length and anima- 
 tion ensued on the point of order. On the one side, it was 
 contended that a congregation had an unquestionable right to 
 call any favourite candidate, provided his standing was regular 
 in a co-ordinate judicatory, and that it was an arbitrary stretch 
 of authority to interfere with that right upon any grounds ; that 
 the presentation of a call to Presbytery did not imply a right 
 in them to adjudicate, but was merely a pro forma proceeding ; 
 and that to urge objections to a call, grounded upon the doc- 
 trinal delinquencies of a candidate, however proclaimed in his 
 writings, was extra-judicial^ whilst he remained unimpeached in 
 the Presbytery to which he regularly appertained. On the 
 other side, it was maintained that a congregation which had 
 voluntarily subjected itself to the jurisdiction of a Presbytery, 
 had no such independent right as that which was pleaded ; 
 that their right to call was not more clearly demonstrable than 
 the right of Presbytery to object and refuse permission to pro- 
 ceed to subsequent steps; that the very fact of submitting a 
 call to Presbytery for approval, implied the right of disapproval, 
 and so far from being a mere pro forma proceeding, was a 
 direct acknowledgment of jurisdiction ; and, finally, that if 
 members of a Presbytery had a right to vote upon such a ques- 
 tion, they had a right also to state the reasons which determin- 
 
ed their vote, and if these reasons were deduced from an au- 
 thentic printed document, they neither violated the constitution 
 of the church nor the laws of brotherly kindness in urging them. 
 The argument being finished, it was decided by a vote of thirty- 
 seven to ten, that it was perfectly regular for the members of 
 Presbytery to raise objections to the prosecution of the call 
 from Mr. Barnes' printed sermon ; the Rev. Dr. M'Auley and 
 Messrs. Patterson, Belville, Biggs, Sandford, and Hoover being 
 the only ministers who dissented. The attempt to enforce the 
 gag law upon Presbytery having thus happily failed, the sermon 
 of Mr. Barnes was read entire before Presbytery, by its order, 
 and the debate then proceeded upon the original motion, " Shall 
 the call be prosecuted*?" The discussion of this question was 
 protracted and singular in a high degree. Those who are now 
 known as the "minority," met the question fearlessly upon its doc- 
 trinal merits, and opposed the call because Mr. Barnes had recent- 
 ly published a Sermon on the Way of Salvation, in which, 
 
 1 . He makes no mention of the cardinal doctrine of justifica- 
 tion by faith. 
 
 2. In which he contemptuously rejects the doctrine of the 
 imputation of Adam's sin. 
 
 3. In which he intimates that the first moral taint of the 
 creature is coincident with his first moral action. 
 
 4. In which he denies that Christ sustained the penalty of the 
 law, and employs language on the subject highly derogatory to 
 the character of Christ. 
 
 5. In which he boldly aflSrms that the atonement of Christ 
 had no specific reference to individuals. 
 
 6. In which he declares, that the Atonement in itself secured 
 the Salvation of no Man, and possessed only a conditional 
 efficacy. 
 
 7. In which he maintains that the entire inability of the sin- 
 ner for holy actions consisted in indisposition of the will ; and, 
 finally, in which he declares his independence of all formularies 
 of doctrine, notwithstanding his professed adherence to them.* 
 
 * It was thought by the minority, that these were not the comfiaratively 
 venial errors of Hopkinsianism, but the more dangerous ones of Murdock, 
 Taylor, and Fitch, which have recently been grafted on the original stock. 
 
 Professor Woods of Andover, in his late admirable reply to some points in 
 the sfieculative, fihilosofihical religion of Dr. Taylor, coincides precisely with 
 the minority of the Philadelphia Presbytery, in estimating the doctrines of the 
 New Haven School. He considers them as in a high degree erroneous and 
 dangerous. His language in the 98th page of his Letters, justly expresses the 
 view by which the minority were influenced in their proceedings. It is as 
 follows ; " Whether right or wrong, we have been accustomed to consider the 
 controversy which early arose in the Church between the Orthodox and Pela- 
 gians, and which, after the Reformation, was continued between the Lutherans 
 and Calvinists on one side, and the Arminians or Remonstrants on the other, 
 as of radical importance. Now, how would you expect us to feel, and, with 
 our convictions, how ought we to feel, when a brother, luho has firofessed to be 
 decidedly Orthodox, makes an attack ufion several of the articles of our faiths 
 and emfiloys language on the subject of moral agency, free "will, depravity. 
 
( 9 ; 
 
 In addition to these reasons, it was also incidentally objected 
 that the call was irregularly framed, omitting one important 
 clause of the form, which is in these words, "and having good 
 hopes, from our past experience of your labours." The fact was, 
 that the congregation had no past experience of the labours of 
 the candidate, as they had never heard him preach; and this 
 fact, which induced the remarkable omission, accounted also for 
 another fact, that hut fifty votes were given for the call, out of 
 more than two hundred and twenty in the congregation who 
 were legally entitled to vote. 
 
 On the part of the majority of Presbytery, the debate was 
 conducted in a truly novel manner. With the single exception 
 of Thomas Bradford, Esq. who honestly avowed his coincidence 
 of sentiment with Mr. Barnes upon Ho()kinsian ground, there 
 was a studious and persevering endeavour to avoid the doctri- 
 nal discussion. The Rev. Dr. M'Auley admitted that the ser- 
 mon contained some things which were not true, some that were 
 equivocal, and some that were unhappily expressed; but he 
 maintained that we had nothing to do with Mr. Barnes' doctrinal 
 sentiments, although the Presbytery had just decided the valid- 
 ity of such a scrutiny. The Rev. Mr. Sandford occupied the 
 same ground, substantially, and hoped that he might not be 
 considered as giving any opinion upon the doctrinal question. 
 The remarks of the Rev. Dr. Ely were written at length, and 
 read before the Presbytery, and the tenor of them was, that 
 although there were many things in the Sermon which appeared 
 suspicious, yet, with a little of his interpretative and explana- 
 tory aid, they could be reconciled with orthodoxy. But the all- 
 powerful argument which appeared to be most relied upon, if 
 we judge from its frequent reiteration, was, that Mr. Barnes had 
 the confidence of many excellent men, that he was an exem- 
 plary Christian, and that he had been a successful preacher of 
 the Gospel! This furnished a prolific topic for declamation, and 
 the understandings of the Presbyters were forgotten in the anx- 
 iety to affect and enlist their feelings. A persecuted saint, 
 assailed in his character and impeded in his career of usefulness, 
 was a picture, it would seem, too affecting for the judgment of 
 some men to withstand. Whether such appeals were honourable 
 in a doctrinal discussion of this kind, the candid reader is left 
 to decide. But this was not all, attempts were made to overawe 
 the minority. They were told that the world had already sounded 
 the alarm of ecclesiastical domination and tyranny — that the 
 discussion was doing great disservice to the cause of religion 
 in the community at large — that public sentiment was too en- 
 lightened and liberal to countenance such inquisitorial proceed- 
 ings — that the call in question was from the First Presbyterian 
 
 divine bijlueiicc, cS'c. which is .10 like the language of ylrminians and Fela 
 gians, that it ivould rerjuire some labour to discover the difference?'^ 
 
 B 
 
Church in Philadelphia— and that that respectable and impor- 
 tant congregation would secede if their wish was denied, and 
 last, though not least, for its preposterousness — that the First 
 Church would decline any future contributions to the Board of 
 Missions, because the Rev. Dr. Green and the Rev. Joshua T. 
 Russell, the President and the General Agent of that Board, 
 were members of the minority!* Arguments of this class, how- 
 ever they might indicate the policy, certainly did little credit 
 to the understandings of those who broached ihem. They doubt- 
 less produced an effect upon some minds; it soon became 
 apparent that there was a popular and an unpopular side to the 
 question, and those who were unwilling to encounter reproach, 
 and submit to misrepresentation, had their resort. 
 
 The motion was at length put to the house, "Shall the com- 
 missioners have leave to prosecute the calH" and it was carried 
 in the affirmative, by a vote of twenty-one to twelve. The 
 minority then recorded the following Protest, and the Presby- 
 tery adjourned. 
 
 PROTEST. 
 
 We, the minority in the above case, do hereby protest 
 against the foregoing decision for the reasons following, viz: 
 
 The Rev. Albert Barnes, the person to whom the call from 
 the First Presbyterian Church was directed, in a Sermon preach- 
 ed, and lately published by him, accompanied by notes, which 
 he has entitled "The Way of Salvation," and in which he pro- 
 fesses to give " the leading doctrines of the Bible, respecting 
 God's way of saving men," has, as we conceive, broached errors, 
 which we, as guardians of the purity of the Church, cannot, in 
 any way, countenance ; because we believe them to be opposed 
 to the doctrinal standards of the Presbyterian Church, and in 
 their tendency, exceedingly dangerous ; as will be seen from 
 the following particulars, viz. 
 
 1. It is believed by the undersigned that the Rev. Mr. Barnes 
 has denied in this Sermon, with its accompanying notes, the 
 fundamental doctrine of original sin, as plainly and expressly 
 taught in the standards of our Church. So far from admitting 
 the federal and representative character of Adam, and our res- 
 ponsibility in him, he says at page 6, "Christianity does not 
 charge on men crimes of which they are not guilty. It does not 
 
 ♦We had regarded this as an idle threat, incautiously uttered, but we have 
 since learned that an individual of that congregation, who had pledged himself 
 in the 100 dollar subscription, has since declined to redeem his pledge! 
 
 Mr. Russell, from his former associations, was well qualified to engage in 
 this debate, and expose the dangerous speculations of the new school divinity. 
 This he did witli much force and ability, and this, we are glad to say, he con- 
 tinued to do, although reminded that a calculating fiolicy would best subserve 
 his official success in the management of the Assembly's Missions. 
 
( 11 ) 
 
 say, as I suppose, that the sinner is held to be personally answer- 
 able for the transgressions of Adam or of any other man, or 
 that God has given a law which man has no power to obey. 
 Such a charge and such a requirement would be most clearly 
 unjust.^'' And again, at page 7, he says, " neither the facts, 
 nor any proper inference from the facts, affirm that I am in 
 either case personally responsible for ivhat another man did 
 before I had an existence." Again, in the same page, he asserts, 
 that *' the notion of imputing sin is an invention of modern 
 times." And again, in the same page, he says, "Christianity 
 affirms the fact, that in connexion with the sin of Adam, or as a 
 result, all moral agents will sin and sinning will die ;" and then 
 proceeds to say, " It docs not affirm, however, any thing about 
 the mode in which this would be done. There are many ways 
 conceivable in which that sin might secure the result, as there 
 are many ways in which all similar facts may be explained. 
 The drunkard commonly secures as a result, the fact that his 
 family will be beggared, illiterate, perhaps profane or intem- 
 perate. Both facts are evidently to be explained on the same 
 principle as a part of moral government." Here, it is conceived, 
 the author of the Sermon represents the effects of Adam's fall 
 upon his posterity as their misfortune and not as their sin. And 
 the Protestants do further consider it to be implied in the state- 
 ments of the Sermon, that infants are sinless until in the exer- 
 cise of moral agency they do positively, by their own act, violate 
 the law. Vide Con. of Faith, cap. vi. and Catechism Larger and 
 Shorter, on Art. "Original Sin." 
 
 2. On the doctrine of the atonement, the Protestants believe 
 that Mr. Barnes maintains sentiments which are in direct contra- 
 diction to those set forth in out doctrinal standards. At page 
 1 1, he says, " This atonement was for all men. It was an offer- 
 ing 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 consistent, a preserving 
 of truth, a magnifying of the law, and had no particular refer- 
 ence to any class of men." 
 
 Again, at page 11, he says, " The atonement of itself secured 
 the salvation of no one;" and again, "The atonement secured 
 the salvation of no one, except as God had promised his Son 
 that he should see of the travail of his soul, and except on the 
 condition of repentance and faith." Vide Con. of Faith, cap. 
 viii. 5 and 8. 
 
 Again, at page 10, he says Christ "did not endure indeed the 
 penalty of the law;" and again, page 11, he says, "Christ's 
 sufferings were severe, more severe than those of any mortal 
 before or since; but they bore, so 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 
 few hours, however severe, could equal pains, though far less 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 intense, eternally prolonged. Still less that the sufferings of 
 human nature, in a single instance, for the divine nature could 
 not suffer, should be equal to the eternal pain of many millions." 
 Vide Larger Cat. Q. 38. 
 
 In all this language the Protestants do sincerely believe, that 
 Mr. Barnes denies that Jesus Christ was a vicarious sacrifice — 
 that his atonement had a definite design — that it was in itself 
 efficacious — and that it was a proper satisfaction to divine jus- 
 tice for the sins of his elect. 
 
 3. In this Sermon, the Protestants believe that Mr. Barnes 
 employs language on the subject of man's ability, which is con- 
 trary to the standards of our Church. 
 
 In speaking of sinners rejecting the Gospel, he says, page 
 14, " It is not to any want of physical strength, that this rejec- 
 tion is owing, for men have power enough in themselves 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 evidently insinuates that man's sole inability is in the will, 
 and the principal effect of conversion upon the will. Again, 
 page 30, in speaking of the causes which exclude a sinner from 
 heaven, he says, " It is simply because you will not he saved." 
 The Protestants believe that to ascribe man's inability to the 
 will alone, is contrary to the doctrine of our Church. Vide 
 Con. of Faith, cap. vi. 4. 
 
 In addition to the foregoing reasons founded on the doctri- 
 nal errors advanced in the Sermon, we protest also, because, 
 
 1. In the forecited Sermon, professing to give a summary of 
 leading doctrines relating to man's salvation, no mention what- 
 ever is made of the doctrine of justification by faith through the 
 imputed righteousness of Christ, a defect, which, under the cir- 
 cumstances, cannot well be accounted for, except on the suppo- 
 sition that it was not received by the author; and 
 
 2. Because the author of the Sermon makes certain general 
 declarations which induce us to believe,, that he does not proper- 
 ly regard his obligation to adhere to the doctrinal standards of 
 the Presbyterian Church. Thus, at page 6, he says in relation 
 to one of his statements, " It is not denied that this language 
 varies from the statements which are often made on this subject, 
 and from the opinion which has been entertained by many. 
 And it is admitted that it does not accord icith that used on the 
 same subject in the Confession of Faith and other standards of 
 doctrine." And, again at page 12, he says, "The great princi- 
 ple 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 honest helps within the reach of the 
 preacher, and then proclaimed as it is, let it lead where it will 
 within or without the circumference of any arrangement of doc- 
 trines. He is supposed to be responsible not at all for its im- 
 pinging on any theological system ; nor is he to be cramped by 
 any frame-work of faith that has been reared around the Bible." 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 And we do hereby furllier protest against the forementioned 
 decision, because, 
 
 1. We believe, for the reasons stated above, that the decision 
 will prove injurious to the purity of the Cliurch, and to the best 
 interests of religion : and, 
 
 2. Because, notwithstanding it had been decided on a pre- 
 vious question, by a vote of 37 to 10, that it was the right of 
 Presbytery in examining the qualifications of their own mem- 
 bers, to bring the said printed Sermon of Mr. Barnes under 
 review, and to draw thence arguments for or against the prose- 
 cution of the call; yet in the final vote, a number of those who 
 voted in the majority, whilst expressing their dissent from Mr. 
 Barnes' doctrines, declared that they were guided in their vote, 
 by the consideration that Presbytery had no right to inquire into 
 Mr. Barnes' theological views, or to make them a ground of 
 objection to the prosecution of the call. 
 
 For these reasons, we consider it our solemn duty to protest 
 against that decision, which granted leave to the commissioners 
 from the First Presbyterian Church to prosecute a call for the 
 Rev. Albert Barnes before the Presbytery of Elizabethtown. 
 (Signed) 
 
 Ministers. — Ashbel Green, George C. Potts, John Burtt, 
 Joshua T. Russell, Alvin H. Parker, W. L. M'Calla, William 
 M. Engles, Charles Williamson. 
 
 Elders. — Andw. Brown, Jos. P. Engles, James Algeo, Moses 
 Reed. 
 
 A special meeting of the Presbytery was held on the 18th of 
 June following, " for the purpose of considering the subject of 
 the reception of the Rev. Mr. Barnes, and to do what may be 
 deemed proper in his installation." This meeting was held in 
 the Lecture room of the First Church, and was numerously at- 
 tended by Presbyters and spectators. The indelicacy of aban- 
 doning the usual place of meeting, and selecting this location, 
 might be a subject of just comment; but if it had a design to 
 influence, it totally failed; the minority neither retracted nor 
 modified their ground. The following extract from the minutes 
 of Presbytery will show how the business was introduced at this 
 stage. " The Rev. Albeit Barnes presented a certificate of dis- 
 mission from the Presbytery of Elizabethtown to join the 
 Presbytery of Philadelphia. The minutes of the Presbytery at 
 their last stated meeting in relation to the case of the Rev. 
 Albert Barnes, were then read. It was then moved and seconded, 
 that Mr. Barnes be received as a member of this Presbytery; 
 and after some discussion, it was moved (by the Rev. Dr. Ely,) 
 and seconded, that the motion now under consideration be post- 
 poned, that before deciding on it, any brother of the Presbytery 
 who may deem it necessary, may ask of the Rev. Mr. Barnes 
 such explanations of his doctrinal views as said brethren may 
 
( 14 ) 
 
 deem necessary." Here the question determining the right of 
 a Presbytery to examine the qualifications of those proposing to 
 become members, by dismission from a co-ordinate judicatory 
 was brought prominently under debate, although it had been 
 virtually decided in the affirmative by the first vote of the Pres- 
 bytery at their April sessions. The right was strenuously con- 
 tended for on the one side as one recognized by the constitu- 
 tion; as clearly ascertained by various decisions of the General 
 Assembly; as inherent in Presbyteries as radical courts; as 
 necessary as a safeguard against the rapid spread of error; and 
 as essential to preserve the proceedings of a Presbytery against 
 foreign interference. The argument on the other side, was the 
 mere and confident denial of all these principles, as calculated 
 to bring Presbyteries into conflict, and thus to interrupt the 
 peace of the Church. Strange as it may appear, assertion pre- 
 vailed over demonstration, and the right of Presbytery to exa- 
 mine the qualifications of its own members, was denied, by a 
 vote of twenty to eighteen, twelve ministers voting in the affirm- 
 ative and twelve in the negative. The original motion for Mr. 
 Barnes' admission being again brought under consideration, it 
 was moved by the Rev. Mr. Engles, that the motion naw under 
 consideration be postponed with a view to take up the following : 
 
 " Resolved, That the certificate presented to this Presbytery 
 by the Rev. Mr. Barnes, from the Presbytery of Elizabethtown, 
 be sent back to the Presbytery of Elizabethtown, with an 
 attested copy of all the minutes of this Presbytery in relation 
 to his case, with a request that the said Presbytery will consider 
 and decide upon those doctrinal statements contained in a 
 printed sermon of Mr. Barnes, which are referred to in a Pro- 
 test signed by a minority of this Presbytery, and which are 
 considered as grounds of objection to his admission into this 
 Presbytery." 
 
 The majority had, in the course of argument, indicated this as 
 the proper resort of the minority, but now feeling themselves to 
 be sufficiently strong to carry all their measures, they changed 
 their views and negatived the motion. The debate on Mr. 
 Barnes' reception vvas then commenced anew. 
 
 To report speeches is not our intention; but we cannot refrain 
 from adverting to that of the Rev. Mr. M'Calla, as an able and 
 masterly defence of orthodoxy, in opposition to the spurious 
 theology of New England, and to that of the Rev. Dr. Green, 
 as the solemn warning of the sole representative of the fathers 
 of our church, now fallen asleep, who, having observed the dis- 
 astrous decline of the once glorious churches of France, Swit- 
 zerland, and Ireland, could not suppress his grief in remarking 
 on the present occasion, the same false spirit of liberality ; the 
 same unbounded latitude of interpretation, and the same unwil- 
 lingness to arrest error in its commencement which had brought 
 on their eclipse. At this stage of the business, the Rev. Dr. Ely, 
 who had strenuously defended the right of Presbytery to exa- 
 
I 10 ) 
 
 mine Mr. Barnes, arose, and stated that he purposed to vote for 
 the reception of Mr. Barnes, because, from a private interview, 
 he was convinced of his general orthodoxy, in proof of which, 
 he read a written creed prepared by himself, and adopted and 
 signed by Mr. Barnes. This was a proceeding, in our opinion, 
 alike discreditable to both parties; the dignity of Mr. Barnes 
 was compromised in submitting to have his views explained by 
 another, when he was so earnestly solicited to improve the most 
 favourable opportunity of doing it himself, and the dignity of 
 Dr. Ely suffered in condescending to string together a set of 
 nicely adjusted phrases, which, however orthodox their aspect, 
 were evidently intended to cover two schemes of totally dif- 
 ferent characters.* It is with reluctance that we advert to such 
 transactions, but we wish our narrative to be recommended by 
 its truth. The vote was eventually taken by ayes and noes, on 
 the motion for receiving Mr. Barnes, and decided in the affir- 
 mative, sixteen ministers and fourteen elders voting in the 
 affirmative, and nine ministers and seven elders in the negative. 
 A paper was then presented to the moderator, containing 
 charges against Mr. Barnes, for his unsoundness in the faith 
 and in arrest of his installation. The moderator, however, de- 
 cided it to be out of order, as originating a new business at a 
 pro re nata meeting. This opinion was appealed from by Dr. 
 Ely, but the appeal was not sustained. He, and at least two 
 others of the majority, contended that the mere announcement 
 from the moderator of the existence of such a paper of charges, 
 was a sufficient bar to the installation, and yet immediately 
 afterwards, they surmounted the bar and voted for the installa- 
 tion, f Strange occurrences take place in over anxiety to give 
 
 * It is true, that Mr. Barnes did, on one occasion, rise and promise to make 
 some explanations of his doctrinal views. This he said he would do volunta- 
 rily, but not in compliance with a demand, which he was convinced Pres- 
 bytery had no right to make. The minority were pleased with the promise, 
 although Mr. Barnes was careful to represent it as a mere concession of cour- 
 tesy ; but at the manner in which he fulfilled it, they were not only disap- 
 pointed, but surprised. It is doubtful if he occupied the floor iovjive minutes, 
 and in that time explanations could not have been expected, much less satis- 
 factory ones. He acknowledged, it is true, that his sermon was defective, 
 through oversight, on the doctrine of justification, (an acknowledgment which 
 the " Sketch" hasforgotten to record) but what he said in brevity, on the 
 other disputed points, only tended to increase the suspicion, and confirm the 
 conviction of his error, in the minds of the minority. 
 
 t Upon the presentation of this paper by Mr. Hoff, (whose manner in this 
 whole transaction was characterized by firmness and decision) a curious scene 
 ensued. The moderator, commendable for his general impartiality, decided 
 the paper to be out of order, if it professed to be a copy of charges, but to be 
 in order, if it professed to be a bar to the installation. "Now, it so happened, 
 that it came under both these professions, and hence a dilemma. The majo- 
 rity, however, confirmed the decision that it was out of order, and vet deter- 
 mined that it should be read. Dr. Ely, Mr. Biggs, and Mr. Steel'professed 
 to regard the paper, before it was read, as a "very serious obstacle to the 
 installation ; but subsequently, Mr. Biggs found that the charges contained wo 
 new matter ; Dr. Ely, that they were preferied /oo /ote ,- and Mr. Steel of- 
 fered no ground for a change of opinion, and they w ere eventually found united 
 in the vote for installation. 
 
( 16 ) 
 
 success to a favourite measure, and these sessions of the Pres- 
 bytery have been prolific of such occurrences. It was decided 
 by regular vote, that Mr. Barnes' doctrinal errors might be can- 
 vassed, and il was also decided that they might not be can- 
 vassed ; it was maintained, that Mr. Barnes might be arraigned 
 when he should become a member of Presbytery, and it was 
 maintained by the same persons, when he had become a mem- 
 ber, and an arraignment was attempted, that it was too late to 
 arraign him for acts committed in another Presbytery, and in 
 the full knowledge of which he had been received by tliis ; 
 there were those who declared themselves to be of the old 
 orthodox school, and yet were willing to lend their influence in 
 promoting the interests of the new school, which is any thing 
 but orthodox ; it was maintained by the same person, that the 
 same sermon contained false doctrine, and that it contained no 
 false doctrine ; some were found who could advocate one side 
 of a cause in their speeches, and advocate the opposite side by 
 their votes ; but we forbear ; our only comment is, that truth is 
 beautifully consistent with itself. This we honestly believe to 
 be a correct narrative of the proceedings in relation to the case 
 of the Rev. Mr. Barnes, and it has been extorted from us by 
 the officious zeal of those who have attempted to pre-occupy 
 the public attention by their imperfect and garbled sketch. 
 
 Hostility to any of the brethren we disclaim. We merely re- 
 view and condemn that conduct which we consider reprehen- 
 sible in them as Presbyters. We conscientiously believe that we 
 have stated the truth, and we are willing to defend it. If there 
 must be controversy, we have not sought it, but. obtruded upon 
 us, we will not avoid it. 
 
LETTER 
 
 From a gentleman in JVeiv Jersey, dated July 29th, 1830, to 
 ''Rev. fV. L. APCalla, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 I have just received and read a Sketch of the proceedings of the 
 Presbytery of Philadelphia, in regard to the installation of the 
 Rev. Albert Barnes; it is a sketch of one side only. The arguments 
 in favour of the installation of Mr. Barnes and of his doctrines, 
 are given at some length, while those against him are suppress- 
 ed. There are some persons here who do not think Mr. Barnes 
 that paragon of perfection he is by some represented to be. I 
 think it but fair that the whole of the proceedings should go 
 before the public. I have, therefore, taken the liberty to re- 
 quest you to forward to me the debates against the doctrines of 
 Mr. Barnes ; by so doing, you will oblige 
 
 Your obedient servant." 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 Letter I. — The Sketch Exposed. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 You have assigned me a difficult task ; I will endeavour to 
 perform it as in the presence of my final Judge. You probably 
 think us either very patient or very insensible, to bear, in si- 
 lence, for so many months, the cross-fire of the Philadelphian 
 and the Sketch. To be wounded in the house of a friend, is a 
 great trial, but it belonged to the cup of our Master's sufferings, 
 and in his cause, we are willing to have our names cast out as 
 evil. The free use which the Sketch has made of names, in 
 blazing them before the public eye, has probably amazed you ; 
 but if his cause be right, his course should not be ofl^ensive in 
 this particular. If we be guilty, let us be exposed ; if we be so 
 full oi acrimony and so destitute of tenderness or christian can- 
 dour, as he says, let the public know our names and our offend- 
 ing. The reporter says, that Dr. Green and his coadjutors 
 "seemed to forget all the laws of kindness and christian fellow- 
 ship, and gave a loose to their long harboured prejudice against 
 the 'new school divinity,^ as thoy called it."* Now I am not 
 unwilling to be published as an opposer of the " new school 
 divinity ;" and to allow its friends to call me by whatsoever hard 
 names they may think best. And if Dr. M'Auley aad his fol- 
 lowers have concluded to forsake the old system, and become 
 the protectors, and the uncandid protectors of the " new school 
 
 * Sketch, p. 5. 
 
divinity,'^ let them, by name, get the credit of their achieve- 
 ments. In my account, therefore, of the debate, I may attach 
 their names to their deeds. In doing so, remember, I follow 
 the example of their reporter, the author of the Sketch, in 
 which we are assailed with such severity and unfairness as im- 
 periously calls for a defence. 
 
 This writer professes to have been present, and to have noted 
 what passed, except what he calls " a long speech" of mine. It 
 would be too great a waste of time to notice half the errors of 
 this miniature report ; permit me to give you a specimen. After 
 the minority of the Presbytery had presented charges against 
 Mr. Barnes, Dr. M'Auley represented them as having prepared 
 these charges long before they were handed in ; and (as I un- 
 derstand) he insinuated unworthy motives for such a measure. 
 The " Sketch" makes him say, " Dr. Ely told me yesterday 
 morning that charges were already prepared." The reporter 
 then says, "Dr. Ely explained that it was not in the morning, 
 but afternoon.* Remember, he pretends to have heard and 
 noted the above assertion of Dr. M'Auley, and explanation of 
 Dr. Ely. Yet Dr. Ely, (in the Philadelphian of July 23d) denies 
 having made the above explanation, and denies having heard Dr. 
 M'Auley make the assertion which the reporter attributes to 
 him, as having elicited the explanation. If his own partisans 
 contradict him, it is no wonder that I should deny many other 
 statements and slanderous insinuations of far greater impor- 
 tance. 
 
 Besides the inaccuracy of the report, its partiality, to which 
 your letter refers, might be shown at great length. I will trou- 
 ble you with one sample. We were discussing the question of 
 order, concerning the right of our Presbytery to examine Mr." 
 Barnes, when coming to us with an orderly dismission and 
 good recommendation from the Presbytery of Elizabethtown. 
 The reporter states that Mr. Patterson " quoted from Steuart's 
 collections, two cases, to show that it was not the usage of the 
 Scotch church ; that they never did re-examine a minister for 
 installation."! The writer does not condescend to report my 
 speech in reply to Mr. Patterson, but only represents it as cha- 
 racterized by " wide digressions,^^ and other things far worse. 
 In compliance with your request, I will endeavour, in a small 
 degree, to supply the defect of this " sketch of one side only," 
 by mentioning two of those " vjide digressions,^^ which the re- 
 porter thinks so contemptible in comparison with Mr. Patter- 
 son's " hf;o cases," as he inaccurately calls them. Mr. Patter- 
 son's two authorities from Steuart's Collections, were intended 
 to show that the rules and usages of the Scottish Church are 
 favourable to receiving and installing Mr. Barnes, without exa- 
 mination, by our Presbytery, in which the calling congregation 
 lies. One of his quotations represented " the call as to what 
 
 * Sketch, p. 30. t Sketch, p. 12. 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 appeareth at present to be orderly.^' In reply, I reminded the 
 Presbytery that the call for Wr. Karnes, "as to what uppcareth 
 at present," was disorderly; because it v/as presented before 
 the congregation had ever heard iiim preach; and it therefore 
 omitted the words, ^^ from our past experience of your labours;'''' 
 which fact, in this, "or like form," our constitution requires to 
 be stated in an orderly call.* If this was a digression, it was 
 not a very ivide one. INIr. Patterson's second quotation is as 
 follows, viz. "Actual ministers, when transported, are not to be 
 tried again, as was done at their entry to the ministry."! This 
 was very confidently read, and boldly applied to the case in 
 hand, to show that Mr. Ijarnes, when translated, should not be 
 examined by the Presbytery in which the calling congregation 
 lies. In my second ivide digression, I begged leave to read 
 those words, in Steuart's Collections, which immediately follow 
 the words quoted by Mr. Patterson. They are these, viz: "But 
 only the Presbytery, in ivhichthe calling parish lies, shall judge 
 of his gifts, from what they have .heard of him in the exercise 
 thereof." The reading of this context which, evidently, turned 
 Mr. Patterson's authority against himself, and placed his can- 
 dour in no very amiable light, produced such an impression 
 upon the whole house, as showed that they did not consider it 
 a wide digression. But our impartial Reporter has not thought 
 proper to advert to it, in any other way than to accuse me of 
 invective, insinuation, personal allusions, and wide digressions, 
 with the most unsparing bitterness ! ! Surely this Reporter must 
 be an example of iyisupportable sweetness I 
 
 For the purpose of injuring a good cause, by calumniating 
 and dividing its advocates, he writes as follows, viz. "Even 
 those on the same side of the question [with Mr. M'Calla,] all 
 the time he is speaking appear to be on the rack, for fear that 
 he would disgrace and destroy the cause which he pretends to 
 defend. J As tiiese words evidently intimate that I lack the 
 confidence of my party, it may not be amiss to inquire whom 
 he moans by those on tiie same side of the (juestion. If he mean 
 the minority, then he contradicts their own declarations. Dr. 
 Green, our honoured leader in the Presbytery, and Mr. Engles, 
 our triumphant champion in the press, both referred, in their 
 speeches, to my argument, with flattering approbation. If there 
 be any division in the minority on this subject, I am ignorant of 
 it. That the majority are divided is quite probable. One of 
 them (iMr. Steele) told me with his own lips, that he very 
 highly approved of my doctrinal argument against Mr. Barnes' 
 Sermon. 
 
 It is not impossible that the Pccporter was watching the coun- 
 tenances of other members of the majority, who call themselves 
 
 * Form of Gov. chap. 15. Sect. C. 
 
 t Steuart's Col. Book 1, Title 2, Sections 3, 11. % Sketch, p. 15. 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 old-school men. Perhaps Mr. Sanford appeared to be on the 
 rack while I was speaking. It is true that we were on the same 
 side, when he was a candidate for his present station. Then he 
 appeared to all parties to be an old-school man indeed. On 
 this account the heterodox opposed his coming, and the ortho- 
 dox were his advocates. But he is now aiding and flattering his 
 former opposers, and insinuating the charge of dotage against 
 his old friends, for remaining faithful to that cause, the name of 
 which procured him his present promotion. 
 
 But perhaps the Reporter observed the countenance of ano- 
 ther self-styled old-school man, Dr. M'Auley, to be on the rack 
 while I was speaking; although His Lowliness appeared ludi- 
 crously anxious to be thought infinitely above noticing me, or 
 any thing that I could say. That the Reporter considered the 
 Doctor as belonging to the other side, is evident from his sketch ; 
 but that he assigned him to our side, also, is quite possible, 
 because Dr. Ely, in his best speech on our side, proved, that 
 during the last Assembly, Dr. M'Auley exhibited an astonish- 
 ing propensity for being on both sides of every question ; and 
 expressly owned a desire to vote on both sides. 
 
 That Dr. Ely also, another self-called old-school member of 
 the majority, was sometimes thought to be on the rack, will 
 appear from the Reporter's words immediately following those 
 quoted above, viz. " One day, some time ago, a certain Doctor, 
 who was on the same side of a question with him in the Gene- 
 ral Assembly, got up and declared in his presence, that if he 
 had a good cause, and wished to have it ruined, he would get 
 Mr. M'Calla to plead it." It is true that, in 1826, Dr. Ely and 
 myself were on the same side in the General Assembly; and 
 that I took a position a little in advance of the Dr., as I am 
 rather apt to do. It is true, also, that while a multitudinous foe 
 assailed me in front, a professed friend in tiie rear, hurled a 
 javelin which he thought would lay me low. 
 
 At a subsequent period, I had the pleasure of advocating a 
 committee to which Dr. Ely belonged, in the Board of Mis- 
 sions. After the adjournment, he threw his arms around me, 
 and said, that when a man attacked him with a drawn sword, 
 he should like to have me to stand by him. Compare this with 
 his declaration that if he had a good cause, and wished to have 
 it ruined, he would get Mr. M'Calla to plead it. 
 
 But the Reporter pretends that I injured Dr. Ely and others 
 during the discussion. He says, <' Rev. W. L. M'Calla again 
 arose, and spoke until nearly 8 o'clock. His speech consisted 
 principally in answering some personal remarks respecting what 
 he had before said. He animadverted very severely upon what 
 he called the inconsistency of Mr. Biggs, Dr. Ely, and some 
 others."* These others were Dr. M'Auley and Mr. Thomas 
 Bradford, from whom the Reporter's personalities came, not 
 
 * Sketch, p. 18. 
 
only against me, but against Dr. Green and Mr. Russell. Dr. 
 M'Auley often insisted that when a minister was dismissed from 
 one Presbytery, and recommended to another, he ought to be 
 received of course, merely out of respect to his clean papers, 
 obtained from a co-ordinate court, and that no Presbytery had 
 ever acted otherwise. Yet, in the same speech, he, at last, told 
 us, that however clean a man's papers might be, no respect to 
 a co-ordinate court could bind a Presbytery to receive him, if 
 he came rather as an editor than a pastor or preacher. Although 
 this invidious description does not fit Dr. Green and Mr. Russell, 
 who are more useful ministers than Dr. M'Auley himself, yet 
 they are editors, and without charge; so that it appeared tole- 
 rably evident that his general rule was manufactured for the 
 introduction of such unsound men as Mr. Barnes, and his nulli- 
 fying exception was a convenient invention for the preclusion of 
 such men as the obnoxious worthies abovementioned. To carry 
 the contradiction to its greatest extent, the Dr. asserted that 
 the Presbytery of New York had precluded many upon this 
 ground. We could not then see the bearing of a great deal 
 that the Dr. read with a very wise and mysterious air, out of a 
 little book, containing, as he said, " a variety," which he seem- 
 ed to think we had never read, or had entirely forgotten. It 
 was the H^ew Testament, Acts xv. Its true application became 
 more apparent, when Mr. Bradford disclosed an additional 
 exception to their general rule. It was this, — that if a man 
 were guilty of contention and disputation, no recommendation 
 from abroad, no call from a congregation at home, could justify 
 a Presbytery in receiving him. Now you know that in the popu- 
 lar code of the present day, contention and disputation in defence 
 of the truth, are crimes to which the punishment of death is 
 annexed, without henejit of clergy. As I have long been an out- 
 law on this account, it was easy to tell for whom Mr. Bradford's 
 exception was intended. Now was the time to show the true 
 application of Dr. M'Auley's little variety-hook, of which he 
 aftected to think us so ignorant. He had read to us Acts xv. 
 about certain men, like Mr. Barnes, who came down from Judea, 
 and taught a ivay of salvation which was contrary to the gos- 
 pel. Did Paul and Barnabas receive them upon the credit of 
 their clean papers? Did they tamely admit them, for fear of 
 being themselves expelled by some Mr. Bradford, for the alleged 
 crimes of contention and disputation? Did they escape the cross, 
 by pretending that it was a mere point of order, in which the 
 doctrinal question of The way of salvation had nothing to do'? 
 Let us hear again the 2d verse which Dr. M'Auley read to us. 
 " When, therefore, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension 
 and disputation with them, they determined that Patil and Bar- 
 nabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem, 
 unto the apostles and elders, about this question." This visit of 
 theirs to Jerusalem, and their deliberations while there, related 
 to the question of doctrine, upon which they made the point of 
 
order to turn. The latter was virtually determined by their 
 decision on the former ; which, in their letter to the churches, 
 said that these false teachers " have troubled you with words, 
 subverting your souls." There was not even one Dr. M'Auley 
 among them, to move for the expulsion of Paul and Barnabas, 
 as the Editors of this Epistle ; nor was there one Mr. Bradford, 
 to condemn them for their dissension and disputation, against 
 the troublers of the church, and the subverters of souls. 
 
 Now for the Reporter's assertion, that I " animadverted very 
 severely" upon the inconsistency of Mr. Biggs and Dr. Ely. As 
 to the former, I only proved what Mr. Engles had proved before 
 me : that Mr. Biggs had rejected former candidates, notwith- 
 standing their verbal adoption of our constitution; whereas now 
 he insisted that we should receive Mr. Barnes, because he 
 adopted our constitution by profession ; thus placing a confi- 
 dence in his professions, which he had withheld from others of 
 equal claims to veracity. After the discussion I asked Mr. 
 Biggs if he considered my remarks severe, and he very readily 
 declared that they were not. Dr. Skinner, the Moderator, who 
 is generally considered as agreeing with Mr. Barnes, in doc- 
 trine, declared the same thing ; but this wise, charitable, and 
 impartial Reporter, seems to know the operation of medicine 
 better than the doctor or the patient either. He evidently wrote 
 his little work, to pre-occupy the public mind with groundless 
 and cruel prejudices against our cause and its advocates; and 
 to forestall us in the Synod and General Assembly, to which 
 he expected this thing to be carried. Doubtless, many of 
 them, when they see the Sketch, will feel anxious, like yourself, 
 to see the other side ; and it is but fair that they should see it. 
 
 As to my severe animadversions upon the inconsistency of 
 Dr. Ely, they were much of a piece with his animadversions 
 upon Dr. M'Auley. On the motion for receiving Mr. Barnes, Dr. 
 Ely's first speech was considered an admirable one in our favour; 
 and the most admirable part of it was thought to be his expo- 
 sure of Dr. M'Auley, for endeavouring, during the last Assem- 
 bly, to reconcile the affirmative and negative of almost every 
 question, so as to make out that there was no difference between 
 them; and thus advocating both sides, in the same speech, con- 
 tinually. Take notice, this first speech of Dr. Ely, on this 
 motion, was in our favour : but his next speech on the same 
 motion, was as decidedly against us. In my reply, I, rather 
 jocosely, animadverted upon this inconsistency, comparing and 
 contrasting it with that of Dr. M'Auley, and reminding the 
 Presbytery, that this was only one link of a notorious chain of 
 similar acts, from day to day, through the protracted delibera- 
 tions of that body. 
 
 And it was a protracted atf'air indeed; for I believe it occu- 
 pied seven days; two in the session-room back of the 2d Church, 
 two in their session-house in Cherry street, and three in the ses- 
 
( ^3 ) 
 
 sion-room of the 1st Church, where the Assembly meets of late 
 years. During this time the most important motions, according 
 to my recollection, were eight ; some of which were discussed, 
 during the suspension of others by postponement. I shall men- 
 tion them without regard to chronological order. Three of them 
 related to the calling, receiving, and installing of Mr. Barnes. 
 Three of them related to a judicial process against him, for the 
 errors of his printed sermon. Two of these, made on the 4th 
 and 7th days, were for sending him back to the Presbytery of 
 Elizabethtown for trial. The third, on the 7th day, presented 
 charges against him to be tried before his installation, by this 
 Presbytery, after they had received him. Serious as the charges 
 were, the majority proceeded to the installation, without regard- 
 ing them. 
 
 The two remaining motions of my enumeration related to the 
 examination of Mr. Barnes and his sermon. As to the exami- 
 nation of a minister, subsequent to his ordination, Dr. M'Auley 
 boldly and repeatedly denied, that the principle or the practice 
 could be found in any portion of the church of Christ. The 
 absurdity of this position is so extravagant, as to appear incredi- 
 ble : yet I am not apprehensive of contradiction from the Doc- 
 tor, or any of the Presbytery; for it was this, in a great measure, 
 that gained him the victory. He asserted it so often, with such 
 an oracular tone, and with such an awful majesty of manner, 
 and looked down with such sovereign contempt, upon any 
 authority, or any speaker which came in his way, as to make 
 one feel a shuddering fear, lest insisting upon Mr. Barnes' exa- 
 mination, might bring upon us tlie double disgrace and guilt of 
 ignorance and blasphemy. This was too much, even for Dr. 
 Ely's new system of harmony, which has arisen out of the ashes 
 of his defunct contrast. He, therefore, joined Dr. Green, Mr. 
 Engles, and the minority, in proving, by abundant evidence, that 
 the Presbyterian Church, in Scotland, and in this country, were 
 familiar with the principle and the practice, of judging the cha- 
 racter of an ordained candidate for admission to a Presbytery, 
 and of rejecting him, if they were not satisfied with his doctrinal 
 or practical correctness. Take the three following authorities, 
 from our General Assembly, viz. " It is the privilege of every 
 Presbytery to judge of tlie character and situation of those ivho 
 apply to he admitted into their otvn body, and unless they are 
 satisfied, to decline receiving the same. A Presbytery, it is true, 
 may make an improper use of this privilege ; in which case, the 
 rejected applicant may appeal to the Synod or the General 
 Assembly," " Every Presbytery has a right to judge of the 
 qualifications of its own members.'''' " The right of deciding on 
 the fitness of admitting Mr. Wells a constituent member of the 
 Presbytery of Geneva, belonged to the Presbytery itself.'''* 
 
 * Minutes of 1825, p. 265. of 1826, p. 28. Digest, p. 325. 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 Dr. Green showed that all Princeton treated our view of this 
 subject, as an important, honourable, and acknowledged principle 
 of Presbyterianism. This he proved from the 143d page of the 
 2nd vol. of" The Biblical Repertory, and Theological Review ; 
 edited by an Association of gentlemen in Princeton, and its vi- 
 cinity," a work which is highly recommended and patronised 
 by several of the Majority now opposed to us. A writer in op- 
 position to the Repertory had intimated that our constitution 
 laid us open to corruption. The answer to this argument, Mr. 
 Engles also read from the Repertoky in the following words, 
 viz. " We must be permitted to say that in arriving at this con- 
 clusion, the writer left entirely out of view one very remarkable 
 feature in the constitution of the Presbyterian church in the 
 United States. It is this : Every Presbytery judges of the quali- 
 fications of its own members; and what is the result'? If a con- 
 gregation choose a pastor, who, in the opinion of the Presbytery, 
 is heretical, or otherwise unfit for his office, the Presbytery re- 
 fuses to ordain or install him: and if the congregation persist 
 in its choice, they must become independent, and consequent- 
 ly have no influence in the judicatories of the Presbyterian 
 church, and cannot be members of the Assembly. And further, 
 if a Presbytery become corrupt, it is amenable to its Synod, and 
 to the General Assembly, and may be cast ofFas easily as single 
 members. These provisions are not a dead letter. They take 
 effect every year to a less or greater extent. It generally, indeed, 
 happens that when a Presbytery refuses to receive a pastor electa 
 the congregation, confiding in the more enlightened judgment 
 of the Presbytery, or Synod, desists, and chooses another pastor; 
 but if not, they cease to have any connexion with the Presby- 
 tery." 
 
 This language of the Repertory shows that its editors agree 
 with the Minority, in their interpretation of our constitution, 
 which says that a Presbytery is instituted, " in order to preserve 
 soundness of doctrine, and regularity of discipline," " and in 
 general to order whatever pertains to the spiritual welfare of 
 the churches under their care."* To lay aside this constitu- 
 tional authority, by pretending that the theology of pastors does 
 not pertain to the welfare of churches, would be as bad as Dr. 
 M'Auley's way of evading Steuart's collections, where it is said 
 that, " The Presbytery in which the calling parish lies shall 
 judge of his gifts." The Dr. read the context, to show that the 
 word gifts was equivalent to abilities ; and that if Mr. Barnes 
 had GIFTS, or abilities, of an order suitable to the intellectual 
 character of the church which called him, the passage in ques- 
 tion did not contemplate an examination whether his doctrines 
 were correct or corrupt. 
 
 I am willing now to let the Scotch church decide whether 
 
 • Form of Ciov. Chap. 10. Sections 1. 8. 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 these gifts or abilities, are only sucli as may be connected with 
 doctrinal error, or such as are connected with orthodoxy. It so 
 happens that the great Scotch Durham, who was, perhaps, as 
 well informed a disciplinarian as any who ever bore the Pres- 
 byterian name, has treated these two sorts of gifts, in the two 
 first paragraphs of one of his many chapters on ecclesiastical 
 offences. The chapter discusses the means by which Satan 
 drives on the plague of error among the people. If his first 
 paragraph be true, then Satan goes just as far in examining his 
 ministers, as Dr. M'Auley allows the Presbytery to go : that is, 
 he examines into their intellectual, literary, and rhetorical gifts 
 and abilities. Durham then tells us of "such coming from one 
 place to another, as from Jerusalem to Antioch, Acts xv, and 
 elsewhere, purposely to spread their errors, as the Apostles did 
 travel for preaching the truth." Here he refers us to Acts xv, 
 the very chapter which Dr. M'Auley read so gravely from his 
 little variety-hook, about men of unsanctified gifts. We have 
 already heard, that instead of receiving them, " Paul and Bar- 
 nabas had no small dissension and disputation with them." In 
 connexion with this, Durham refers us to Rev. ii. 2 ; where 
 Christ commends the Ephesian Presbytery for patiently and 
 resolutely examining and rejecting these gifted errorists : " I 
 know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how 
 thoic canst not bear them which are evil : and thou hast tried 
 them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found 
 them LIARS." In Durham's next paragraph he shows that minis- 
 terial gifts, instead of being indifferent to truth and error, are 
 bestowed for protection against error. He uses the following 
 words, viz. ^^ Gifts are given to men by Jesus Christ, purposely 
 to guard the Church from being tossed to and fro ivith corrupt 
 doctrine by the sleight of men.''''* I would only add the following 
 rule of Scotch Presbyterians, ancient and modern, on both sides 
 of the Atlantic, viz. ^^ As for him that hath formerly been or- 
 dained a minister, and is to be removed to another charge, he 
 shall bring a testimonial of his ordination, and of his abilities 
 and conversation, whereupon his fitness for that place shall be 
 tried by his preaching there, and (if it shall be judged neces- 
 sary) by a farther examination of him."\ 
 
 In truth, the very fact of their being allowed to vote on the 
 subject, allows them to vote in the negative ; which, as Dr. Green 
 proved, overthrew completely, the doctrine, that they had no 
 discretion in the matter, but were bound, as a matter of course, 
 to grant leave to call the candidate. 
 
 Thus have I endeavoured, in sincerity, to show that the Bible, 
 the Scottish church, our Constitution and acts of Assembly, with 
 
 ♦Durham's Treatise concernint^ Scandal, Part 3, chap. 6. 
 t Scotch Collections, p. 180. Also, the Directories of the Reformed, and 
 of the Associate Churches in America. 
 
 D 
 
{ ^b ) 
 
 the gentlemen in Princeton and its vicinity, support the minor- 
 ity in the position that the Presbytery of the calling congrega- 
 tion have a right to examine into the theology of an ordained 
 applicant for admission by translation: that is, they have a right 
 to examine Mr. Barnes. 
 
 It may seem strange, that the motions for examining Mr. 
 Barnes, and for examining his sermon, were decided in oppo- 
 site ways ; yet such was the fact. On the first day, when the 
 motion was made forgiving leave to call Mr. Barnes, Dr. Green 
 arose, and in a manner too mild for any thing but the Reporter's 
 insensate malevolence to censure, declared his conscientious 
 opposition to the motion, until difficulties, presented by Mr. 
 Barnes' printed sermon, should be removed. It is somewhere 
 about this stage of the business, that the Reporter accuses the 
 minority of indulging great acrimony against Dr. Emmons, Dr. 
 Murdock, and Dr. Taylor, as well as Mr. Barnes and his sup- 
 porters. It is true the minority humbly disapproved of the the- 
 ology of Mr. Barnes, and the three Doctors, Emmons, Murdock, 
 and Taylor ; but this offence was amply punished by their 
 avengers. Dr. M'Auley, and Messrs. Bradford, Biggs, and San- 
 ford, who, in the excess of their liberality and magnanimity, 
 bearded Dr. Green, and attempted to stop free discussion, by a 
 vote of the house, to prevent Dr. Green from specifying the 
 errors of Mr. Barnes' sermon, as his reasons for opposing the 
 call, and voting in the negative. While they opposed the read- 
 ing of Mr. Barnes' own printed sermon against him, they eagerly 
 uttered all the hear-say things that they could gather, in his 
 favour. They were constantly telling us that the 1st Church 
 said he was sound, and their committee said he was sound, and 
 this preacher said he was sound, and that Doctor and the other 
 Doctor said he was sound, and yet they were not willing for his 
 soundness to be tested by his own sermon ; they were not even 
 willing to give to Dr. Green, nor to any other member, the exer- 
 cise of a constitutional right, in giving his lawful, his real, and 
 his only reasons, for voting as he did. But the Presbytery were 
 not yet ripe for a gag-law of so sweeping a character. They, 
 therefore, determined to allow Dr. Green the enjoyment of his 
 right, by a vote of 37 to 10. Now let it be remembered that 
 irrelevant matter should be kept out of the discussion. But here 
 is a vote of 37 to 10, which allows the examination of this ser- 
 mon at any length, and thus establishes the relevancy of its 
 doctrines to the motion in debate. If, therefore, there be an 
 important opposition, and especially if there be a vital opposi- 
 tion, between the doctrines of the sermon, and those of tlie 
 Bible and Presbyterian constitution, this vote of 37 to 10 vir- 
 tually said that the motion should be decided in the negative. 
 This is according to our ordination vows, in which we answer, 
 with a solemn affirmative, to the following question, viz. "Do 
 you promise to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 of the gospel, and the purity and peace of the church ; what- 
 ever persecution or opposition may arise unto you on that 
 account?"* 
 
 Letter II. — The Sermon Criticised. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 A full compliance with your letter requires that I should give 
 you some account of our arguments against the sermon. Here 
 the Sketch shows a degree of dishonesty which is truly pitia- 
 ble. In the real debate, Mr. Engles, of the 7th Church, aston- 
 ished and delighted his friends, and (permit me to say) the 
 friends of Jesus ; and he obtained the honour of the leer malign 
 from his enemies : yet in the Sketch, he is no higher than an 
 ordinary school-boy. As for Dr. Green, the JVestor of our little 
 band, the Reporter appeared determined to mark him for the 
 charge of dotage, insinuated againSt the minority, without a 
 decent apology, by the " hopeful youth," who now succeeds 
 him in the pastoral charge. This was according to the maxim, 
 that peculiar severity should be shown to the ringleader of an 
 obnoxious body. Yet if God were pleased to send again on 
 earth, the Witherspoons, the Rodgerses, the M'Whorters, and 
 the Tennents, the gigantic associates of his earlier days, in 
 rearing and defending our present constitution, they would not 
 be ashamed of the fidelity or consistency, the talents or firmness, 
 of this " Last of the Greeks.^^ Dr. Green, however, has been 
 heard to say, that the greatest speech made during the whole 
 presbytery, was by Dr. Jancway, on the fourth day- Yet he 
 did not vote, because, before the vote was taken, he was dis- 
 missed, at his own request, to join the Dutch Reformed Church, 
 to whose congregation in New Brunswick he was called. This 
 address occupied a considerable time, and proved, most clearly, 
 the gross inconsistency of calling the author of that sermon to 
 a Presbyterian congregation. Its unanswerable force may be, 
 in some measure, estimated, by its drawing an insult instead of 
 a refiitation, from that specimen of politeness, Dr. M'Auley ; 
 and thus giving Dr. Janeway an opportunity of showing that he 
 was as humble as he was able ; and that he possessed, in an 
 eminent degree, that true Christian modesty, about which Dr. 
 M'Auley, on the last day, with such unfeeling irony, taunted 
 the minority, merely because they continued their constitutional 
 opposition to the arbitrary measures of the majority. It is not 
 improbable that Dr. Janeway's speech had considerable influ- 
 ence in making the minority as large as it was. Yet the author 
 of the Sketch, after pretending to take notes, has not recorded 
 
 ♦Form of Gov. chap. 14, sect. 12, Qu. 6. 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 a word of this speech, nor even the name of the speaker; but 
 has added, upon his own responsibility, ten votes to the real 
 number of the majority, that he might set the public to won- 
 dering at our " very small minority indeed, when we consider 
 how great an influence Dr. Green has hitherto possessed in this 
 Presbytery."* This error is like the addition of an inch in a 
 man's nose. 
 
 I shall not attempt to give you the arguments of the above 
 speakers or the other members of the Minority, who owned their 
 Master in the midst of reproach. All that I can do, is, to give 
 you a brief out-line of my own argument, and then touch upon 
 the arguments resorted to by the Majority. On the merits of 
 Mr. Barnes' sermon, I made three addresses ; one on the fore- 
 noon of the 2nd day, and one on the afternoon of the 4th day, 
 against the motion for granting leave to call the candidate ; the 
 other on the forenoon of the 6th day, against the motion for re- 
 ceiving him. In the two former I endeavoured to show that Mr. 
 Barnes' sermon, called "The way of Salvation," was censura- 
 ble for the following reasons : 1. It denied the doctrine of 
 original sin. 2. It taught a way of salvation without a gospel 
 justification. 3. It denied that Christ bore the penalty of the 
 law. 4. It denied the efficacy of the atonement. When about 
 to proceed to a 5th particular, circumstances induced me to 
 agree that the motion should be put. 
 
 On the morning of the 6th day, many new members made 
 their appearance, who, of course, had heard nothing that went 
 before. On this account it became necessary to read again 
 certain exceptionable passages of the sermon, and contrast them 
 with a few passages of our constitution. This was all the repe- 
 tition used on the occasion ; notwithstanding the artful insinu- 
 ation of the Reporter ; I say, artful, because he shows that he 
 did not believe what he tried to make others believe. In this 
 address, the objections to Mr. Barnes' sermon were the fol- 
 lowing. 
 
 1. While asserting his supreme responsibility to God, in 
 which we all agree, he adds, that in his preaching, " 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." (p. 12, note.) 
 Compare this with the fourth question which he answered in his 
 ordination : " Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the 
 Lord V How he can be subject to his brethren, and yet be 
 " responsible not at all,'''' for violating their constitution, it is 
 hard to see. It may be said, as he argues in one instance, 
 (note in pp. 6, 7.) that our Confession is not " in the Lord." 
 But let him remember what answer he gave, and what answer 
 he wishes to give again, to the following question : " Do you 
 
 * Sketch, p. 5. 
 
( >iy ) 
 
 sincerely receive and adopt the. Confession of Faith of this 
 church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy- 
 Scriptures'?" He is not bound by the civil law contrary to the 
 law of God; but when he has voluntarily adopted the code, 
 and sworn civil subjection to it, is he, in his conduct, "responsi- 
 ble not at all for its impinging" on that code '? Is he not " to 
 be cramped by any frame-work of " polity "that has been reared 
 around the Bible*?" So said the men of Munster, concerning 
 both church and slate ; and the reason why our fair-weather 
 reformers hold a responsibility to the state, and not to the 
 church, is, that they have much stronger corporeal than moral 
 sensibilities. 
 
 2. The sermon denies that men are answerable for the first 
 sin of Adam : as follows, viz. " It [the Bible] 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." (p. 6.) In 
 a note he admits that this language " does not accord with that 
 used on the same subject in the Confession of Faith, and in 
 other standards of doctrine." Remember that the Assembly of 
 1798 censured Mr. Hezekiali Balch for "in effect setting aside 
 the idea of Adam's being the federal head or representative of 
 his descendants, and the whole doctrine of the covenant of 
 works."* 
 
 3. He holds such a natural ability for spiritual and accept- 
 able service, as the Bible and our Confession consider incon- 
 sistent with that entire corruption which forms one feature of 
 original sin. He says, " Men have power enough in themselves 
 to hate both God and their fellow-men; and it requires less 
 physical power to love God than to hate him." " It is found 
 that it is far easier to be reconciled to God, and love him, 
 than to remain at war, and oppose him." (p. 14.) Our Confes- 
 sion says, that by the fall men " are utterly indisposed, disabled, 
 and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil." 
 (ch. vi. 4.) " Their ability to do good works is not at all of 
 themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ." (ch. xvi. sect. 
 3.) In a note on the same page, Mr. Barnes says, "If God 
 requires more of men than in any sense they are able to per- 
 form, then, in the practical judgment of all men, according to 
 the reason he has given them, he is unjust." To the same 
 amount Mr. W. C. Davis published the following words, viz. 
 " If God has to plant all the principal parts of salvation in a 
 sinner's heart, to enable him to believe, the gospel plan is quite 
 out of his reach, and consequently does not suit his case; and 
 it must be impossible for God to condemn a man for unbelief; 
 for no just law condemns or criminates any person for not doing 
 what he cannot do." It is true that Dr. Ely considers Mr. Barnes' 
 words, "in any sense," a complete protection to him from the 
 
 ♦ Digest, p. 130. 
 
( 30 ) 
 
 charge of error : but this phrase is no better qualification to the 
 passage from Mr. Barnes, than the word " all" was to the pas- 
 sage from Mr. Davis : yet the General Assembly of 1810 disap- 
 proved of these sentiments, and "The Assembly do judge, and 
 hereby do declare, that the preaching or publishing them ought 
 to subject the person or persons so doing to be dealt with by 
 their respective Presbyteries, according to the discipline of the 
 church relative to the propagation of errors."* This sentence, 
 Dr. Ely, in his Theological Review of July, 1819, approved. 
 This is a subject on which he used to contend boldly : but his 
 zeal, of late, has taken a turn from ecclesiastical to political 
 reformation; which makes one fear that his former heroism 
 partook more of metaphysical blustering, than the spirit of 
 martyrdom. 
 
 4. His sermon presents a phenomenon in a Presbyterian 
 church; a Way of Salvation, without gospel justification. The 
 manner in which it has been handled presents another pheno- 
 menon. Ten leading men of the 1st Church publish a piece 
 written, (as one of them declared in Presbytery,) by Dr. Wilson, 
 their former Pastor, asserting that the sermon does contain the 
 doctrine of justification ; and Mr. Barnes writes a letter to Dr. 
 Ely, lamenting that it does not contain the doctrine of justifica- 
 tion. To make up the deficiency. Dr. Ely, his professed advo- 
 cate, examines him privately, and manufactures an article on 
 the subject, which Mr. Barnes readily adopts. We also ask the 
 liberty of examining; but here the candidate demurs. He is 
 very willing to be examined by his own attorney, but not by 
 the opposite counsel; for a cross-examination often undoes all 
 that went before it. That it would be so in the present case, 
 the whole tenor of Mr. Barnes' sermon proves. The man who 
 can write that production must repent of his errors, when he 
 believes in that key-stone of the Reformation, forensic justif- 
 calion, an essential doctrine of the Bible and of our Confession. 
 
 5. The sermon asserts the doctrine of an indefinite atone- 
 ment. It says, " This atonement was for all men. It was an 
 offering made for the race. It had not respect so much to indi- 
 viduals, as to the law and perfections of God and had no 
 
 particular reference to any class of men." (p. 11.) Our Consti- 
 tution considers redemption as purchased for believers. " Re- 
 demption is certainly applied, and eftectually communicated to 
 all those for whom Christ hath purchased it; who are in time 
 by the Holy Ghost enabled to believe in Christ; according to 
 the gospel." It declares that redemption is effected for the 
 elect. " Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, 
 
 are redeemed by Christ Neither are any other redeemed by 
 
 Christ but the elect only." His atonement is for his people. 
 
 "Christ executeth the oflSce of a Priest in his once offering 
 
 * Digest, pp. 147, 148. 
 
( ^1 ) 
 
 himself a sacrifice without spot to God, to be a reconciliation 
 for the sins of his people; and in making continual intercession 
 for them." That is, for his jieople, not for the world, but for 
 them whom the Father had given him, in the decree of election. 
 Here there is no room for the distinction which some make 
 between atonement and redemption. Have Chx'xsi^s priesthood, 
 sacrifice, and reconciliation nothing to do with his atonement ? 
 Yet, in this last authority, he is a Priest, Sacrifice, and Recon- 
 ciliation, (that is, Atonement) for the sins of his people, for 
 whom he intercedes. Therefore our Confession expressly pro- 
 nounces " Christ's one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation 
 [that is, atonement^ for all the sins of the elect." 
 
 G. Of a piece with the above error, and naturally flowing from 
 it, the sermon teaches the inefjicacy of the atonement ; and pub- 
 lishes it as the sentiment of one of tlic greatest enemies to this 
 error which the church has seen for many centuries. From the 
 great Dr. Owen, he professes to quote the following isolated 
 sentence, viz. "The atonement of itself, secured the salvation 
 of no one." (p. 10.) The sermon does not say where these 
 words may be found in Dr. Owen's works ; nor has its author 
 informed us, although inquiry was made, in his presence, in the 
 Presbytery! 
 
 This is a convenient place for showing the honesty of our 
 Reporter in a particular not yet noticed. It reads as follows, 
 viz. " He [Mr. M'Calla] read quotations from Owen, Edwards, 
 and some others. It is remarkable that he quoted nothing from 
 the Bible, and nothing from the early Fathers. He made one 
 or two quotations from Calvin ; that was to prove the doctrine 
 of justification by faith in Christ."* The truth is, that to prove 
 the doctrine of justification, I quoted nothing from Calvin. But 
 remember that towards the close of Mr. Barnes' sermon, he 
 says concerning the doctrines which it contains," " This is 
 Calvinism!!'^ (p. 27.) P^ow he has confessed that it does not 
 contain the doctrine of justification, (which omission of itself, is 
 Anti-calvinistic enough, truly,) but I chose to confront him with 
 Calvin in the doctrines which his sermon did contain. He calls 
 himself a Presbyterian ; I confronted him with our constitution. 
 Men of hjs views call themselves Edwardites, and he referred to 
 Edwards ; I confronted him with Edwards. He professed to 
 quote Owen in favour of an inefiectual atonement. I read 
 pages from him, in pointed and irrcconcilcnble opposition to 
 this error. Mr. Barnes quoted nothing IVom the eaily Fathers ; 
 and therefore I quoted nothing from them. The truth is, his 
 theology was not known in the church militant, until the early 
 Fathers were discharged from service. In their days the doc- 
 trines of Dr. Ely's contrast every where prevailed. This was 
 the good old way. But in the 4th century, Tdr. Barnes' way of 
 
 * Sketch, p. 15. 
 
( 32 ) , 
 
 salvation was introduced by Pelagius ; and in his first trial by a 
 Presbytery, a system of harmony, similar to the scheme propos- 
 ed by Dr. Ely, procured him an honourable acquittal by a much 
 greater majority than the Reporter boasts in. favour of Mr. 
 Barnes. As for his emphatic assertion that 1 quoted nothing 
 from the Bible ; he ought to recollect that this may be settled 
 by ocular evidence. I cannot now say exactly how much scrip- 
 ture Mr. Barnes quotes in his way of salvation : but I think that 
 I am within bounds, when I say that the proportion of scripture 
 in my speeches and his sermon, is forty to one in my favour. 
 
 There is a short passage now before me whch I read to the 
 Presbytery, which will show that Mr. Barnes has abused Dr. 
 Owen as much as his Reporter has wronged me, viz. " But he 
 was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our 
 iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and 
 ivith his stripes we are healed. His wounding and our healing, 
 impetration and application, his chastisement and our peace are 
 inseparably connected.^'* To me it appears that Isaiah and 
 Owen both thought that the atonement of Christ and the salva- 
 tion of his people were inseparable, and that the former procured 
 the latter. But the advocates of a governmental atonement, 
 would take off our confidence from the meritorious satisfaction 
 of Christ, and refer us to a supposed arbitrary promise of God, 
 and to the fulfilment of conditions on our part. The following 
 is Mr. Barnes' context so much admired by Dr. Ely, viz. "The 
 atonement secured the salvation of no one, except as God had 
 promised his Son that he should see of the travail of his soul, 
 and except on the condition of repentance and faith." In answer 
 to this exception, Owen says, " How vain is it to except that 
 these things were not bestowed absolutely upon us, but upon 
 condition, and therefore were so procured : seeing that the very 
 condition itself is also merited and procured."! Thus on the 
 69th Question of the Larger Catechism. Ridgley, edited by Mr. 
 Barnes' predecessor, says, " The application thereof does not 
 depend on the will of man, or on some uncertain conditions, 
 which God expects we shall perform, that so the death of Christ 
 might be rendered effectual ; for whatever condition can be 
 assigned as conducive hereunto, it is the purchase of Christ's 
 death." In accordance with which our Creed says, "The Lord 
 Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which 
 he, through the Eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath 
 fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased, not only 
 reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of 
 Heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Aim." J 
 
 7. The sermon denies that Christ bore the penalty of the 
 
 * Owen's Death of Death in the death of Christ, Book 2, chap. 4, p. 109, 
 of the Philadelphia Edition. 
 
 t The same. Book 3, chap. 10, Argument 4. 
 ^ Confess, of Faith, chap. 8, sect. 5. 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 law. It says, " He did not endure, indeed, the jienalty of the 
 law" (p. 10.) Dr. Ely justifies this by the context, which says 
 that "He died in the place of sinners." But to die in the place 
 of sinners, without enduring the penalty of the law, is what can 
 be said of the Roman Decius; and surely is not the scriptural 
 nor Calvinistic way of salvation. But the Dr. thinks that Mr. 
 Barnes has secured himself from censure by what he himself 
 calls " an inaccurate explanation :" that is, he explains penalty 
 in such a manner, that the very explanation itself denies the 
 possibility of its being endured by a substitute!* Suppose that 
 Mr. Barnes had said that Christ did not bear the curse of the 
 law: could a novel, arbitrary, and artful explanation, justify 
 him*? Yet the true church has always understood these words 
 to amount to the same thing. The Jesuits once stopped the 
 mouth of Dominican ortliodoxy, merely by an inaccurate expla- 
 nation, for the sake of harmony. But Pascal, who followed the 
 doctrine of the Contrast, said, " You have received the name 
 of her enemy into the church, which is as baneful as having 
 received the enemy himself JVames are inseparable from 
 
 things It will never do; the explanation will be detested; 
 
 the world uses more sincerity on the most unimportant occa- 
 sions; the Jesuits will triumph it will be of no avail for the 
 
 Dominicans to protest that they impute a different sense to the 
 expression. The people accustomed to the general use of the 
 word, will not listen to their explanation." f But according to 
 Dr. Ely's principle, a man may be perfectly justifiable in casting 
 fire-brands, arrows, and death, if he will afterward explain him- 
 self to be in sport. For reasons given already, I read many 
 things from Calvin, Owen, and Edwards, to show that they 
 had no notion of being robbed of this all-important truth by 
 heretical sophistry. 
 
 8. The sermon denies the doctrine oi imputation. These are 
 his words, viz. " The notion of imputing sin is an invention of 
 modern times : it is not, it is believed, the doctrine of the Con- 
 fession of Faith." As to the Confession of Faith, he says, "It 
 is manifest, so far as it is capable of interpretation, that it is 
 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 only, after all, tiiat is 
 chargeable on us. This was the idea of Edwards." (p. 7, note.) 
 The above passages are equally opposed to the imputation of 
 our sins to Christ ; and the tenor of the note and of the sermon 
 evidently militate against the imputation of Christ's righteous- 
 ness to us ; notwithstanding the creed which Dr. Ely. wrote for 
 
 ♦These arc his words, viz. •* The fienalty of the lazi' is what God will 
 inflict on its unredeemed violators— neither more nor less." (p. 10. note.) 
 
 t Letter 2d of Pascal's Provincial Letters, New York and Boston edition, 
 pp. 42. 37. 
 
 E , 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 him, to remedy this evil. Our Confession, in which he can see 
 no imputation of sin, says, concerning our first parents, " They 
 being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, 
 and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed, to 
 all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary genera- 
 tion."* On the imputation of our sins to Christ, and of his 
 righteousness to us, I read many declarations from Mr. Barnes' 
 own authorities; among which take the following from Calvin. 
 "The Son of God, though perfectly free from all sin, neverthe- 
 less assumed the disgrace and ignominy of our iniquities; and 
 on the other hand arrayed us in his purity." " Now it is evident 
 what the prophet meant when he said, the Lord hath laid on 
 him the iniquity of us all; namely, that when he was about to 
 expiate our sins, they were transferred to him by imputation.^' -f 
 
 Letter III. — The Majority answered. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I am truly sorry to be so long coming to the various argu- 
 ments of the majority, for the course which they pursued. 
 
 1. They argued that it was a point of order, which occa- 
 sioned them to take the course they did. In the Bible it is a 
 point of order to try the spirits, and beware of false teachers, 
 and guard the flock, and watch the city, and stand in the gap, 
 and contend earnestly for the faith. Now if there were an article 
 of order in our Constitution, which required that we should all 
 be dumb dogs that cannot bark, hirelings which flee when the 
 wolf Cometh, or traitors which admit the enemy into the camp 
 or city, without a scriptural countersign, it is evident that such 
 an article would impinge upon our inspired standard. But we 
 have already shown that the Bible, the church of Scotland, our 
 constitution and acts of Assembly, with the gentlemen of Prince- 
 ton, agree with the minority, in believing it a glorious feature 
 of Presbyterianism, that the point of order is exactly the other 
 way. 
 
 2. They urged, in his justification, that he had preached 
 other sermons which were approved. They urged, also, that he 
 had agreed to articles of belief drawn up for the occasion by 
 Dr. Ely ; concerning which the Sketch says, " They were such 
 as THE MOST RIGID HoPKiNsiAN would not objcct to.'^ (p. 18, 
 note.) It was also warmly pleaded that Mr. Barnes had adopted 
 our own Constitution, and was willing to do it again. Now we 
 have shown that his sermon expressly attributes to our Confes- 
 sion a great absurdity, and professes to differ from it, in the 
 very way for which Mr. Balch was censured. Is it no objection 
 
 * Chap. 6. sect. 3. f Institutes, Book 2, chap. 16, sect. 6 . 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 to a minister that he knowingly adopts creeds which are funda- 
 mentally opposite? A man holds the Koran in one hand and 
 the Bible in the other, and swears to both : does this make Ma- 
 hometanism innocent'? 
 
 3. During Mr. Barnes' absence, it was pleaded that we 
 could not understand the sermon, without the looks, tones, and 
 gestures of the living author. Yet we were told, from the same 
 quarter, that the congregation understood it, and approved of it so 
 highly as to make out a call before they ever saw the living 
 author. Moreover, when he came to Presbytery we wished to 
 examine him, and were not permitted. 
 
 4. They pleaded that it was a hasty production. Yet it 
 turns out that about a year elapsed between different times of 
 preaching it, and it was then published after a careful revision, 
 and all the notes, containing much of the most exceptionable 
 matter, added. 
 
 5. The argument which was plied, and often plied, most 
 handsomely and impressively, was, that the sermon was com- 
 posed while the minister's mind was under the inexpressible 
 pressure of a revival. It is often hinted that a revival is a thing 
 that we ignorantly oppose ; and that in comparison with each 
 other, the revival and anti-revival men are as patricians and 
 plebeians. I ardently desire a revival of ?rwe religion. But let 
 us see whether some things called revivals, may not be worthy 
 of opposition. Ought I to admire a revival which makes a man 
 deny his guilt in Adam, and his helplessness in himself? Does a 
 true revival excite a minister to declare that the imputation of 
 sin is a novel doctrine, that Christ did not endure the penalty of 
 the law, and that the atonement, of itself, secures the salvation 
 of no man '?" Is the pressure of a true revival, of such a des- 
 cription, as to make a minister forget, during a whole year, that 
 
 justification belongs to the true lo ay of salvation; and never 
 think of it, until reminded of it by one of our Minority, in a re- 
 view of his sermon 9 Would that he could then think of it 
 aright ! 
 
 6. It was vehemently urged in favour of Mr Barnes, that he was 
 a man of wonderful piety and devotion, talents and success. He 
 was thus considered by Mr. Sanford, the same member who plain- 
 ly hinted that the Minority (which contained his white headed 
 Elder, Mr. Brown, and his two predecessors in the pastoral 
 office, Drs. Green and Janeway,) were in their dotage. Now I 
 am willing to try the question, to whom this term is most applica- 
 ble; to these truly venerable fathers, or to the hopeful youth who 
 has thus insulted them. To insist upon our reception of Mr. 
 Barnes, as a man of extraordinary piety and devotion, is the 
 same plea which was used by the enemies of Troy for introduc- 
 ing the famous wooden horse into their city: it was presented as a 
 pious and devout offering to their gods. There was a Minority in 
 the city opposed to receiving the favour. The event showed whe- 
 
( 36 ) 
 
 ther they were the dotards or not. But if, previous to its intro- 
 duction, this Minority had been allowed, by a vote of 37 to 10, to 
 examine the interior of this gigantic structure, and had exposed 
 to the public gaze its truly talented contents, with their jrious 
 swords, and devout battle-axes, all intended for the destruction 
 of Troy ; and if, after this, they had been overruled by a vote to 
 receive the engine of destruction, would the rejectors or the re- 
 ceivers have been the dotards ? Before Mr. Barnes was receiv- 
 ed amongst us, it was shown, from his sermon, that his piety was 
 independent of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ; and that his 
 devotion could flame, for a whole year, through the inexpressi- 
 ble extacies of a professed revival, without once acknowledging 
 or depending upon the imputed righteousness of Christ, in evan- 
 gelical justification. His success was, of course, in proselyting 
 to his system, and his talents were enlisted in opposition to our 
 system. Surely, then, we must be dotards not to receive a man 
 so highly recommended. 
 
 7. The opposition of the Methodists to Mr. Barnes was very 
 plausibly advanced in his defence. But every faithful minister 
 may expect persecution ; and he should, through divine help, 
 maintain the truth in despite of it, according to his ordination 
 vows. Yet if I may judge from the Methodist " Advocate" of 
 March 19th, their persecution is pretty much like that of which 
 we are accused. They prove that Mr. Barnes' pretensions to 
 Calvinism are uncandid ; that his sermon and our Confession 
 of Faith are irreconcileably opposed to each other ; and that 
 honesty requires him to renounce his vows of ordination as pub- 
 licly as he made them. 
 
 8. The spirit of the age was considered as demanding far 
 greater liberality than the Minority approved. Every one was 
 to be allowed to interpret the scriptures and the constitution for 
 himself. This, in my judgment, is a treacherous attempt to jus- 
 tify the slander, that our standards have any or every meanmg, 
 even opposite meanings, and, of course, no meaning. But if 
 Presbyterians advocate such an unhallowed latitude in the inter- 
 pretation of their own constitution, ought they to condemn 
 Anti-presbyterians for acting accordingly *? Our church disavows 
 a wish for a national establishment; and appeals to our constitu- 
 tion for what they say. But remember that the liberal spirit of 
 the age has made our constitution like a nose of wax. Accord- 
 ingly, a Pennsylvania Editor undertakes to prove from our 
 constitution and acts of Assembly, that we professedly aim at a 
 union of church and state. He was contradicted by one of the 
 liberal Majority, in severer language than that of the Metho- 
 dists against Mr. Barnes. From this it is evident that they have 
 two opposite rules of interpretation, one for themselves, the 
 other for their antagonists. Infidel Liberals are required to 
 interpret language in its real, simple, plain, honest, meaning; 
 which interpretation would certainly give our constitution 
 
credit for being opposed to a union of church and state : 
 But Presbyterian liberals, like Dr. Ely, and Messrs. Bradford, 
 Sanford, and Patterson, are allowed to give whats(»ever explana- 
 tion their taste may dictate, or the occasion may require. This 
 leaves the latter class at liberty to practise the rule prescribed 
 to infidels whenever they think proper. This was done exten- 
 sively by Dr. Ely, in his old work, called " A Contrast between 
 Calvinism and Hopkinsianism." But he has promised us a new 
 work to be called " A Harmony;" in which we may expect to 
 see liherality liberalized. Permit me to give you an instance of 
 his application of both these rules to the same subject, on differ- 
 en,t occasions. The Executive Committee of the Board of Mis- 
 sions refused to employ two candidates, because they believed 
 that God was the author of sin. Dr. Anderson, their theolo- 
 gical instructor, wrote a violent complaint to the Board, saying 
 that neither he nor his students believed that God was the 
 AUTHOR of sin, but only that he was the cause of sin ! ! Dr. 
 Ely, who belonged both to the committee and the Board, 
 practised the Contrast rule of interpretation on this occa- 
 sion, and said that the two expressions meant the same thing. 
 He, therefore, rejected the applicants who had learned these 
 horrible sentiments from Dr. Anderson. Yet, after Mr. Barnes' 
 reception, Dr. Ely comes out in the Philadelphian of July 30th, 
 and opens the arms of his liberality to Dr. Anderson, the teacher 
 of these abhorred errors, allows him to distinguish between 
 author and cause, and then apologizes for him, by saying that he 
 does not intend "to charge his Maker with any thing morally 
 evil." This is the Harmony rule. You see the different re- 
 sults of the two rules. The latter acquits the seducer, after the 
 former had punished his dupes. These two rules are strikingly ex- 
 emplified in two adjacent columns of the paper referred to. The 
 right hand column contains a descant on the word Shibboleth, 
 in which he strikes and scatters Pagans, Mahometans, and Infi- 
 dels, Arminians, Independents, and Prelatists, Baptists, Soci- 
 nians, and Quakers. He also gives a broad-side against New- 
 school Calvinists, who err on original sin, natural ability, atone- 
 ment, and justification. This is according to the Contrast ru\e. 
 In the left hand column, he promises his new Harmony ; throws 
 his mantle over metaphysicial and speculative divines, pleads 
 for union, and says that he " would rather narrow than luiden 
 the differences which exist among renewed men." You can 
 discover the results of these two rules, in this case, by inquiring 
 whom the Doctor means by renewed men. This you may learn 
 from another publication of his, in which he speaks as follows, 
 viz. " We think that an v^rian, an Arminian, a llojjkinsian, 
 and a Lniversalist, may give us reason to suppose that he is a 
 RENEWED MAN."* It is evident that our liberals are now in the 
 
 •Theological Review, vol, 1, p. 158, 
 
flood tide of successful experiment in narrowing, rather than 
 widening the differences between them and their renewed bre- 
 thren last mentioned : but the minority still prefer some distinc- 
 tion between the precious and the vile. 
 
 9. One of Dr. Ely's pleas was, that there was every reason to 
 hope that Mr. Barnes would change his sentiments after he 
 should be received. He therefore recommended to him not to 
 confess that he was the author of the sermon. This, he said, 
 would put it out of the power of the minority to prosecute him 
 successfully before this Presbytery, and his reception among 
 us would prevent a prosecution before his former Presbytery. 
 He then advised him to refrain from preaching the views of his 
 sermon in future, and all would be well. He insisted that he 
 would change his sentiments; and gave as a reason, that it 
 could be said of none but a fool that he never changed. He 
 insinuated that a wise man was very apt to undergo this change 
 before he reached the age of forty-five years. The Presbytery 
 were very much indebted to the Dr. for his patience in instruct- 
 ing them thoroughly on this subject; for without such instruc- 
 tion, they might have fallen into great mistakes, in accounting 
 for the marvellous change which the Dr. himself has undergone. 
 We now know that it is because he is somewhere about forty- 
 five, and is no fool. It seems, however, as if Dr. Green, unhappy 
 man ! were doomed to a perpetual minority. This is one parti- 
 cular in which the greatest wisdom of antiquity appeared to fall 
 short of the astonishing improvements of the present day ; for 
 Solomon, instead of making versatility the test of wisdom, said, 
 " Meddle not with them that are given to change."* According 
 to the Doctor's view, no sound Presbytery or congregation ought 
 ever to receive a sensible, healthy, orthodox minister, of the age 
 of 44; because he has only one year to serve in the covehanted 
 ranks, wJiile the remainder of a long life must be spent in nar- 
 rowing the differences between such renewed men as Arians and 
 Universalists on the one hand, and Trinitarians and Calvinists 
 on the other. 
 
 10. The last plea which I need mention, is Dr. Ely's bold 
 assertion of Mr. Barnes' orthodoxy ! The Doctor still professes 
 Calvinistic Presbyterianism himself; and to gain credit for his 
 pretensions, he follows the policy of the French ministry, by 
 occasionally fitting out a polemical expedition, in the Philadel- 
 phian, against all the heretical Algerines that infest our theolo- 
 gical Mediterranean. All this parade, however, is evidently 
 intended only to make poor credulous Calvinists rally round his 
 standard, and unite themselves to his increasing corps of lenew- 
 ed men, soon to consist of Arians, Arminians, Hopkinsians and 
 Universalists, brought lovingly together, by his art and indus- 
 try in narrowing differences between irreconcileable contradic- 
 
 * Prov. xxiv. 21. 
 
tions. When the deluded Calvinists in this heterogeneous mass, 
 have been amused with a kw skirmishes against a foreign ene- 
 my, they are then ready, like the French army, to follow their 
 apparently patriotic leader, against the La Fayette of our Pres- 
 byterial minority, and those who, like him, advocate the libe- 
 rality of the charter, in opposition alike to despotic preroga- 
 tive, or disorganizing liberalism. While the Dr. is hoisting 
 Calvinistic colours for himself and Mr. Barnes, he acknowledges, 
 in the Philadelphian, what every one knows to be a fact, that 
 the enemies of our church and constitution proclaim, " confi- 
 dently and extensively, in the language of exultation, that new 
 divinity has gained the ascendancy in the mother Presbytery of 
 the Presbyterian Church." It is true that such old divinity men 
 as he and Dr. M'Auley and Mr. Sanford deny the fact, and or- 
 der them to hush with their boasting ; but it is too evident that 
 they connive at it, and rejoice with Hopkinsians, over that defeat 
 which Calvinistic Presbyterianism has sustained through their 
 defection. But Dr. Ely says, if Mr. Barnes " is not a Calvinist 
 he is not a Hopkinsian." It can be proved, however, that Mr. 
 Barnes has been known as a Hopkinsian in Jersey; it was this 
 well known character that i^commended him in Philadelphia ; 
 he has called himself a Hopkinsian ; he is so considered by all 
 the Hopkinsians themselves ; and as soon as the sermon was 
 read in Presbytery, Dr. M'Auley said that it was moderate Hop- 
 kinsianism. Now if moderate Hopkinsianism deny our guilt in 
 Adam, and our lost and helpless condition in ourselves ; if it 
 deny the imputation of sin and the vicarious satisfaction of the 
 Saviour in enduring the penalty of the law ; if it deny the effi- 
 cacy of the atonement, and dispense with gospel justification, 
 
 if^ moderate Hopkinsianism thus subvert the souls of meu; 
 
 and remove the foundation of a Christian's hope, what must be 
 the character of that genuine, unadulterated, matured Hopkin- 
 sianism, between which and Calvinism Dr. Ely is so anxious to 
 narrow existing differences'? 
 
 The term used by Dr. M'Auley reminds us that there are 
 great varieties among Hopkinsians, some moderate, and some 
 immoderate. Being generally intoxicated with a conceit of 
 their unlimited powers, and considering it beneath their dignity 
 to walk in the footsteps of the flock, eacii choice spirit among 
 them feels it incumbent upon him to invent a religion of his 
 own ; at least, in some brilliant feature of the scheme. Hence 
 arose the account which Dr. Green gave the Presbytery of 
 Hopinsianism, and Emmonism, and Murdockism, and JVew Ha- 
 venism, otherwise called Fitchism, or Taylorism. Strictly 
 speaking, Hopkinsianism is a very moderate heresy compared 
 with these others ; but generally speaking, it embraces them 
 all : so that a man may be said to be a Hopkinsian in the larger 
 sense of the word, and not a Hopkinsian in its stricter sense ; 
 because, he is far worse than Dr. Hopkins himself was. Taking 
 
( 40 ) ^ 
 
 advantage of this ambiguity of language, Dr. Ely denies that 
 Mr. Barnes is a Hopkinsian, while, in reality, he is much worse 
 than Dr. Hopkins ever was. He tells us that "many parts of 
 his sermon are directly opposed to the peculiarities inculcated 
 by" Dr. Hopkins; leaving us to conclude that they are less 
 offensive ; whereas they are far more so. Dr. Hopkins admitted 
 that Christ bore the penalty of the law in the sinners stead, and 
 that the penalty and curse of the law are the same thing. 
 Speaking of Christ's effecting the atonement, he says, "TAis can 
 be done by nothing but suffering the penalty.^' But Mr. Barnes 
 denies that Christ endured the penalty of the law, and thus 
 denies the atonement ; Dr. Hopkins himself being judge, and 
 Dr. Ely being witness, in the 9 1st page of whose Contrast this 
 testimony is found. In the conclusion of his Contrast, he calls 
 Hopkinsians heretics, and ranks them with '• Sahellians, 
 Brians, and Socinians;^^ and in his Theological Review he de- 
 fends our Synod for guarding the churches against the Hopkin- 
 sian heresy ; but now these must all be gathered into the Cal- 
 vin istic fold by the narrowing of differences. 
 
 If Mr. Barnes be an old school man, where was the necessity 
 of pleading so manfully for a new sort of liberality in interpret- 
 ing creeds? Where was the necessity of writing a new creed 
 throughout, insipid enough for him to swallow? Why did the 
 creed-maker himself advise Mr. Barnes not to confess that he 
 was the author of the sermon, and to desist, in future, from 
 preaching its peculiar views'? If he were already orthodox, why 
 did he flatter the Presbytery with a hope of his changing'? Did 
 they wish him to exchange his orthodoxy for heterodoxy"? 
 
 The church has often been betrayed, but its salvation is en- 
 sured. May we and ours be found among the faithful at the 
 coming of our Lord. 
 
 03= In part of the edition, in the Narrative, the following error escaped, which the reader 
 '' expreises." 
 
 THE END. 
 

c 
 
1 
 
^'