JAM 5: e 19/.: ^ 
 
 ♦■■. 
 
 <:*ft-c. , 
 
 
ADDRESS 
 
 MINISTERS, ELDERS, AND MEMBERS, 
 
 
 UNITED STATES. 
 
 NEW-YORK: 
 
 ROBERT CARTER, 1 12 CANAL-STREET. 
 J. W. BELL, PRINTER, 17 ANN-STREET. 
 
 1836. 
 
ADDRESS. 
 
 At a meeting of those Members of the last General Assembly, 
 who had voted in favour of the resolution introduced by Dr. Miller, 
 condemning the errors contained in Barnes' Notes on the Romans, 
 held at Pittsburgh, in May, 1836, agreeably to a call through the 
 Moderator, the undersigned were appointed a Committee to prepare 
 and circulate a suitable publication on the state of the Church, and 
 particularly on the two great subjects which had occupied the atten- 
 tion of the Assembly, viz : the Barnes' Case, and the Foreign 
 Missionary Question. 
 
 In accordance with our appointment, as well as from a personal 
 conviction of duty, and, we trust, under a proper sense of our high 
 responsibility, we respectfully present the following publication to 
 the candid, serious, and prayerful consideration of the Ministers, 
 Elders, and Members of the Presbyterian Church, in these United 
 States. 
 
 As introductory to our remarks on the topics to which we shall 
 more especially direct your attention, we beg you to indulge us in 
 two or three general observations; and we olDserve, in the 1st place, 
 that the prosperity of the Church, and her efficiency in securing the 
 great objects of her institution, depend, under God, on the purity 
 of her faith. The Divine glory can be promoted, and the souls of 
 men saved, only through the knowledge and obedience of the truth; 
 Scriptural views of the perfections of Jehovah ; of our own condi- 
 tion and character by nature ; and of the way of life through Jesus 
 Christ, lie at the foundation of all true religion ; and hence the 
 many solemn injunctions laid upon the Ambassadors of the Saviour 
 to preach the truth ; to declare the whole counsel of God, whether 
 men will hear or whether they will forbear. Indeed, if these posi- 
 tions be not correct, and if it be a matter of no moment, what are 
 the principles men hold, and the views they entertain, it may well 
 be questioned, wherefore God should have given us a revelation of 
 his will at all — why reveal truth, if it is not necessary that it should 
 be embraced 1 But notwithstanding these views should, as we 
 
think, command every man's approbation, one of the most alarm- 
 ing- symptoms of declension in the Church, at the present day, is 
 indifference with respect to the truth of God. Men do not seem to 
 realize as they ought, the importance of the truth as Jehovah has 
 revealed it. They pride themselves upon being- extremely liberal 
 on this subject. They will not quarrel with a man for not believing- 
 this doctrine and the other doctrine — with them, sincerity, zeal, and 
 an outwardly blameless life, are sufficient evidences of piety. In 
 fact, in the hearing of many, to talk of the importance of main- 
 taining the truth and order of the Church — of contending earnestly 
 for the faith once delivered to the saints, is to incur their suspicion 
 of your zeal and devotedness in the cause of God, if not to have 
 them call in question your personal religion. Now this surely can- 
 not be too much deplored. It is freely admitted that a mere specu- 
 lative knowledge of the gospel is not enough. It is admitted, too, 
 that it is good to be zealously affected in a good thing ; and that 
 there can Ije no true religion without zeal ; but there may be zeal 
 without knowledge, and God crowneth no man, except he strive 
 lawfully. Mere sincerity, mere zeal, are not of themselves suffi- 
 cient. If they were, the son of God would never have wrought a 
 moral miracle in order to change Saul of Tarsus into Paul the 
 Apostle ; nor would that Apostle ever have uttered the language, 
 " Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel 
 unto you, than that which we have preached, let him be accursed." 
 Paul was a man of peace ; a man whose bosom burned with love ; 
 a man zealous and untiring in his efforts for the salvation of souls ; 
 but with him, truth was paramount to every thing else ; and accord- 
 ingly he hesitates not a moment to imprecate the blasting curse of 
 God upon him who should attempt to corrupt the pure gospel of 
 Christ. The truth of God then, we repeat it, accompanied by the 
 agency of his spirit, and not our notions of it, nor our zeal in propa- 
 gating these notions, is that on which the prosperity of the Church, 
 and her efficiency in securing the great objects of her institution, 
 depend. 
 
 We observe 2d — That to the successful maintainance of the truth 
 of God — to union of effort in its maintainance, creeds, confessions 
 of faith, are indispensable. It is readily conceded that the Bible 
 is the only infallible rule of faith and practice — the ultimate stand- 
 ard by which every doctrine and every spirit must be tried. But it 
 is well known that men interpret the Bible very differently, and 
 that all the errorists that have ever disturbed the Cliurch have pro- 
 fessed to receive it as their text-book. The Arian, the Socinian, 
 the Pelagian, and the Arminian, if you believe them, all find their 
 several systems in the Bible — so that a simple profession of faith in 
 the Bible it appears is a very vague matter ; and something more 
 definite and explicit is evidently necessary to ascertain the religious 
 sentiments of men. In order to this, under the circumstances of 
 the case, there must be a resort to the use of formularies containing 
 
the leading and distiiiguishing doctrines of the Bible, expressed in 
 language easily understood. In no other way amid the multiplicity 
 of religious sects that exist, is it possible to know what are men's 
 views of divine truth ; and in no other way can that harmony in 
 counsel and union in action which are necessary to the defence and 
 propagation of that truth be secured. Accordingly the Church 
 has never been without her confession of faith, her avowed creed. 
 In the early ages of Christianity, this confession, this creed, was 
 contained in the declaration, that "Jesus was the Christ, the Son 
 of God" — a declaration including in it much more than meets the 
 eye of the superficial thinker — including in it tliat he was the 
 Messiah, and of course the offices he sustained, the errand on which 
 he came, and the condition of those on whose behalf he appeared ; 
 and in after times and as errors multiplied, men of faith and prayer 
 seeking direction from on high, expanded their confession, their 
 acknowledged creed, so as to meet the exigencies of their day. 
 The Presbyterian Church as such, has her forms of doctrine, her 
 confession of faitli and catechisms, which constitute her public 
 standards. We say notliing now of their excellence — of the cha- 
 racter of those holy men of God who studied, prayed and laboured, 
 to set in order the truths which they contain ; nor of the kind 
 providence of God in preserving them so long, and in permitting 
 them to be handed down to us with his marked blessing upon their 
 use — we say nothing of these things ; but we would say, that on 
 entering the Presbyterian Church, every minister of the Gospel is 
 required solemnly to avow that the doctrines of these standards are 
 the doctrines which he holds and approves — be is required to an- 
 swer in the affirmative the following among other questions, viz : — 
 " Do you sincerely receive and adopt the confession of faith of this 
 Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy 
 Scriptures 1" Mark this language. It is not do you receive " for 
 substance of doctrine" — "with considerable latitude of interpreta- 
 tion" — the confession of faith of this Church 1 Nor is it do you 
 receive the " system''^ of doctrine which this confession teaches 1 
 It is more explicit still — Do you sincerely receive and adopt the con- 
 fession of faith of this Church as containing the system of doctrine 
 taught in the Holy Scriptures'? as containing the accredited princi- 
 ples of Christianity arranged in systematic order according to their 
 mutual bearings and dependence 1 This is the simple, naked ques- 
 tion — and were all who answer this question affirmatively to do so 
 in good faith, sincerely and candidly, then would the name of Pres- 
 byterian be an intelligible and sufficient passport throughout our 
 bounds — then, would a certificate of the fact, that an individual 
 had before any Presbytery in the land received our standards, at 
 once make us acquainted with his doctrinal sentiments, and com- 
 mend him to our confidence — for we should then all " speak the 
 same thing, and be perfectly joined together in the same mind and 
 in the same judgment." But if, in answering this question, men 
 
are not sincere and candid — if when they say they " sincerely 
 receive and adopt the confession of faith of this Church," they 
 receive it merely as a " systeni" distinguished from, and in prefer- 
 ence to other systems, and reserve to themselves the right of con- 
 struing its language to mean something different from that which 
 it has been uniformly understood to mean, then it is plain that we 
 have no common standards — no bond of union — and that it is impos- 
 sible to know what are the doctrines held by those who are nomi- 
 nally connected with us ; which leads to our 3d general observa- 
 tion, viz : — That creeds, confessions of faith, to answer their true 
 and legitimate purpose, must be honestly received. And here we 
 are constrained to believe is one fruitful source of our present dis- 
 tractions as a Church, a lack of honesty in the reception of our 
 standards. Some examine these standards with care — they 
 compare them with the scriptures of truth on which they profess 
 to be founded — they scan narrowly the language used in them, 
 and having done so, they sincerely receive and adopt all the doc- 
 trines they contain. Without laying any claim to infalhbility, or 
 pretending to judge those who may differ from them, they proclaim 
 to the world that the Confession of Faith of this Church is their 
 confession of faith. Tliey feel themselves solemnly bound, as by 
 an oath, to adhere to this form of sound words, and to publish no 
 doctrines either inconsistent or at variance with it, Tliis course 
 they pursue as honest men ; and they are encouraged the rather to 
 pursue it, because they find that all the boasted discoveries of new 
 light — all the improvements in Theology so much talked of as cor- 
 responding with the improvements of the age, are, in reality, only 
 the dark visions and exploded theories of former centuries. And, 
 because, moreover, they find that no sooner are the men who have 
 published these discoveries and improvements, and, in consequence, 
 have trumpeted themselves abroad as far in advance of their gene- 
 ration, arraigned for the errors they have promulged, than they 
 immediately turn round and plead that they have taught nothing 
 new, and undertake to defend themselves by quoting the standard 
 writers of former centuries. There are others, however, who view 
 this matter in a very different light, and who act a very different 
 part. Although they have professed to receive our standards in 
 the same manner with the class just referred to, tliey do not consider 
 themselves bound by that act to receive all the doctrines contained 
 in them ; nor to construe the language in which they are 
 expressed, in the sense in which it was manifestly employed 
 by those who framed them. Their independent and gigantic 
 minds are not to be trammelled by frame-works of faith that 
 men have invented, and without any regard to the solemn vows 
 which they have voluntarily come under, they publish to the 
 world their unhallowed speculations — their crude and undigested 
 theories. Instead of withdrawing in a peaceable and orderly man- 
 ner from a Church whose formularies they have never honestly 
 
adopted, they remain to destroy its unity and interrupt its harmony. 
 Under tire name and cloak of Presbyterianism they disseminate 
 sentiments whicli lead directly to Armhiianism, Pelagianism 
 and Socinianism. These are the men who, in our judgment, have 
 caused divisions among us — for we are a divided Church — as really 
 divided as though we were called by different names and existed 
 under different organizations. The sclnsmhas come already, and let 
 those men who have come into our Church by professing to receive 
 our standards, when, in fact, they did not believe them in their plain 
 and obvious import, answer for it — for they are its authors. These 
 remarks, it is painful, exceedingly painful, for us to make, but we are 
 persuaded they are well founded. If any think them severe, it is our 
 conscientious conviction, it is only the severity of truth ; and we ear- 
 nestly entreat those to whom they apply, to look calmly at this 
 matter — to ask themselves whether the conduct which we charge, 
 would not, in the case of worldly men, and in reference to associa- 
 tions for mere secular purposes, draw down the sternest rebuke of 
 every man of integrity and honour. 
 
 Without any further general observations we proceed to the two 
 great subjects mentioned at the commencement of this address, and 
 1st, the " Barnes' Case," as it is termed. It will be necessary to 
 glance for a moment at the history of this case. In 1830, the Rev. 
 Albert Barnes, being then a member of the Presbytery of Elizabeth- 
 town, and Pastor of the Church in Morristown, New Jersey, pub- 
 lished a sermon styled " The Way of Salvation." Shortly after 
 this, he (Mr. B.) received a call to become the Pastor of the First 
 Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. In'consequence of the errors 
 contained in the sermon referred to, a minority of the Presbytery 
 of Philadelphia, to which the Church calling Mr. B. belonged, 
 opposed the prosecution of the call. They were, however, over- 
 ruled, the call was forwarded, put into his hands, and accepted by 
 him. The minority then insisted on their right to question him 
 respecting his doctrinal sentiments previous to his reception and in- 
 stallation — in this, however, they were again overruled by a majo- 
 rity of the Presbytery, and he was received and installed. Of this 
 procedure on the part of the majority, the minority complained to 
 the Synod, and were heard before that body at their meeting in 
 the following autumn, and the result was, the following resolutions 
 were passed by the Synod : — 
 
 " 1. Resolved, That the Presbytery of Philadelphia, in not allowing the examination 
 of Mr. Barnes, in connexion with his printed sennon, previously to his reception as a 
 member of Presbytery, and especially before his installation as pastor of the first 
 Presbyterian Church, gave just ground of complaint to the minority. 
 
 " 2. Resolved, That the complainants be referred back to the Presbytery of which 
 they are members, with an injunction to that Presbytery, to hear and decide on their 
 objections to the orthodoxy ot the sermon of Mr. Barnes, and to take such order on the 
 whole subject, as is required by a regard to the purity of the church, and its acknow- 
 ledged doctrines and order." 
 
 Subsequently to this decision of the Synod, the minority in the 
 
- 8 
 
 Presbytery became the majority — a special meeting was called to 
 comply with the order of Synod — and the following decision was 
 had .— 
 
 " The Presbytery of Philadelphia, agreeably to the direction of the Synod at their 
 meeting in Lancaster, having considered the sermon of the Rev. Albert Barnes, 
 entitled the ' Way of Salvation,' are of the opinion that it contains speculations of 
 dangerous tendency, on some of the principal points in Christian th(,>ology, and ought 
 notj^^therefore, to be sanctioned as expressing that view of the great truths of God's 
 word, which the Presbyterian Church has uniformly adopted, and which is exhibited in 
 their authorized Confession of Faith. 
 
 " In stating the doctrine of original sin, the author employs a phraseology which i3 
 calculated to mislead, and which appears evidently to conflict with the spirit and letter 
 of the standards of tlio Presbyterian Church. 
 
 "1. He denies that the posterity of Adam are responsible or answerable for Adam's 
 first sin, which he committed as the federal head of his race. Thus, p. 6, 'Christian- 
 ity does not charge on men crimes of which tliey are not guilty. It does not say, as I 
 suppose, that the sinner is held to be personally answerable for the transgressions of Adam, 
 or of any other man.'' 
 
 " Although the word transgressions is here used plurally, yet it is evident from the 
 whole tenor of this division of the discourse, that the prime sin of Adam, which 
 constituted his apostacy from God, is meant. Again, he says, p. 7, 'Neither the 
 facts, nor any proper inference from the facts affirm, that I am in either case personally 
 responsible for lohat another man (referring to Adam) did before I had an existence.^ And 
 he explicitly declares, that if God had charged upon mankind such a responsibility, it 
 would have been clearly unjust, vide p. 6. The doctrine of responsibility here 
 impusned is clearly expressed, Confession of Faith, chap. vi. 6. " Every sin, both 
 original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God and contrary 
 thereunto, doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound 
 over to the wrath of God and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all 
 miseries, spiritual, temporal and eternal. 
 
 " 2. In accordance with the above doctrine, that mankind are not responsible for 
 Adam's sin, he affirms, p. 7, that 'Christianity affirms the fact, that in connexion 
 with the sin of Adam, or as a result, all nwral agents will sin, and sinning will die.' 
 And then proceeds to explain the principle upon which the universality of sin is to be 
 accounted for, by representing it to be the result of Adam's sin, in the same sense, as 
 the misery of a drunkard's family is the result of his intemperance. Here it would 
 seem, the author maintains that the same relationship subsists between every man and 
 his family, as subsisted between Adam and his posterity ; that the same principle of 
 moral government applies to both cases alike, or in other words, that mankind hold no 
 other relationship to Adam, than that of children to a natural progenitor. 
 
 " The public federal or representative character of Adam is thus denied, contrary to 
 the explicit statement in the answer to the 22d duestion of Larger Catecliism. ' The 
 covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his 
 posterity ; all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation sinned in him, 
 and fell with him, in that first transgression.' 
 
 " 3. He declares, p. 7, that 'the notion of imputing sin is an invention of modern 
 times,' contrary to Confession of Faith, chap. vi. 3, ' They being the root of all man- 
 kind, 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 generation.' 
 
 " 4. In p. 5, he admits that his language on the subject of original sin differs from that 
 used by the Confession of Faith on the same subject, and then accounts for this 
 difference, on the ground of the difficulty of affixing any clear and definite meaning 
 to the expression ' we sinned tn him and fell ivith him.' This expression he considers, 
 as far as it is capable of interpretation, as ' intended to convey the idea, not that the 
 sin of Adam is imputed 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 oitr act, and 
 ours only, after all, that is chargeable on us.' 
 
 The whole of this statement is exceedingly incautious and improper. The language 
 of the Confession of Faith on one of the cardinal doctrines is held up as obscure and 
 unintelligible, or, if possessing any meaning, as expressing an absurdity. The 
 framera of tliis confession are charged with the absurdity of maintabing the personal 
 
identity between Adam and his posterity, when their language conveys no more than 
 a federal or representative relationship. This whole view of the doctrine of ori"-inal 
 ein, is, in the opinion of the Presbytery, obscure, perplexed, fruitful of dangerous 
 consequences, and therefore, censurable. 
 
 " The statements of this sermon on the doctrine of Atonement, are also, in the 
 opinion of Presbytery, in some important features, erroneous, and contrary to the 
 orthodox views. 
 
 " 1. At p. 11, he says, 'this atonement was for all men. It was an offering made 
 for the race. It had not respect so much to individuals, as to the law and perfections 
 of God. It was an opening of the way of pardon, a making forgiveness consistent, a 
 preservation of truth, a magnifying of the law, and had no particular reference to any 
 class of men.' 
 
 " Here it is denied that the atonement had any special relation to the elect, which it 
 had not also to the non-elect. But if it be true that the atonement offered by Christ, 
 had no ' respect to individuals,' ' no particular reference to any class of men,' upon 
 what principle can it be regarded as a satisfaction to divine justice for the sins of men ? 
 or in what proper sense can Christ be considered as a vicarious sacrifice ? unless the 
 atonement be a satisfaction for the sins of individuals, upon what principle can it open 
 the way of pardon, make forgiveness consistent, preserve truth or magnify the law ? 
 The special reference of the atonement to a chosen people, in opposition to this view, 
 is taught, Confession of Faith, chap. viii. 5. ' The Lord Jesus, by iiis 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 
 had given unto him.' Again, in answer to Cluestion 44, Larger Catechism 'Christ 
 executeth the oflice of a Priest in his once offering himself a sacrifice without spot to 
 God, to be a reconciliation for the sins of his people.' &.c. 
 
 "2. At p. 11, he says, ' the atonement of itself secured the salvation of no one;' and 
 again, ' The atonement secured the salvation of no 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.' This language is incautious and calculated to mislead ; as it 
 seeins to imply that the atonement of itself does not secure its own application, and, 
 therefore, may, by possibility, fail in its design. It is improper to suspend its efficacy 
 upon conditions, when the conditions themselves are the results of its efficacy, see 
 Confession of Faith, chap, viii, 8, ' To all those for whom Christ hath purchased 
 redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same ; 
 making intercession for them, in and by the word, the mysteries of salvation ; 
 effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey,' &c. 
 
 " 3. At p. 10, he unequivocally denies that Christ endured the penalty of the law. ' He 
 did not indeed, endure the penalty of the law, for his sufferings were not eternal, nor did 
 he endure remorse of conscience ; but he endured so much suffering, bore so much 
 agony, that the Father was pleased to accept of it, in the place of the eternal torments 
 of all that should be saved.' Here it seems to be inculcated that Christ did not satisfy 
 the precise claims which a violated law had upon the sinner, but that he did what 
 might be considered a substitute for such satisfaction ; or it is implied that God 
 remitted or waived the original claim, and accepted of something less. And that this 
 is the sentiment of the author, is evident from his language, p. 1 1. ' 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 
 penalties of the law. Nor is it possible to conceive that the sufferings of a few hours, 
 however severe, could equal pains, though far less intense, eternally prolonged. Still 
 less that the sufferings of huniun nature in a single instance, for the divine nature 
 could not suffer, should be equal to the eternal pain of many millions.' Here it is 
 affirmed that Christ was not capable of enduring that penalty which the justice of God 
 had exacted of the sinner, that his sufferings bore a very d stant resemblance to it, and 
 by consequence, that the penalty of the law has been either relaxed or is yet unpaid, 
 and that the justice of God has waived its original demand, or is yet unsatisfied. 
 
 "The whole of this language seems derogatory to Christ as an all-sufficient Re- 
 deemer; it judges of the human nature of Christ as if it were a common human nature, 
 it leaves out of view the infinite support which the divine nature was capable of impart- 
 ing to the human nature of Christ, and is very different from the view of this subject 
 given by the framers of our standards, in the answer to the 38 Q.. of L. C. ' It was 
 requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human 
 nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death ; give 
 
10 
 
 worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience and intercession ; and to satisfy God's 
 justice,' &c. &c. 
 
 "In discoursing on human ability, the sermon contains expressions which do not seem 
 to be well judged. In p. 14, it is said, 'it is not to any want of physical strength that 
 this rejection is owing, lor 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 represents man's inability as solely in the will ; and on p. 30, 
 that men are not saved simply because they loiU not be saved. Here physical ability 
 is represented as competent to the performance of a moral action, which is an improper 
 application of terms, and human inability as resulting merely from the will, and not 
 from total depravity, which is contrary to Confession Faith, chap. vi. 4. ' From this 
 original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to 
 all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions,' and 
 Confession of Faith, chap. ix. 3. " Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly 
 lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation, so, as a natural 
 man being altogether averse Irom that which is good, and dead to sin, is not able by 
 his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.' 
 
 " Still further, the language of the sermon, on the subjcat of conformity to the stand- 
 ards of the church, if sanctioned, would give to every individual, after adopting these 
 standards, the liberty of dissenting from them as much, and as often, as he might desire. 
 Thus p. 6, he says, ' It is not denied that this language vaiies 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 with that used on the same 
 subject in the Confession of Faith, and other standards of doctrine.' And again p. 12. 
 ' The great principle on which the author supposes the truths of religion are to be 
 preached, and on which he endeavours to act is, that the Bible is to be interpreted 
 by all the honest helps within the reach of the preacher, and then proclaimed as it is, 
 let it lead -where it will, witliin, or without tiie circumference of any arrangement of 
 doctrines. He is supposed to be responsible, not at all for its impinging on any theo- 
 logical system ; nor is he to be cramped by any frame work of Faith that has been 
 reared around the Bible.' This language would seem to imply, that an individual may 
 enter the bosom of a church by a public reception of its creed, and continue in the com- 
 munion of that church, although he should subsequently discover that its creed was not 
 founde I on the word of God. Whilst the liberty of every man to accept or reject any 
 particular creed, is fully acknowledged by this Presbytery, yet they do deny, that any 
 minister, whilst he remains in the communion of the Presbyterian Church, has a right to 
 impugn in its creed, or to make a public declaration that he is not bound by its authority^ 
 
 " In fine, a ivhole view of this discourse seems to warrant the belief, that the grand and 
 fundamental doctrine of justitication, as held by the Protestant Pv,eformers, and taught 
 clearly and abundantly in the standards of the Presbyterian Church, is really not held, 
 but denied in this sermon. For the imputation of Adam's sin is denied ; and the 
 endurance of the penalty of the law by Christ, is denied ; and any special reference of 
 the atonement to the elect of God, is denied ; and the righteousness of Christ as 
 the meritorious ground of our acquittal and acceptance with God, is not once 
 mentioned, although the text of the discourse naturally points to the doctrine : and 
 when it is considered that the imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity, 
 and the imputation of the sins of God's people to their surety Saviour, and the 
 imputation of his finished righteousness to tliem, do all rest upon the same ground, and 
 must all stand or fall together, and that it has been found in fact, that those who deny 
 one of these, do generally deny the whole, and to be consistent, must necessarily do 
 so, it is no forced conclusion, but one which seems inevitable, that the sermon does 
 really reject the doctrine of justitication, as held by frte Reformers, and as taught in 
 our Confession of Faith and Catechisms ; that it does not teach as the answer to the 
 question on justification in our Shorter Catechism asserts, that " Justification is an act 
 of God's free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in 
 his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, and received by faith alone.' 
 
 " It is not satisfactory, that the sermon says, that 'Christ died in the place of sin- 
 ners ;' that it speaks of 'the merits of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ' — of 'the 
 love of Christ,' of 'putting on the Lord Jesus Christ,' of being 'willing to drop into the 
 hands of Jesus, and to be saved l>y his merit alone,' of God, ' sprinkling on the soul the 
 blood of Jesus, and freely pardoning all its sins,' since this language may be usod, and 
 is actually used, by some wlio cxpliL-itly deny that Clirist took the law pi tc;; of sinners, 
 bore the curse of God's law in tiicir room and stead, and that they are saved only by 
 the imputation to them of his perfect righteousness. 
 
11 
 
 " On the whole, the Presbytery express their deep regret, that Mr. Barnes should 
 have preached and pubHshed a discourse, so highly objectionable, and so manifestly, 
 in some of its leading points, opposed to the doctrines of the Confession of Faith and 
 Cat'^chisms of the Presbyteiian Church ; they earnestly recommend to Mr. Barnes, to 
 rci-i insider and renounce the erroneous matter contained in his printed sermon, as 
 specified in the foregoing decisions of Presbytery : and with a view to afford time to 
 Mr. Barnes for reflection and reconsideration, in reference to the errors of his sermon, 
 and for opportunity for such of the brethren, as may choose to converse freely with 
 him on the subject, the Presbytery do suspend their final decision on the case, until 
 their next stated meeting." 
 
 At this meeting likewise, a committee was appointed to wait on 
 Mr. Barnes. 
 
 " To communicate to him the result of the deliberations of this Presbytery in the ex- 
 amination of his sermon, and to converse with him freely and affectionately, on the 
 points excepted to in that sermon ; in the hope and expectation, tb.at the interview will 
 result in removing or diminishing the difficulties wliich have arisen in his case ; and 
 that they report at the next meeting of Presbytery." 
 
 This Committee performed their duty, they saw and conversed 
 with Mr. B., but were informed by him that he considered all the 
 proceedings of the Presbytery in his case since the decision of the 
 Synod as unconstitutional, and that, therefore, he could not receive 
 them as a Committee. Their report was made accordingly to the 
 Presbytery by whom the whole case was referred to the Assembly, — 
 not however without having connected with it two or three com- 
 plaints by which the Delegates from Presbytery to that body 
 would be excluded from voting against the errors of the Sermon. 
 
 Of the unusual proceedings of the Assembly in the case, we say 
 nothing. The following resolutions were passed : — 
 
 " 1. Resolved, That the General Assembly, while it appreciates the conscientious 
 zeal for the purity of the Church, by which the Presbytery of Philadelphia is believed 
 to have been actuated, in its proceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes ; and while it judges 
 that the sermon by Mr, Barnes, entitled, 'The Way of Salvation,' contains a number 
 of unguarded and objectionable passages; yet is of the opinion, that, especially after 
 the explanations which were given by him of those passages, the Presbytery ought to 
 have suffered the whole to pass without further notice. 
 
 " 2. Resolved, That in the judgment of this Assembly, the Presbytery of Philadel- 
 phia ought to suspend all further proceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes. 
 
 " 3. Resolved, That it will be expedient, so soon as the regular steps can be taken, 
 to divide the Presbytery in such way, as M'ill be best calculated to promote the peace 
 of the ministers and churches belonging to the Presbytery." 
 
 After all this had transpired, Mr. Barnes saw fit to publish, in 
 his notes on the Romans, in a more expanded form, the same errors 
 which he had previously published in his Sermon. The Rev. Dr. 
 Junkin, for reasons which appeared to him, not only sufficient but 
 imperative, and which he has published to the world, tabled char- 
 ges against him before his Presbytery — and here without entering 
 into the argument, or copying the reasonings of Dr. J. we simply 
 introduce his charges, and the proofs he adduced. 
 
 " The Rev. Albert Barnes is hereby charged with maintaining the following doc- 
 trines, contrary to the Standards of the Presbyterian Church, viz. : 
 Charge I. 
 
 " That sin consists in voluntary action." 
 
 Proof 1st. Notes on Romans, p. 249. "In all this, and in all other sin, mania 
 voluntarj'." 
 
 Proof "2d. Same work, p. 123. " There is no reason to believe that they [men] are 
 
12 
 
 condemned to eternal death, or held to be guilty of his sin [meaning Adam's sin] with- 
 out participation, of their own, or without personal sin, any more than that they are 
 approved by the work of Christ, or held to be personally deserving, without embracing 
 his offer, and receiving him as a Saviour." 
 
 Proof 3d, p. 192. " They (Jacob and Esau) had done nothing good or bad, and 
 where that is the case there can be no character, for character is the result of conduct. 
 
 That the period of moral agency had not yet commenced. 
 
 Proof 4, p. 124. " As the work of Christ does not benefit the race unless it is em- 
 braced, so does not the reasoning of the Apostle lead us to the conclusion that the deed 
 of Adam does not condemn unless there be some voluntary act on the part of each 
 individual ? 
 
 Proof 5, p. 118. "Men will not be held guilty unless there is a law which binds 
 them, of which they are apprised, and which they voluntarily transgress." 
 
 That this doctrine is contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian Church, will ap- 
 pear by referring to Confession of Faith chap. vi. 5. " This corruption of nature, during 
 this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated ; and althouoh it be through Christ 
 pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof are truly and properly 
 sin." 6. "Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteons 
 law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, 
 whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God and curse of the law, and so made sub- 
 ject to death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal and eternal." 
 
 Lar. Cat. Gluest. 27. — "The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with 
 God, his displeasure and curse ; so as we are by nature children of wrath, bond slaves 
 to Satan, and justly liable to all punishments in this world, and that which is to come." 
 
 Shorter Cat. Gluest. 19. — " All mankind by their fall lost communion with God, are 
 under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to all the miseries of this life, to death 
 itself, and to the pains of hell for ever." 
 
 Con. chap. ix. — " 1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that 
 it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good or evil. 
 
 " 2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that 
 which is good and well-pleasing to God ; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it. 
 
 " 3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any 
 spiritual good accompanying salvation : so as a natural man being altogether averse 
 from that which is good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert 
 himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. 
 
 "4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he 
 freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone, enables him 
 freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good ; yet so as that, by reason of his 
 remaming corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but 
 doth also will that which is evil. 
 
 " 5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the 
 state of glory only." 
 
 Charge II. 
 
 " That Adam (before and after his fall) was ignorant of his moral relations to such 
 a degree, that he did not know the consequences of his sin would or should reach any 
 further, than to natural death." 
 
 Proof 1. Note p. 115. " If an inquiry be made here, how Adam would understand 
 this [the threatening of death ;] I reply that we have no reason to think he would un- 
 derstand it as referring to any thing more than the loss of life as an expression of the 
 displeasure of God. Moses does not intimate that he was learned in the nature of 
 laws and penalties, and his narrative would lead us to suppose that this was all that 
 would occur to Adam. And indeed there is the highest evidence the case admits of, 
 that this was his understanding of it. For in the account of the infliction oi the penalty, 
 after the law was violated, in God's ov/n interpretation of it, in Gen. iii. 19, there is 
 still no reference to any thing further. " Dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return." 
 Now it is incredible that Adam should have understood this as referring to what has 
 been called " spiritual death" and to " eternal death," when neither in the threatening, 
 nor in the account of the infliction of the sentence, is there the slightest recorded refer- 
 ence to it. Men have done great injury to the cause of correct interpretation by carry- 
 ing their notions of doctrinal subjects to the explanation of words and phrases in the 
 Old Testament. They have usually described Adam as endowed with all the refine- 
 ment, and possessed of all the knowledge, and adorned with all the metaphysical 
 acumen and subtility of a modern theologian. They have deemed him qualified, in the 
 very infancy of the world, to understand and discuss questions, which, under sl\ tlie 
 
13 
 
 light of the Christian revelation, still perplex and embarrass the human mind. Afler 
 these accounts of the endowments of Adam which occupy so large a space in books of 
 theology, one is surprised, on opening the Bible, to find how unlike all this is to the sim- 
 ple statement in Genesis. And the wonder cannot be suppressed tiiat men should 
 describe the obvious in/ajici/ of the race as superior to its highest advancement; or that 
 the first man, just created, just looking upon a world of wonders, unacquainted with 
 law, and moral relations, and the efftct of transgression should be represented as en- 
 dowed with knowledge which four thousand years afterwards it required the advent of 
 the Son of God to communicate." 
 
 How contrary all this is to the Standards of the Presbyterian Church will appear by 
 referring to 
 
 Con. chap. iv. 2. — " After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male 
 and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteous- 
 ness, and true holiness, alter his own image, having the law of God written in their 
 hearts, and power to fulfil it ; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to 
 the liberty of their own will which was subject unto change. Besides this law written 
 in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of 
 good and evil ; which while they kept they were happy in their communion with God, 
 and had dominion over their creatures." 
 
 Lar. Cat. duest. 17. — "After God had made all other creatures, he created man, 
 male and female ; formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground, and the 
 woman of the rib of the man; endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal 
 souls ; made them after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, 
 having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, with dominion 
 over the creatures ; yet subject to fall. 
 
 20. " The providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created, was, 
 the placing hnn in Paradise, appointing him to dress it, giving him liberty to eat of the 
 fruit of the earth, putting the creatures under his dominion, and ordaining marriage 
 for his help ; affurding him communion with himself, instituting the Sabbath, entering 
 into a covenant of life with him, upon condiiion of personal, perfect, and perpetual 
 obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge ; and forbidding to eat of the tree of 
 knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death. 
 
 22. "The covenant being made with Jidam, as a public person, not for himself only, 
 but for his posterity ; all mankind descending from liim by ordinary generation, sinned m 
 him and fell with him in that first transgression.'' 
 
 ShorterCat. chap. 12. — "When God had created man, he entered into acovenantof 
 life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience ; forbidding him to eat of the tree 
 of knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death." 
 Charge 111. 
 
 " That unregenerate men are able to keep the commandments and convert themselves 
 to God." 
 
 Proof 1, 164, " The carnal mind. This is the same expression as occurs in verse 6, 
 (to (ppovyijiti T/is crapKo;.) It does not mean the mind itself, the intellect or the will ; it 
 does not suppose that the mind or the soul is physically depraved, or opposed to God ; 
 but it means that the minding of the things of the fiesh, giving to them supreme atten- 
 tion, is hostility to God." ^'■For it. — The word (it) here refers to the minding of the 
 things of the llesh. It does not mean that the soul itself is not subject to his law, but 
 that the minding of those things is hostile to his law. The Apostle does not express 
 any opinion about the metaphysical ability of man, or discuss that question at all. The 
 amount of his affirmation is simply, that the minding of the fiesh, the supreme attention 
 to its dictates and desires, is not and cannot be subject to the law of God. They are 
 wholly contradictory and irreconcileable, just as much as the love of falsehood is incon- 
 sistent with the laws of truth ; as intemperance is inconsistent with the laws of tempe- 
 rance ; and as adultery is a violation of the seventh commandment. But whether the 
 man himself might not obey the law ; whether he has or has not ability to do it — is a 
 question which the apostle does not touch, and on which this passage should not be 
 adduced. For whether the lavv of a particular sin is utterly irreconcileable with an 
 opposite virtue, and wiiether the sinner is able to abandon that sin, and pursue a dif- 
 ferent path, are very different inquiries. 
 
 Is not subject. — It is not in subjection to the command of God. The minding of the 
 flesh is opposed to that law, and thus shows that ii is hostile to God. 
 
 J^Teither indeed can be. — This is absolute and certain. It is impossible that it should 
 be. There is the utmost inability in regard to it. The things are utterly irreconcilea- 
 ble. But the affirmation does not mean that the heart of the sinner might not be sub- 
 
14 
 
 ject to God ; or that his soul is so physically depraved that he cannot obey, or that he 
 might not obey the law, 
 
 165. 8. So then — It follows, it leads to this conclusion. 
 
 " They that are in the flesh. — They who are nnrcnewod sinners, who are following 
 supremely the desires of the flesh. Chap. vii. 18. Those are meant here who follow 
 fleshly app(>tites, and desire'^, and who are not led by the Spirit of God. 
 
 " Cannot please God. — That is, while they are thus in the flesh ; while they thus pursue 
 the desires of thiir conui-.t natiirc, th'^'V cannot please God. But this aflirms nothing 
 respecting thiir ahiHty tn turn iVom this course, and to pursue a different mode of life. 
 That IS a diflorent cpn stion. A child may be obstinate, proud and disobedient; and 
 lohile in this state, it lar.y he affirmed of him, that he cannot please his parent. But 
 whether he mi^ilit nnt cease to be ol)stinate, and become obedient is a very different 
 inquiry, and the two subjects should never be confounded.*** He [the sinner] is 
 engaged in hosiihly airainst God ; and if he does not himself forsake it, it will be end- 
 less, and involve ins soul in all the evils of a personal, and direct, and eternal warfare 
 with the Lord Ahiii jlity.*** The Holy Spirit is often represented as dwelling in the 
 hearts of Christians ; an! the meani'ig is not that there is a personal or physical indwel- 
 ling of the Holy Ghost, lint that h:' intluences, directs, and guides Christians, producing 
 meekness, love, juy, jicncc, l;iiii;-suif;'i-ing, gentleness, goodness, &c. The expression 
 to dwell in one, (Icimfcs inti.iuicy of connexion, and means that those things which are 
 the fruits of t!ie Spliir, ;ire pro;lurcd in the heart." 
 
 Proof 2, p. lOS. " We inere yet irithout strength. The word here used (aaOcvuiv) 
 is usually ajiplied to those vvlio are sick and fei'ble, deprived of strength by disease. 
 Matt. XXX. 38 ; Luke x. 9 ; Acts iv. 9, v. 15, But it is also used in a 7noral sense to 
 denote inability or feebleness, with regard to any undertaking or duty. Here it means 
 that they were without strength in regard to the case ivhich the Jiposlle was considering ; 
 that is, we had no power to dnvisc a scheme of justification, to make an atonement, or 
 to put away the wrath of God, &c. While all hope of man's being saved by any plan 
 of his own, was then taken away ; while he was thus lying exposed to divine justice, 
 and dependant on the mere mercy of God ; God provided a plan which met the case, 
 and secured his salvation. The remark of the apostle here has reference only to the 
 condition of the case before the atonement was made. It does not pertain to the ques- 
 tion, whether man has strength to repent and believe, now that the atonement is made, 
 which is a very different inquiry." 
 
 The contrariety of this to the Standards, will appear by reference to 
 Con. chap. vi. 4. — " From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, 
 disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inchned to all evil, do proceed all 
 actual transgressions." 
 
 Chap. xi. 3. — " Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of 
 will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation : so as a natural man being 
 altogether averse from that M'hich is good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own 
 strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereimto." 
 
 4. " When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he 
 freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone, enables him 
 freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good ; yet so as that, by reason of his 
 remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth 
 also will that which is evil." 
 
 Chap. X. 1. — "All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he 
 is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effoctually to call, by his word and 
 Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and 
 salvation by Jesus Christ ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly, to under- 
 stand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a 
 heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to 
 that which is good; and effiictually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they 
 come most freely, being made willing by his grace, 
 
 " 2. This eflfcetual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from any thing 
 at all foreseen in man ; who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and 
 renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace 
 the grace offered and conveyed in it." 
 
 Con. chap, xvi, — "1. Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his 
 holy word, and not such as without the warrant thereof, are devised by men out of 
 blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention. 
 
 " 2. These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, arc the fruits 
 and evidences of a true and lively faith : and by them believers manifest their thank- 
 
15 
 
 fulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the 
 Gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they 
 are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may 
 have the end, eternal life. 
 
 " 3. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the 
 Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces they 
 have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to 
 work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure ; yet are they not hereupon to 
 grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perlbrm any duty unless upon a special 
 motion of the Spirit ; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that 
 is in them. 
 
 " 4. They, who in their obedience; attain to the greatest height which is possible in 
 this life, are so far from supererogate and to do more than God requires, that they fall 
 short of much, which in duty they are bound to do. 
 
 " 5. We cannot, by our best works, merit pardon of sin, or eternal life, at the hand 
 of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come, 
 and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom by them we can neither 
 profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins ; but when we have done all we can, 
 we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants ; and because as they are 
 good, they proceeded from his Spirit ; and, as they are wrought by us, they are defiled 
 and mixed witli so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the 
 severity of God's judgment. 
 
 " 6. Yet notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, 
 their good works also are accepted in him, not as though they were in this life wholly 
 unblaineable and unreprovable in God's sight ; but that he, looking upon them in his 
 Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with 
 many weaknesses and imperfections. 
 
 " Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be 
 things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others ;" yet 
 because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith ; nor are done in a right manner, 
 according to the word ; nor to a right end, tlie glory of God ; they are therefore sinful, 
 and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace I'rom God. And yet 
 their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God." 
 Charge IV. 
 
 " That faith is an act of the mind, and not a principle, and is itself imputed for 
 righteousness." 
 
 Proof 1. p. 94, 'Mraham believed Got/.' In the Hebrew, Abraham believed Je- 
 hovah." The sense is substantially the same, as the argument turns on the act of 
 believing. The faith which Abraham exercised was, that his posterity should be like 
 the stars of heaven in number. This promise was made to him when he had no child, 
 and of course M'hen he had no prospect of sucli a posterity. See the strength and nature 
 of this faith further illustrated in verses 16 — 21. The reason why it vvas counted to 
 him for righteousness was, that it was such a strong, direct and unwavering act of 
 confidence in the promise of God. ^nd it. — The word 'it' here evidently refe?s to the 
 act of believing. It does not refer to the rigliteousness of another — of God, or of the 
 Messiah; but the discussion is solely of the strong act of Abraham's faith, which in 
 some sense was counted to him for righteousness. In what sense this was, is explamed 
 directly after. All that is material to remark here is, that the act of Abraham, the 
 strong confidence of his mind in the promises of God, his unwavering assurance that 
 what God had promised he would perform, was received for righteousness. The same 
 thing is expressed more fully in ver. IS — 22. When, therefore, it is said the righteous- 
 ness of Christ is accounted or imputed to us ; when it is said that his merits are trans- 
 ferred and reckoned as ours ; whatever may be the truth of the doctrine, it cannot be 
 defended by this passage of Scripture. Faith is always an act of the mind. It is not 
 a created essence which is placed within the mind. It is not a substance created inde- 
 pendently of the soul, and placed within it by Almighty power. It is not a principle, 
 for the expression, a principle of faith, is as umneaning as (a principle of joy, or a 
 principle of sorrow, or a principle of remorse. God promises, the man believes, and 
 this is the whole of it. Beyond the mental operation, there is nothing in the case, and 
 the word is strictly limited to such an act of the mind througliout the Bible. There is 
 not a place that can he adduced where the word means any thin^ else than an act of 
 the mind, exercised in relation to some oI)j;'ct, or some promise, or threatening, or 
 declaration of some other being.' p. 95. 'remark (1) 'Ihat it is evidently not intended 
 that the act of believing, on the part of Abraham, was the meritorious ground of accept- 
 
16 
 
 ance ; for then it would have been a work. Faith was as much his own act, as any 
 act of obedience to the law. (2) The design of the Apostle was to show that by the 
 Imo, or by loorks, man could not be justified, Chap. iii. 28, iv. 2. (3) Faith was not 
 that which the law required. It demanded complete and perfect obedience ; and if a 
 man was justified by faith, it was in some other way, than by the law. (4) As the law 
 did not demand this, [faiih ' confidence in God, see page 30 ;] and as faith was some- 
 thing different from the demand of the law, so if a man were justified by that, it was on 
 a principle altogel her different from justification by works. It was not by personal 
 merit. It was not by complying with the law. It was in a mode entirely different." 
 
 How contrary this to the Confession of Faith is evident. 
 
 Con. chap. xiv. — "2. By this faith a Christian believeth to be true, whatsoever is re- 
 vealed in the word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein ; and acteth dif- 
 ferently, upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth ; yielding obedi- 
 ence to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of 
 God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith, are, 
 accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and 
 eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace." 
 
 Lar. Cat. Q.uest. 72. — "Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a 
 sinner by the Spirit and word of God ; whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, 
 and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost 
 condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the Gospel, but receiveth 
 and restcth upon Christ and his righteousness therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and 
 for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for 
 salvation. 
 
 73. "Faitli justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces 
 which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it ; nor as if the 
 grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification ; but only 
 as it is an instrument, by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness." 
 
 Mr. Barnes is also charged with denying the following doctrine;?, which are taught 
 in the standards of the church, viz. 
 
 Charge V. 
 
 " That God entered into covenant with Adam constituting him a federal or covenant 
 head, and representative to all his natural descendants." 
 
 Proof 1. p. 144. "From these remarks it is clear that the apostle does not refer to 
 the man here from any idea that there was any particular covenant transaction with 
 him ; but that he means to speak of it in the usual popular sense ; referring to him as 
 being the fountain of all the woes that sin has introduced into the world." 
 
 Proof 2. p. 128. " The most common explanation has been, that Adam was the 
 representative of the race; that he was a covenant head, and that his sin was imputed 
 to his posterity, and that they were held liable to punishment for it, as if they had com- 
 mitted it themselves. But to this there are great and insuperable objections. 
 
 (1.) There is not one word of it in the Bible. Neither the terms representative, 
 covenant, or impute are ever applied to the transaction in the sacred Scriptures, (2.) 
 It is a mere pliilosophical theory." 
 
 Proof 3. p. 1.15. As quoted under charge II. 
 
 Proof 4. p. 120, 121. " A comparison is also instituted between Adam and Christ>in 
 1 Cor. XV. 22 — 25. The reason is, not that Adam was the representative or federal head 
 of the human race, about which the apostle says nothing, and which is not even implied, 
 but that he Avas the first of the race ; he was the fountain, the head, the father and the 
 consequences of that first act introducing sin into the world could be seen everywhere. 
 The words representative and federal head are ^ncver applied to Adam in the Bible. 
 The reason is, that the word representative implies an idea which could not have existed 
 in the case — the consent of those who are represented. Besides, the Bible does not teach 
 that they acted in him, or by him ; or that he acted for them. No passage has ever 
 yet been found that stated this doctrine." 
 
 Proof 5. p. 128. (2) " Nothing is said of a covenant with him (Adam.) No where in 
 the Scriptures is the term covenant applied to any transaction with Adam. (3) All 
 that is established here is the simple fact that Adam sinned, and that this made it cer- 
 tain that all his posterity would be sinners. Beyond this the language of the apostle 
 does not go ; and all else that has been said of this is the result of mere philosophical 
 speculation. (4) This fact is one that is apparent ; and tnat accords with all the 
 analogy in the moral governmant of God. The drunkard secures commonly as a result 
 that his family will be reduced to beggary, want, and wo. His sin is commonly the 
 certain occasion of their being sinners ; and the immediate cause of their loss of property 
 
n 
 
 and comfort, and of their being overwhelmed inwretchedness and grief. A murderer 
 M'ill entail disgrace and shame on his family." 
 
 How utterly opposed all this is to the Standards, will appear by reference to Con- 
 fession of Faith, 
 
 Con. chap. vii. 1. — " The distance between God and the creature is so great, that 
 although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they 
 could never have any fruition of him, as then- blessedness and reward, but by some 
 voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way 
 of covenant. 
 
 " 2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of Works, wherein life was 
 promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal 
 ol)cdience." 
 
 Con. chap. xix. 1. — " God gave to Mam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he 
 bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; 
 promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it ; and 
 endued him with power and abihty to keep it." 
 
 Lar. Cat. duest. 20. — " The providence of God toward man in the estate in which 
 he was created, was, the placing him in Paradise, appointing him to dress it, giving 
 him liberty to eat of the fruit of the earth, putting the creatures under his dominion, 
 and ordaining marriage for his help ; affording him communion with himself, instituting 
 the Sabbath, entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, 
 perfect, and perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge ; and forbidding 
 to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death. 
 
 " 22. The covenant being made with Mam, as a public person, not for himself only, 
 but for his posterity ; all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned 
 in him and fell with him in that first transgression." 
 
 Shorter Cat. duest. 12. — " When God had created man, he entered into a covenant 
 of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience ; forbidding him to eat of the tree 
 of knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death. 
 
 " 13. Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from th« 
 estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God. 
 
 " 14. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God. 
 
 "15. The sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they wer» 
 created, was their eating the forbidden fruit. 
 
 " 16. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for hia 
 posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordmary generation, sinned in him, 
 and fell with him in his first transgression." 
 
 Charge VI. 
 
 " That the first sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity." 
 
 Proof 1. p. 10. "A melancholy instance of this [substituting theory for fact] wo 
 have in the account which the apostle gives (ch. v.) about the cffettof the sin of Adam. 
 The simple fad is stated that that sin was followed by the sin and ruin of all his pos- 
 terity. Yet he offers no explanation of the /ac^ He leaves it as indubitable ; and as 
 not demanding an explanation in his argument, perhaps as not admitting it. This is 
 the whole of his doctrine on that subject. Yet men have not been satisfied with that. 
 They have sought for a theory to account for it. And many suppose they have found 
 it in the doctrine that the sin of Adam is imputed, or set over by an arbitrary arrange- 
 ment to beings otherwise innocent, and that they are held to be responsible for a deed 
 committed by a man thousands of years before they were born. This is the theory, 
 and men insensibly forget that it is mere theory. 
 
 Proof 2. p. 117. (3) "It comports wiih the Apostle's argument to state a cause 
 why all died and not to state that men sinned in Adam. It would require an additional 
 statement to see how that could be a cause, (4) The expression, 'in whom all have 
 sinned,' conveys no intelligible idea. As men had not an existence then in any sense 
 they could not then sin. What idea is conveyed to men of common understandino-, by 
 the expression 'they sinned in him?' The meaning of the expression, therefore, clearly 
 is, because all have sinned all die. 
 
 " I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that men sin in their own persons, sin 
 themselves — us indeed, how ca'i they sin in any other way ? — and that Iherefoie they die." 
 
 Proof 3. p. 119. "The difference contemplated, Rom. x. 14., is not that Adam waa 
 an actual sinner, and that they had sinned only by imputation. For (1.) The expression 
 to sin by imputation, is unintelligible and conveys no idea. (2.) The apostle inakea 
 no such distinction and conveys no such idea. (3.) His very object is different. It Jg 
 to show that they tvere actual sinners ; that they transgressed law; and the proof of 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 this is that they died. (4.) It is utterly absurd to suppose ^that men from the time of 
 Adam to Moses were sinners only by imputation. 
 
 Proof 4. p. 119. "Death reigned; and this proves that they were sinners. If it 
 should be said that the death of in/ints would prove that they were sinners also, I an- 
 swer. — (a) That this' was an inference which the apostle does not draw, and for which 
 he is not responsible. It is not affirmed by him. (b) If it did refer to infants, what 
 would itprove ? Not that the sin of Adam was imputed, but. that they were personally 
 guilty arid transgressors. For tliis is the only point to which the argument tends. The 
 apostle says not a word about imputation. He does not even refer to infants by name ; 
 nor does he here introduce at all the doctrine of imputation. All this is mere philoso- 
 phy introduced to explain difficulties; but whether true or false; whether the theory 
 explains or embarrasses the subject, it is not needful here to inquire. (3) The very 
 expression here is against the supposition that infants are intended, and that the sin of 
 Adam is imputed to them. The doctrine of imputation has been, tliat infants were 
 personally guilty of Adam's sin ; that they ' sinned in him ;' that there was a personal 
 ^enijfi/ constituted between them and Adam, (see Edwards on Original Sin) : and that 
 therefore his sin was theirs as really and truly as if committed by themselves. Yet 
 here the apostle says that those of whom he was speaking had not sinned ' after the 
 similitude of Adam's transgression.' But if the doctrine of imputation be true, it is 
 certain that they had not only had sinned after tlie similitude of his transgression, but 
 had sinned the very identical sin. It was precisely like him ; it was the very thing itself; 
 and they were answerable for that very sin as their own. This doctrine, therefore, 
 cannot be intende 1 here. 
 
 Proof 5. p. 121. " Nor have we a right to assume that this [ver. 15.] teaches the doc- 
 trine of the imputation of the sin of Adam to his posterity. For (1) the apostle says 
 nothing of it. (2) That doctrine is nothing but an effort to explain the manner of an 
 event which the apostle Paul did not think it proper to attempt to explain. (3) That 
 doctrine is in fact no explanation. It is introducing an additional difficulty. For to say 
 that I am guilty of the sin of another in which I had no agency, is no explanation, but 
 is involving me in additional difficulty etill more perplexing, to ascertain how such a 
 doctrine can possibly be just. 
 
 Proof 6. ^p. 127. " Thc'word is in no instance used to express the idea of imputing 
 thnt to one ivhich belongs to another. It here either means, that this was by a constitution 
 of divine appointment that they in fact became sinners, or simply declares they were so 
 in fact. There is not the slightest intimation that it was by imputation." 
 
 Proof 7. p. 128. As quoted under V. p. 10. 
 
 How incopsistent all this is with the Standards, will be seen in 
 
 Con. chap. vi. 3. — "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 fom them by ordinary generation. 
 
 " 4. From this ori4inal corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and 
 made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual trans- 
 gressions." 
 
 Lar. Cat. Quest. 22. — " The covenant being made with Mam, as a public person, not 
 for himself only, but for his posterity ; all mankind descending from him by ordinary 
 generation, sinned in him and fell with him in that first transgression. 
 
 "25. The sinfulness of that estate whcreinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of 
 Manx's first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the 
 corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite 
 unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually ; 
 which is commonly called original $in, and from which do proceed all actual trans- 
 gressions." 
 
 Shorter Cat. CLuest. 18. — "The sinfulness of that estate, whcreinto man fell, consists 
 in the guilt of Jldani's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption 
 of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin ; together with all actual 
 transgressions which proceed from it." 
 
 Charge VII. 
 
 "That mankind are guilty, i.e. liable to punishment on account of the sin of 
 Adam." 
 
 Proof l.p. 123. "There is no reason to believe that they are condemned io eternal 
 death, or held to be guilty of his sin, without participation of their own, or without per- 
 sonal sin, any more than there is that they are approved by the work of Christ, or held 
 to be personally deserving, without embracing his offer, and receiving hira as a 
 Saviour. 
 
19 
 
 Proof 2. p. 127. " The word is in no instance used to express the idea of imputing 
 that to one which belongs to another. It here either means that this was by a constitution 
 of divine appointment tliat they in fact became sinners, or simply declares that they were ■ 
 so in fact. There is not the sli^littst intimation that it was by imputation. The whole 
 scope of the argument is, moreover, ai^ainst this ; for the object of the apostle is to 
 show not that they were charged with the sin of another, but that they were in fact 
 shiners themselves. If it means that they were condemned for his act, without any 
 concurrence of their own will, then the correspondent part will be true, that all are 
 constituted righteous in the same way ; and thus the doctrine of universal salvation 
 will be inevitable. But as none are constituted righteous who do not voluntarily avail 
 themselves of the provisions of mercj', so it follows that those who are condenmed, are 
 not condemned for the sin of another without their own concurrence, nor unless they 
 personally deserve it. 
 
 " Shmers — Transgressors, those who deserve to be punished. It does not mean those 
 who are condemned for the sin of another: but those who are violaters of the law of 
 God. All who are condemned are sinners. They are not innocent persons condemned 
 for the crime of another. Men may be involved in the coinequences of the sins of 
 otliers without being to blame. The consequences of the crimes of a murderer, a 
 drunkard, a pirate, may pass over from them, and affect thousands, and whelm them 
 in ruin. But this does not prove that they are blame-Worthy. 
 
 Proof 3. p. 128. " Various attempts have been made to explain this. The most 
 common has been that Adam was the representative of the race ; that he was a cove- 
 nant head, and that his sin was imputed to his posterity, and that they were held liable 
 to punishment for it as if they had committed it themselves. But to this there are great 
 and insuperable objections. +*** (3) It explains nothinq;. The difficulty still re-" 
 mains. It is certainly as difficult to see how, in a just administration, the sins of the 
 guilty should be charged on the innocent, as to contemplate simply the universal fact 
 that the conduct of one man may involve his family in the consequences, (4) It adds 
 another difficulty to the subject. It not only explains nothing, removes no perplexity, 
 but it compels us at once to ask the question, liow can this be just? How can it be 
 right to charge the sins of the guilty on those who had no participation in them? How 
 could millions be responsible for the sins of one who acted long before they had an 
 existence, tnd of whose act they had no consciousness, and in which they had no 
 participation ?" 
 
 How can it be right for a person to advance such doctrines, who has professed to 
 believe the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church ? Read 
 the following passages and then answer. 
 
 Con. chap. vi. 3. — " 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 generation. 
 
 " 6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law 
 of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner^ 
 whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made 
 subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal." 
 
 Lar. Cat. CLuest. 25. — " The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth 
 in the guilt of Mam's first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, 
 and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made 
 opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that 
 continually ; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all 
 actual transgressions. 
 
 " 27. The" fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with God, his displeasure 
 and curse ; so as we are by nature children of w;ath, bond slaves to Satan, and justly 
 liable to all punishments in this world and that which is to come." 
 
 Shorter Cat. duest. IS. — "The sinfulness of that estate, whereinto man fell, consists 
 in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original ri Jiteousness, and the corruption 
 of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin ; together with all actual 
 transgressions which proceed from it. 
 
 " 19. All mankind by their fall lost communion with God, are under his wrath and 
 curse, and so made liable to all the miseries of this life, to death itself, and to the painf 
 of hell for ever." 
 
 Charge VIII. 
 
 " That Christ suffered the proper p?nalty of the law, as the vicarious substitute of 
 his people, and thus took away legally their sins and purchased pardon." 
 
 Proof 1. " All the passages quoted under charges 6 and 7 are referred to here. If 
 
20 
 
 the sin of the first Adam is not imputed to his seed, and they are not liable to punish- 
 ment on account of it; then it evidently follows, thattlie sin of his seed is not imputed 
 to the second Adam, and he punished on account of it. 
 
 Proof 2. p. 89, 90. — "In the plan of salvation, therefore, he has shown a regard to 
 the law, by appointing his Son to be a substitute in the place of sinners ; not to endure 
 its precise penalty, for his sufferings were not eternal, nor were they attended with re- 
 morse of conscience, or by despair, which are the proper 7)ma% of the law ; but he 
 endured so much as to accomplish the same ends as if those who shall be saved by 
 him, had been doomed to eternal death. That is, he showed that the law could not 
 be violated without introducing suffering ; and that it could not be broken with impu- 
 nity. He showed that he had so great a regard for it that he M'ould not pardon one sin- 
 ner without an atonement. And "thus he secured the proper honour to his character as 
 a lover of his law, a hater of sin, and a just God. He has shown that if sinners do 
 not avail themselves of the offer of pardon, by Jesus Ch-ist, they must experience in 
 their own souls forever, the pains which this substitute for sinners endured, in behalf 
 of men, on the cross." Thus, no principle of justice has been abandoned ; no claim of 
 his law has been let down ; no disposition has been evinced to do injustice to the uni- 
 verse, by suffering the guilty to escape. He is, in all this great transaction, a just 
 moral governor, as just to his law, to himself, to his Son, to the universe, when he par- 
 dons, as he is when he sends the incorrigible sinner down to hell. A full compensation, 
 an equivalent has been provided by the sufferings of the Saviour, in the sinner's stead, 
 and the sinner may be pardoned." 
 
 How opposite this to the doctrines of the Church. 
 
 Con. chap. viii. 4. — " This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which, 
 that he might discharge, he was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfil it ; endured 
 most grievous torments immediately in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body ; 
 was crucified and died ; was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw 
 no corruption. On the third day he arose from the dead, with the same body in which 
 he suff^jred ; with which he also ascended into heaven and there sitteth at the right-hand 
 of his Father making intercession ; and shall return to judge men and angels, at the 
 end of the world. 
 
 " 5. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he 
 through the eternal Spirit once ofl'ered 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 him." 
 
 Chap, xi, 3. — "Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all 
 those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Fa- 
 ther's justice in their behalf. Yet, in as much as he was given by the Father for them, 
 and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any 
 thing in them, their justification is only of free grace ; that both the exact justice, and 
 rich grace of God, might be glorified in the justification of sinners." 
 
 Lar. Cat. Clupst. 49. — "Christ humbled ifiimself in his death, in that having been 
 betrayed by Judas, forsaken by his disciples, scorned and rejected by the world, con- 
 demned by PUate, and tormented by his persecutors ; having also conflicted with the 
 terrors of death and the powers of darkness, felt and borne the weight of God's wrath, 
 he laid down his life an offering for sin, enduring the painful, shameful, and cursed 
 death of the cross." 
 
 Shorter Cat. CLuest. 25. — "Christ executeth the office of a priest, in his once offering 
 npof liiinself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, and reconcile us to God, and in making 
 continual intercession for us." 
 
 Charge IX. 
 
 " That the righteousness, i. e. the active obedience of Christ to the law, is imputed 
 to his people for their justification ; bo that they are righteous in the eye of the lavr, 
 and therefore justified." 
 
 Proof 1. p. 28. (3) "The phrase righteousness of God, is equivalent to God's plan of 
 justifying men ; his scheme of declaring them just in th e sight of the law ; or of acqnit- 
 ting them from pmiiihrnent, and admitting them to favour. In this sense it stands oppos- 
 ed to m(7»i'» plan of justification, i.e. by his own works. God's plan is by taith. 
 The woid to justify, Sckixiow, means properly to be just, to be iniioce^ii, to be righteous. 
 It then means to declare, or treat as righteous, as when a man is charged with an of- 
 fence and is acquitted. If the crime alleged is not proved against him, he is declared 
 by the law to be innocent. It then means to treat as if innocent to regard as innocent ; 
 that is, to pardon, to forgive, and consequently to treat as if the ofl^ence had not occur- 
 red. It does not mean that the man did not commit the offence, or that the law might 
 
21 
 
 not have held him anstoerable for it ; but that the offence is forgiven ; and it is consis- 
 tent to receive the offender into favour, and treat him as if he had not committed it." 
 
 " In regard to this plan it may be observed, (1) That it is not to d clare that men 
 are innocent and pure. That would not be true. The truth is just the reverse; and 
 God dors not esteem men to be different from what thoy are. (2) It is not to take part 
 with the sinner, and to mitigate his offences. It a imits them to their full extent, and 
 makes him feel them also. (3) It is not that we become partakers of the essential 
 righteousness of God. That is impossible. (4) It is not that his righteousness be- 
 comes ours. That is not true ; and there is no intelligible sense in which that can be 
 understood. But it is God's plan for pardming sin, and for treating us as if we had 
 not committed it, that is, adopting us as his children, and admitting us to heaven, on 
 the ground of what the Lord Jesus has done in our stead. Tliis is God's plan. Men 
 seek to save themselves by their own vorks. God's plan is to save them by the me- 
 rits of Jesus Christ." 
 
 Proof 2. p. 84, 85. " Even the righteousness of God. The Apostle, having stated 
 that the di sign of the Gospel was to reveal a new plan of becoming just in tiie sight of 
 God, proceeds here more fully to explain it. The explanation which he offers, makes 
 it plain that the phrase so often used by him, ' righteousness of God,' it does not refer 
 to an attribute of God, but to his plan of making men righteous. Here he says, that 
 it is by faith in Jesus Christ ; but surely an attribute of God is not produced by faith 
 in Jesus Christ. It means God's mode of regarding men as righteous through their belief 
 in Jesus Christ. ' God has promised that they who believe in Christ shall be pardon- 
 ed and saved. This is his plan in distinction from the plan of those who seek to be 
 justified by works.' 
 
 "Being justified.— Being treated as if righteous, that is, being regarded and treated 
 as if they had kept the law. The apostlehas shown that they could notbe so regarded 
 and treated by any merit of their own, or by personal obedience to the law. He now 
 affirms that if they were so treated, it must be by mere favour, and as a matter, not of 
 right, but of gift. This is the essence of the Gospel." 
 
 Proof 3. p. 94, 95, as quoted under charge IV (7) and p. 96. "God judges things 
 as they are ; and sinners who are justified, he judges not as if they were pure, or as if 
 thf^y had a claim ; but he regards them as united by faith to the Lord Jesus, and in titis 
 relation he judges that they should be treated as his friends, though they have been, are, and 
 always loill be personally undeserving. But if the doctrine of the Scriptures was, that 
 the entire righteousness of Christ was set over to them, was really and truly theirs, 
 and was travsferred to them in any sense, with what propriety could the apostle say, 
 that God justified the ungodly ? If they have all the righteousness of Christ as their 
 own, as really and truly theirs, as if they had wrought it out themselves, they are not 
 ' ungodly.^ They are eminently pure and holy, and have a claim, not of grace, but of 
 debt, to the very highest rewards of heaven." p. 97. " Unto xohom. God reputeth 
 righteousness. — Whom God treats as righteous, or as entitled to his favour in a way 
 different from his conformity to the law. This is f lund in Psalm xxxii. And the 
 whole scope and design of the Psalm is to show the blessedness of the man who is 
 forgiven, and whose sins are not charged on him, but who is freed from the punishment 
 duo to his sins. Being thus pardoned, he is treated as ari^ihteous man." 
 
 Proof 4. p. 127. By the obedimce of one. — Of Christ. This stands opposed to the 
 disobe Hence of Adam, and evidently includes the entire work of the Redeemer, which has 
 
 a bearing on the salvation of men. Phil. ii. 8. He became obedient unto death." 
 
 P. 21. "0/ God''s righteousness. Not of the personal holiness of God, but of GoiPs 
 plan of Justifying men, or of declaring them righteous by faith in his Son. Here God's 
 plan stands opposed to their efforts to make themselves" righteous by their own works." 
 How irreconcileable this is to our Standards is seen. 
 
 Con. chap, xi. 1. — "Those whom God efflctually calleth, he also freely justifieth ; 
 not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardonins their sins, and by accounting 
 and accepting their persons as righteous : not for any thing wrought in th. m, or done 
 by them, but for Christ's sake alone : not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, 
 or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness ; but by imputing 
 the obedience and satisfaction uf Christ unto them, they receivingand restingon him and 
 his righteousness by faith ; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God. 
 " 2. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone 
 instrument of justification ; yet is not alone in the person justified, but is ever 
 accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faitli ; but worketh by love. 
 
 " 3. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those 
 that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's 
 
22 
 
 justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmudi as he was given by the Father for them, and 
 his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any 
 tiling in thom, their justification is only of free ^race ; that both the exact justice, and 
 rich grace of God, might lie iilniified in the justification of sinners." 
 
 Lar. Caf, Glucst. 70. — " Justification is an act of Goal's free grace unto sinners, in which 
 he pardoneth all their sin, acceptcth and accounteth their persons righteous in liis siglit ; 
 not for any thing wrought in them, or done by thein, but only for the perfect obedience 
 and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone, 
 
 " 71. Although Christ by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full 
 satisfaction to God's justice in the behalf of them that are justified: yet in as much as 
 God acceptcth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of 
 them ; and did provide this surety, his only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, 
 and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, 
 their justification is to them of free grace. 
 
 " 72. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit 
 and word of God ; whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the 
 disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not 
 only assentcth to the truth of the promise of the Gospel, but receiveth -ind resteth upon 
 Christ and his righteousness therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting 
 and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation." 
 
 Shorter Cat. 33. — "Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardoneth 
 all our sins, and acceptcth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of 
 Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. 
 Charge X. 
 
 Mr. Barnes also teaches, in opposition to the Standards, that justification is simply 
 pardon. 
 
 Proof 1. pp. 28, 29, (already quoted, p. 17.) " The phrase nghlemimess of God is 
 equivalent to GoPs plan of justifying men: his sclieme of declaring them Justin the 
 sight of the Into ; or of acquitting them from punishment, and admitting them to favour. 
 
 2. " In regard to this plan, it may be observed (4.) It is not that his righteousness 
 becomes ours. This is not true ; and there is no intelligihle sense in which that can 
 be understood. But it is God's plan for pardoning sin, and for treating us as if we had 
 not committed it, 
 
 3. p. 1 10. " Being noiv justified. Pardoned ; accepted as his friends, 
 
 4. p. 124, " Unto justification. The work of Christ is designed to have reference to 
 many offences, so as to produce pardon of justification in regard to them all." The 
 comment on chap. v. 19. ' For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, 
 so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous,' is thus summed up, pp. 127, 
 123. " The sense of the verse is this: 'As in consequence of the sin of one, the many 
 became sinners, without explaining the mode in which it is done ; so the many became 
 righteous in the mode and on the terms which are explained ?' Righteous, Justified. 
 Free from condemnation, 
 
 5. p. 182. "/< is God that justified. That is, who hns pardoned them, and ad- 
 mitted them to his favour; and pronounced ihvm just in his sight." 
 
 6. p. 217. "The moment a sinner bcliev( s, therefore he is justified; his sins are 
 pardoned ; and he is introduced into the favour of God." 
 
 The inconsistency of this with Standards is evident. See Con., Lar. Cat, Sh. Cat., 
 and Scriptures quot d under charge ix, also Pcom. vi. 16 — 13, 19. 1 Pet. i, 14 — 22. 
 
 The Presbytery decided that these charges were not sustained. 
 They, at the same time, however, declare "that the Christian spirit 
 manifested by the prosecutor during the progress of the trial, ren- 
 ders it inexpedient to inflict any censure on him " From their 
 decision Dr. Junkin appealed to the Synod of Philadelphia. Here 
 an unexpected difficulty arose from the unprecedented, and as we 
 believe, highly contumacious conduct of (he Presbytery, in with- 
 holding their records. But the Synod, after much deliberation, 
 proceeded and issued the case, adopting, by a large majority, the 
 following resolutions : — 
 
 "Resolved, 1. That in view of the proof presented to Synod, and of the whole case, 
 the decision of the (Assembly's) 2d Presbytery of Philadelphia, in the case of ther 
 
charges of the said George Junkin against the said Albert Barnes, be and the same 
 hereby is reversed, as contrary to truth and righteousness, and the Appeal declared to 
 be sustained. 
 
 " 2. That some of the errors alleged in the charges to be held by the said Albert 
 Barnes are fundamental ; and all of them contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian 
 Church, in the United States ; and that they do contravene the system of truth therein 
 taui^ht, and set forth in the word of God. 
 
 ""3. That the said Albert Barnes be, and he hereby is, suspended from the exercise 
 of all the functions proper to the gospel ministry, until he shall retract tlie errors hereby 
 condemned, and give satisfactory evidence of repentance." 
 
 From this decision Mr. Barnes appealed, and complained of the 
 various steps by which the Synod came to it. Such is the history 
 of this case, and thus it came before the Assembly. Although, in 
 the opinion of many, Mr. Barnes liad no right to appeal, not hav- 
 ing submitted to a regular trial before the Synod, and although the 
 technical irregularities, connected with the case, were such that the 
 Chairman of the Judicial Committee declared it might, with pro- 
 priety, be remitted to the Court below, yet all difficulties and irre- 
 gularities were overruled, and the Assembly took it up. Mr. Barnes 
 read his appeal and complaint with the reasons of them, and was 
 heard fully, in explanation and defence of his sentiments. He 
 was understood by many as retracting most of his errors, and^it was 
 remarked that although the explanations and retractions were 
 made in a very cautious and guarded manner, yet if they were 
 committed to writing, the grounds of the prosecution would, in a 
 great measure, be removed. Dr. Junkin was then heard in support 
 of the charges he had preferred — and Mr. Barnes rephed, under 
 strong excitement, and with much bitterness against the prose- 
 cutor. — He now affirmed that he had made no retractions, and 
 intended to make none, and repeated substantially, what he has 
 published in the preface to the last edition of his notes on the 
 Romans. 
 
 After a brief rejoinder from Dr. Junkin, the roll was called, to 
 give the members an opportunity to express their opinions — and to 
 our surprise and pain, tlie disclosure was now made that a majority 
 of the Assembly were in favour of sustaining Mr. Barnes — some 
 declaring that their own sentiments could not have been more 
 exactly expressed ; and others avowing that they difleredffrom him 
 only in having gone much farther than he, in what we consider 
 departures from our standards. When the final question was put, 
 "sustain or not sustain'' the appeal and complaint, it was carried 
 in the affirmative by a vote of 134 to 96.* Against this decision 
 the following protest was entered : — 
 
 " The undersigned, members of the General Assembly, who were of the opinion 
 that the appeal of the Rev. Albert Barnes should be sustained only in part, and that a 
 modified decision should be madf, beg leave to present to the Assembly this brief 
 explaration of their views, and desire that it may be entered on the minutes, as their 
 Protest against the course which has been pursued in this case. 
 
 " 1. They explicitly declare, that in their opinion the refusal of the Presbytery to 
 
 * It will be recollected that in all votes connected with this case, the Synod of Phila- 
 delphia, were out of the house. 
 
24 
 
 bring their records before the Synod, and of Mr. Barnes, to appear and plead in defence 
 when their objections had been overruled, was irregular and censurable ; and that 
 although the Synod acted in a manner that was questionable, and perhaps injudicious, 
 in tryine; the appeal of Dr. Junkin, without the records of the Presbytery, and in the 
 absence of Mr. Barnes, who had declined makiiia; any defence, yet this irregularity 
 was not of such a nature as to annul their proceedings. 
 
 " 2. They were of the opinion that the chars^es brought against Mr. Barnes by Dr. 
 Junkin, were at least partly substantiated, and that on very important topics of the 
 system of doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith and the "Word of God; and 
 that, therefore, the appeal could be sustained only in a modified sense, if at all on this 
 ground,' without an implied approbation of liis doctrinal views. 
 
 " 3. Further, they were of the opinion, that inasmuch as some of the charges were 
 not fully, if at all sustained ; and it may be doubted whether the Synod ought, as the 
 circumstances of the case appeared to be, to have inflicted the censure of suspension ; 
 and Mr. Barnes, during the progress of this trial, exhibited some important alterations 
 of his book, and made such explanations and disavowals of the sentiments ascribed to 
 liim, as were satisfactory in a considerable degree ; the removal of his suspension 
 might be deemed proper and safe ; they were therefore willing, on this account, to 
 concur in this measure ; but did not desire to sustain the appeal in an unqualified 
 sense. 
 
 "The undersigned therefore desire to place themselves aright, in the discharge of 
 their official duty, before this Assembly, and the Church with which they are con- 
 nected, and the whole. Christian (Jhurch, so far as these transactions may be known ; 
 and cannot consent to be understood as giving countenance to irregular proceedings 
 in the judicatories of the Church, or those who are amenable to them ; or as overlook- 
 ing erroneous doctrinal sentiments ; or as desiring to exercise undue severity towards 
 the appellant. And they cannot withhold the expression of their regret, that all their 
 efforts to procure a justly modified decision, were defeated by the positions occupied 
 by different and opposite portions of the Assembly, in regard to this case ; nor will 
 they conceal that they have painful apprehensions that these things will lead to ex- 
 tended and increased dissension, and endanger the disruption of the holy bonds which 
 hold us together as one Church. 
 "Pittsburg, June 7th, 1836. 
 
 "James Hoge, Samuel Miller, N. Ewing, John McElhenny, John H. Van Court, 
 Benjamin Ogden, Thomas A. Ogden, Francis McFarland, John M. C. Bartley, James 
 Wharcy, Saniuel S. Davis, D. McMartin Jr., Samuel L. Graham, Evander McNair, 
 John S. Galloway, Samuel Henderson." 
 
 If tlie proceedings had been arrested here the preceding vote 
 would have determined nothing respecting the doctrinal views 
 which are held in the Presbyterian Church — since some voted in 
 the affirmative purely on constitutional grounds, believing that the 
 Synod, under the existing circumstances, were not warranted in 
 proceeding and issuing the case. But the proceedings did not end 
 here. The following resolution was introduced by Dr. Miller, 
 bringing the doctrinal question fairly, and in a form unembarrassed 
 by questions of Church order, before the Assembly : — 
 
 " Resolved, That while this General Assembly has thought proper to remove the 
 sentence of suspension under which the Rev. Mr. Barnes was placed by the Synod of 
 Philadelphia ; yet the judgment of the Assembly is, that Mr. Barnes, in his Notes on 
 the Epistle to the Romans, has published opinions, materially at variance with the 
 Confession of Faith ot the Presltyterian Church, and with the word of God ;— espe- 
 cially with regard to original sin, the relation of man to Adam, and justification by 
 faith in the atoning sacrifice and righteousness of the Redeemer. The Assembly 
 consider the manner in which Mr. Barnes has controverted the language and doctrine 
 of our public standards, as highly reprehensible, and as adapted to pervert the minds 
 of the rising generation, from the simplicity and purity of the Gospel plan. And 
 although somc^of the most objectionable statements and expressions which appeared 
 in the earlier editions of the work in question, have been either removed, or so far 
 modified or explained, as to render them more in accordance with our public formula- 
 ries • still the Assembly considers the work, even in its present amended form, aa 
 
25 
 
 containing representations which cannot be reconciled with the letter or spirit of our 
 public standards; and would solemnly admonish Mr. Barnes again to review thia 
 «vork ; to modify still further the statements which have gi-ieved his brethren; and to 
 be more carefulin time to come, to study (he purity and peace of the Church." 
 
 This resolution was rejected by a vote, 122 to 109. Here we 
 would simply ask how can those who are so far from being agreed 
 walk together 1 How can conscientious men holding sentimenta 
 so opposite, honestly, and in good faith, adopt the same standards, 
 and contmue in peace under the same ecclesiastical organization 1 
 Against the decision of the Assembly, on this resolutioti, the fol- 
 lowing protest was presented. Others who had voted for the resolu- 
 tion doubtless would have signed the protest had they been present, 
 but having left the Assembly their names were not added : — 
 
 " Whereas the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, did by their vote on 
 the 7th inst. reject a resolution disapprovino; some of the doctrinal statements con- 
 tained in Barnes' Notes on the Romans — which resolution, especially under the pecu- 
 liar circumstances of the case, the undersigned considered of high importance to tha 
 church with which we are connected, to the cause of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, and to the just exhibition of his grace and truth ; we whose names are sub- 
 scribed, feel constrained, in the name of the great Head of the Church, solemnly to 
 protest against said decision, for the following reasons ; viz. 
 
 " 1. Because we believe that the constitutional standads of the church, in their 
 plain and obvious meaning, and in the sense in which they have always been received, 
 are the rule of judgment by which all doctrinal controversies are to be decided. That 
 it IS the duty of the chu.ch to maintain inviolate her doctrine and order, agreeably to 
 those standards; to bear her decided testimony against all deviations from them, and 
 not to countenance them, even by implication. Yet in the above decision, there was, 
 as we believe, a departure from our constitutional rule, a refusal to bear testimony 
 against errors, with an impliod approbation of them, and a constructive denial that 
 Ministers of the Gospel in the Presbyterian Church are under solemn obligations to 
 conform in their doctrinal sentiments to our Confession of Faith and Catechisms, 
 
 "2. Because the errors contemplated in the aforesaid resolution, do not consist 
 merely, nor chiefly, in inaccurate or ambiguous expressions and mistaken illustrations, 
 but in sentiments and opinions, respecting the great and important doctrines of the 
 Gospel, which are utterly inconsistent with the statement of those doctrines, made in 
 the (Jonfession of Faith, and revealed in the Word of God. We sincerely and firmly 
 believe that Mr. Barnes has denied, and that in a sneering manner, that Adam wa« 
 the covenant head of the human race ; that all mankind sinned in him as such, and 
 were thus brought under the penalty of transgression ; that Christ sufTered the pen- 
 alty of the law when he died for sin ; and that the righteousness of Christ is im- 
 puted to believers for justification. These and similar doctrinal views we regard as 
 material variations from our standards, as dangerous in themselves, and as contraven- 
 ing some of the leading principles of our system, such as man's complete dependence, 
 and the perfect harmony of justice and ^race in the salvation of the sinner. 
 
 "3. Because this expression of approbation of his opinions was passed after, as we 
 believe, it had been clearly and sufficiently proved to the Assembly, that Mr. Barnei 
 had denied these important truths, and had expressed opinions respecting original sin, 
 the nature of faith, and the nature of justification, which cannot be reconciled with 
 our standards ; and after, instead of retracting any of his doclrinal opinions, he had 
 declared expressly before the Assembly, and published in the preface to the last edi- 
 tion of his Notes on the Romans, that he had not changed, but held them still, and 
 was determined to preach them until he died. 
 
 " For these reasons, and for the glory of God, that we may preserve a conscience void 
 of oflfence, we request that this our solemn protest may be entered on the minutes of 
 the Assemblv. 
 
 " W. W. Phillips, J, McEIroy, James Hoge, Samuel S.Davis, Francis McFarland, 
 Joseph Pmith, James McCurdy, Jacob F, Price, W. L. Brackinridge, H. M, Koontz, 
 P. J. Sparrow, Robert Johnston, Joseph Harbeson, John H. Culbertson, W. P, Al- 
 rich, J, S, Wilson, T. C, Stuart, J, McClintock, Nathaniel Todd, Alexander R. Curry, 
 George Anderson, James McFarran, John Bemiss, John M. C. Bartley, Samuel Mc- 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 Cluestin, William James, Ananias Piatt, Duncan McMartin, Edwin Downer, H. M» 
 Hopkins, James V. Henry, Russel J. Vlinor, William Marshall, James Lenox, Sam- 
 uel Boyd, William Wallace, (N. Y.) Samuel Vliller, B. O^ien, James Seabrook, Ja- 
 cob (Jiistner, Jos.'ph Campbell, Jam-^s Kennedy, John Stinso i, Samuel Hende sor. > 
 J. Coult.^r, Joel Stoneroid, N. livvinz;, James Alexander, Jos pli D. i-ay, Robert 
 Highlands, John Miller, J. Eaton, Hubert Porter, Joseph MeFarran, C. Vt-landin^- 
 ham, Alexander Write, R. Johnson, James Wilson, James Rowland, Archibald Hanna, 
 John blliot, William Wallace, (Lan.) Robert Smith, J. S. Galloway, S. Scovil, B. C. 
 Swan, G. Bishop, William Dunn, M. <J. Wallace, J. S. Weaver, 'Samuel D(;nnell, 
 B. F. Spillman, W. A. G. Posey, J. S. Berryman, D. S. Todd, Lewis Collins, Wil- 
 liam Williamson, James Wharf y, John JVlcElhenny, Thomas Baird, E. W. Caruth- 
 ers, Archibald McCallum, R. H. Kilpatrick, John S. McCutchan, T. A. Ogden, A. A. 
 Campbell, John Ino;ram, S. B. Lewcrs, J. Le Roy Davies, Thonms L. Dunlap, Euse- 
 nius A. Nesbit, Gilbert T. Snowlen, Horace S. Pratt, John H. Van Court, F.'H. 
 Porter, Thomas R. Borden, T. C. Stuart, John R. Hutchinson, David Morrow, J. H. 
 Gray." 
 
 We come now to noiice the most painful and biimiliating part of 
 the whole proceedings in this case — we inean the paper, purporting 
 to be an answer to the above protest, prepared by Dis, Sivinner 
 and AUan, together with Mr. Brainerd, and entered on the Minutes 
 by order of the Assembly. When the motion Avas made to have it 
 entered on the miimtes, a worthy brother from the South renjarked, 
 that we might as well say white was black — and we believe every 
 candid man, who heaid the declarations which weie made duiing 
 the deliberations of the Assembly on this question, or who will 
 make himself acquainted with the sentiments which Mr. Barnes' 
 has published in his Notes on the Romans, and compare them with 
 the statements contained in this paper, will niake the same remark. 
 Thus we are told in the 1st place : — 
 
 " 1. That by their decision they do not intend to, and do not, in fact, make them- 
 selves responsible for all the phraseology of Mr. Barnes ; some of which is not suffi- 
 ciently enarded, and is liable to be misunderstood ; and which we doubt not Mr. 
 Barnes, with reference to his usefulm ss, and the peace of the Church, will modify so 
 as to pnvunt, as far as may be, the posMbility of misconception." 
 
 Now, it is well known to all who were in the Assembly — that Dr. 
 Skiimer, who presented this paper as Chairman, did identify himself 
 with Mr. Barnes, and declared that no man could have more accu- 
 rately expressed iiis own sentiments — that he fairly represented the 
 new school brethren — that if Mi'. Barnes were condemned they 
 would be condemned. He also asserted, that the notes on the 
 Roiuaus are in accordance with the sentiments of the New Eng- 
 land divines generally ; are approved by them, and among others 
 by Dr. Woods, of Andover. Dr. Peters declared that he not only 
 approved of the doctrines, but of the language employed by Mr. 
 Barnes. "When I heaid,"said he, "of the sentence of his suspen- 
 sion I regarded it as a blow struck at one-half of the Presbyterian 
 Church — I shall not vote to restore him on the ground of toleration; 
 he has aright to be a mii]ister in our connection ; if any one is to 
 be tolerated it is the prosecutor. Yes, Sir, the time has come when 
 the question is, whether such men are to be tolerated in the Pres- 
 byterian Church. No, Sir, I do not even condenm his indiscretions. 
 It is time to have the question settled, whether in this I9th century 
 
27 
 
 we may exercise the liberty of using language adapted to the age." 
 And yet, after such sentiments as these, (and this is but a fair sam- 
 ple of what was said by scoies, except that it is more decorously 
 expressed ;) these men have tlie effrontery to enter upon the Mi- 
 nutes, when they knew it would meet the public eye, tliat "they 
 do not intend to, and do not, in fact, make tliemselves," &c. 
 They say 2dly : — 
 
 "2. AIuc'i less do the Assembly adopt as doctrines, consistent with our standards, 
 and to be toleralid in our Church, the errors alleged by the prosecutor, as contained 
 in the Book on the Romans. It was a question of fact, whether the errors alhged are 
 co'itained in the book ; and by the laws of expositio'i, m conscientious exercise of their 
 own rights and duties, the Assembly have come to tlie conclusion tiiat the book does 
 not teach the errors charged." 
 
 It appears to us that here is certaiuly neic light, and that all the 
 honor and immunities pertaining to a first discovery, belong to the 
 writers of this document, together with those who gave it tlieir 
 sanction. For it is notorious, that the Notes on the Romans have 
 been generally, and ahnost universally iniderstood to teach New- 
 Haven Theology. The opinions therein expressed have been 
 spoken of, and advocated as the peculiar opinions of that school. 
 From the day of their publication, it has been admitted, on all 
 hands, that they were materially at variance with the standards of 
 our Church. This is the view taken of them by the Biblical Re- 
 pertory, which is believed to express the sentiments of the Profes- 
 sors at Princeton. The Christian Intelligencer, a highly respect- 
 able religious paper, conducted by members of the Dutch Relorm- 
 ed Church, speaking of the Commentary of Professor Stewart, and 
 the Notes of Mr. Barnes on the Romans, says : "Both are equally 
 devoted to the New School Theology, in its extreme of the New- 
 Haven School." The Watchman, published at Hartford, Connec- 
 ticut, and edited by the Rev. Mr. Harvey, which is the organ of 
 the East Windsor School, after speaking of Dr. Miller's remarks, 
 (in reply to Dr. bkinner's assertion, that to condemn Mr. Barnes' 
 book would be to stigmatize New England divinity,) viz ; " That 
 if we pass this resolution we shall certainly rejoice the hearts of 
 hundreds of our New England brethren," uses the following lan- 
 guage — " The remark of Dr. Miller is doubtless correct. We 
 deny that the sentiments, contained in the book of Mr. Barnes, is 
 New England divinity. Dr. Miller's resolution expressed precisely 
 the views of many in New England. Mr. Barnes has stigmatized 
 his own book, by introducing into it sentiments subversive of the 
 Gospel, and it is a stigma, from which no apology of Dr. Skinner, 
 nor vote of the General Assembly, will wash it clean." The fol- 
 lowing is the language of the Christian Examiner, (a leading 
 Unitarian paper,) for March 1836 : — 
 
 " Ot the atone nent, our autlior's (Mr. Barnes') views are far in advance of tliosc of 
 the chu -ch to which he belo ig?. Though he maintai'is that Christ was in some sera? 
 ' a suhititute in the place of si m°rs,' he deni':s a strictly and fully vie irious atonemmt, 
 and mikes the Saviour's death important chi >fly as an illustration of the inherent and 
 esaantial connexion between sin and sufL-rin^." 
 
28 
 Again, page 70 — 
 
 " On the subject of man's nature, capacities, and duty, our author is sound and lucid, 
 fhe idea of hereditary depravity he spurns as unworthy even a passinj^ notice. He 
 asserts, rereatedly, that men sin only 'in their o%on persons, — sin themselves, — as, 
 indeed, how can they sin in any other way ?' The imputation of Adam's transgres- 
 sion he treats as a scholastic absurdity. Of the figment of Adam's federal headship, 
 and the condemnation of his posterity for partnership in his sin, Mr. Barnes says, 
 ' There is not one word of it in the Bible.' ' It is a mere philosophical theory ; an 
 introduction of a speculation into theology, with an attempt to explain what the Bible 
 has left unexplained.' * * * 
 
 " In conclusion we would say, that, while our orthodox brethren publish and 
 circulate, and receive with favour such books as these 'Notes,' we most cordially 
 extend to them the right hand of fellowship, even though they refuse to return it. We 
 regard them as fellow labourers with us for the overthrow of time-hallowed absurdities, 
 for the cleansing of the Christian creed from 'whatever defileth and maketh a lie.' 
 Calvinism is now a house divided against itself. It embraces, within its walls, two, 
 not only distinct, but opposite sects ; the one that of the friends, the other that of the 
 enemies of free inquiry, — the one that of the votaries of reason, the other thait of the 
 blindfold recipients of a traditional faith. The house is tottering — is on the point of 
 falling ; and, when it falls, we confidently expect to receive into the citadel of liberal 
 Christianity, and shall greet with a most hearty welcome, those, beneath whose well- 
 aimed blows the wallsof the old mansion are shaking, and its foundations crumbling." 
 
 And even individuals of the majority, in the last Assembly, did 
 not pretend that his views were in strict accordance with the Con- 
 fession of Faith. In giving their opinions, they admitted, that in 
 some respects, and on some points, he was diametrically opposed to 
 those who receive the standards, in their plain and obvious meaning, 
 — but they justified his departures — some on the ground that he 
 had received the Confession of Faith, only for substance, as a sys- 
 tem — (the ground by the way taken by Mr. Barnes himself) — and 
 others, "because" as they said "they much preferred his method of 
 representing these truths, and of explaining the language of our 
 confession." Such was the language of individuals, even in the 
 niajority of the last Assembly ; but, notwithstanding this, and not- 
 withstanding the opinions of respectable men, in almost every de- 
 nomination in the land to the contrary, that very majority " by the 
 laws of exposition" (new light laws it is presumed,) " come to 
 the conclusion, that the book does not teach the errors charged." 
 
 They say 3dly :— 
 
 " When the Assembly, by sustaining the appeal of Mr. Barnes, by a majority of 38; 
 and by a majority of 67, removed the sentence of his suspension, and restored him in 
 good standing to the ministry, it is not competent for the same judicature, by the con- 
 demnation of the book, to inflict on Mr. Barnes indirectly, but really, a sentence of 
 condemnation, as direct in its effects, and as prostrating to his character and useful- 
 ness, as if it had been done directly, by refusing to sustain his appeal, and by confirm- 
 ing the sentence of the Synod of Philadelphia : — And what this Assembly has de- 
 clared^ that it cannot in equity do directly, it cannot, in equity or consistency, attempt 
 to do mdirectly," 
 
 The term competent here must refer to the powers of the Assem- 
 bly, under the constitution. Now we affirm, there is nothing in the 
 constitution that forbids such a procedure. If there is, let it be pro- 
 duced ; until this is done we shall hold that the Assembly were 
 competent to pass the resolution offered by Dr. Miller. And we 
 affirm farther, that the general practice, under the constitution, has 
 been in favour of the course contemplated by the resolution in 
 
29 
 
 question. Every one knows that nothing is more common, espe- 
 cially in difficult and corapHcated cases, than for the Court appealed 
 to, after the question "sustain or not sustaaj" has been taken to 
 appoint a Committee to bring in a minute expressive ot ilieir views 
 on the whole case — a minute that will deal out e\ en-handed justice 
 to all the parties concerned. If the appellant has been sustained, 
 stating the precise ground on which he has been sustained, and at 
 the same time, specifying what may have been worthy of approba- 
 tion in the proceedings of the inferior judicatory ; if he has not been 
 sustained, giving the reasons of this fact, and also noticing what- 
 ever may be favourable in his cause. And the wisdom ol this is 
 apparent. Church courts often arrive at just results, through un- 
 just means ; arrive at a righteous verdict by trampling on constitu- 
 tional law Suppose an appeal taken in such cases. Are the 
 members of the higher judicatory shut up to the necessity, of either 
 letting the party arraigned escape his deserts, or of sanctioning by 
 their vote the violation of Church order? By no means. The 
 spirit of our hook at least, provides, and general practice is in 
 accordance with the provisiojj — that the appellant, in the case sup- 
 posed, if the Cotul see fit, shall have the benefit of the unconsti- 
 tutional proceedmgs of the inferior judicatory ; but, at the same 
 time, the offence charged upon him shall be condemned. Now 
 this is precisely what Dr. Miller had in view in offering his resolution. 
 The Assembly had sustained Mr. Barnes, and Dr. Miller wished 
 them now to condemn his doctrines. Neither in view of the con- 
 stitution then, nor of general practice under it, can the position we 
 are examining be maintained. It is utterly fallacious ; and its 
 fallacy lies in assuming, that because the appellant had been sus- 
 tained, he must necessarily have been sustained on all the grounds 
 of his appeal. 
 
 The assumption we have just been exposing, runs through both 
 the 4th and 5th paragraphs of the paper before us, and imparts to 
 them all their force, and we need not therefore dwell upon them. 
 
 But it is said 6thly : — 
 
 " So far is the Assembly, from countenancing the errors alleged in the cbargca of 
 Dr. Junkin, that they do cordially and ex animo adopt the Confession of our Church, 
 on the points of doctrine in question, according to the obvious, and most prevalent in- 
 terpretation ; and do regard it as a whole, as the best epitome of the doctrines of the 
 Bible ever formed. And this Assembly disavows any desire, and would deprecate 
 any attempt, to change the phraseology of our standards, and would disapprove of any 
 language of light estimation applied to them ; believing that no denomination can 
 prosper whose members permit themselves to speak slightly of its formularies of doc- 
 trine ; and are ready to unite with their brethren, in contending earnestly for the faith 
 of our standards." 
 
 This is a most amazing declaration ! Is it so, indeed, that (he 
 errors charged by Dr. Junkin, are not to be tolerated in the Presby- 
 terian Church, even by those who have received and adopted our 
 standards " only as a system," and " for substance of doctrine 1" 
 Is it so, " that they do cordially, and ex animo, adopt the confession 
 of our Church on the points of doctnne in question, according to 
 
30 
 
 the obvious and most prevalent interpretation 1" What then is the 
 cause of diti'erence between ns 1 About what have we been so 
 long contending'? Why talk of conif) omise — of toleration — of 
 latitude of construction 1 Wbat necessity is there for having the 
 old adopling act of 1729 revived ? Wliy do those who differ from 
 us call themselves the J^ew school party 1 Would that their preach- 
 ing, and that their speeches, in defending Mr. Bajiies, coiresponded 
 with this declaration ! We must be excused, however, if, under 
 the circiunstances of the case, with our personal knowledge on 
 this subject, we ask for something more than mere assertion, as 
 proof of its truth. We must be excused if we express our fears 
 that it is only a miserable attempt to deceive the Church and the 
 world, as to the real sentiments of those, who, though in our 
 Church, have no sympathies with us as Presbyterians. 
 But we are told 7thly : — 
 
 " The correctness of the preceding positions, is confirmed, in the opinion of the 
 Assenil)ly, by a careful analysis of the renl meaning of Mr. Barnes under each charge, 
 as ascertained by the language of his book ; and the revisions, disclaimers, explana- 
 tions, and declarations which he has made." 
 
 To follow the writers of the paper before us, in tliat "careful 
 analysis of the real meaning of Mr. Barnes, under each charge" 
 by which they have come to the conclusion stated, i* altogether 
 unnecessary. It would be to do little else than repeat what Dr. 
 Junkin has already said with great ability. Presuming, however, 
 that this address may fall into the hands of some who have not 
 had access to his argument, we shall give the assertions of the 
 writers of this paper, with respect to two or three of the charges, 
 and also the language of Mr. Barnes, and ask every candid, honest 
 man to compare them. They say: — 
 
 " In respect to the first c'large, that Mr. Barnes teaches, that all sin is voluntary, the 
 context, and his own decla -iitions, show that he ref. rs to all actual sin merely, in which 
 he afnrms the sinner ads under no compulsion." 
 
 Now ask Mr. Barnes himself what he teaches. He says, p. 249 
 of his Notes on the Romans, 
 
 " In all this, and in all other siv, man is voluntary." 
 
 Again, he says, p. 123 : — 
 
 " There is no reason to believe that they [men] are condemned to eternal death, or 
 held to be guilty of !iis sin [meaning Adam's sin] without participation, ot their own, 
 or without personal sin, any more tlian that they are approved by the work of Christ, 
 or held to be personally deserving, without embracing his offer, and receiving him as 
 a Saviour." 
 
 Elsewhere he says, 
 
 " Men sin in their own person, sin in themselves, as indeed, how can they sin any other 
 way." 
 
 They say : — 
 
 "In respect to the fifth charge, Mr. Barnes no where denies, much less 'sneers' at 
 the idea tiiat Adam was the Covenant and Federal Head of his posterity : — On the 
 contrary, though he employs not these tern.s, he docs, in other language, teach the 
 same truths wliich are taught by this piiiasco'o y." 
 
 But what is Mr. Barnes' langunge 1 He says, p. 128, "various 
 'empts have been made to explain this — the most common has 
 
31 
 
 been, that Adam was tlie representative of the race, that he was a 
 covenant head, an I that his sin was imputed to his posterity, and 
 that tliey were hold hab!e to panishuient for it as if they had com- 
 mitted it themselves. B.U to this there are great and insuperable 
 ohjections. Ist, There is not one word of it in the Bible. Neither 
 the terms representative, covemnt, or impute, are e^erapphed to the 
 transaction in the Sacred Scriptures. 2d It is a mere philosoph.cal 
 theory." On page 130, 121 ; "a comparison is also instituted be- 
 tween Adam and Christ, in 1 Cor. xv. 22 — 25. The reason is, 
 not that Adam was the representative or federal head of the human 
 race, about which the apostle says nothing, and which is not even 
 implied, but that he was the first of the race. The words repre- 
 sentative and federal head are never applied to Adam in the Bible. 
 The reason is, that the word representative implies an idea, which 
 could not have existed in the case, the consent of those who are repre- 
 sen?t(/." 
 
 On p. 117, in allusion to the language used in our Catechism, 
 viz : " That the covenant being made with Adam, not only for 
 himself, but also for his posterity, all mankind descending from 
 him by ordinary generation sinned in him and fell with him in his 
 first transgression ;" he asks, in a sneering maimer, "what idea is 
 conveyed to men of common understanding, by the expression, they 
 sinned in him?''' But enough of this, let any honest unsophisticated 
 m;n;l ponder such language and then form its opinion of the man 
 or men, who could say, "Mr. Barnes no where denies, much less 
 'sneers at' the idea that Adam was the covenant and federal head 
 of his posterity." We repeat what we have already said, this paper 
 presents the most painful and most humiliating part of the whole 
 proceedings in this case, and most sincerely do we mourn, that 
 Christian ministers should ever have written it. 
 
 It will be perceived, that hitherto we have said little of the 
 parties concerned in tiiis case, and we intend to say little. We 
 have, however, our opinions, and we have no wish to conceal 
 them. As it respects the party arraigned, it does appear to us, that 
 no man can review the course he has pursued, without discovering 
 the aTjsence of that frankness and candour, that should always 
 characterize the minister of the Gospel. We have his own autho- 
 rity for saying, that the sentiments lie holds now, he held before 
 he was licensed ; and yet, though he knows and admits, that some 
 of his sentiments are at variance with our standards, we find him 
 making no objections to answering the solemn questions required 
 of him on entering the ministry ; nor is he to this hour, so far as 
 we know, taking any steps to rid himself of obligations which he 
 ought never to have assumed. The same trait of character is 
 strikingly exhibited, when he first appears before the Presbytery of 
 Philadelphia. It would have been an easy matter for him to have 
 satisfied the minds of the Fathers and Brethren of that Presbytery ; 
 and we cannot but believe, that the simplicity which the Gospel 
 
32 
 
 teaches, called upon him to do so. If we mistake not, his course 
 has also presented an instance of self confidence rarely witnessed. 
 The man who, under the circumstances of his case, in view of all 
 that had been done by Presbyteries, Synods, and Assemblies, in 
 relation to his seniiments, can affirm, as he did affirm, in substance, 
 if not in express terms, on the floor of the Assembly, that his 
 views had not changed in regard to a single principle ; that the 
 alterations made in his books were confined entirely to phraseology; 
 and that the sentiments he now holds he will preach until he dies — 
 possesses, assuredly, no ordinary measure of self-reliance and self- 
 complacency. 
 
 These things we are induced to say, because no ordinary efforts 
 have been made to produce the impression, that Mr. Barnes is 
 eminently distinguished by the various virtues that adorn the 
 ministerial character, and thus a sympathy has been excited in his 
 favour as a most persecuted individual, which has, as we think, 
 turned aside the public mind from the real point at issue. 
 
 As it respects the prosecutor, great pains have been taken to hold 
 him up to public odium and reproach ; but we know him person- 
 ally, and believe him to be an humble, modest, faithful, and de- 
 voted servant of Christ, in whom there is no guile ; and we feel 
 bound to say, respecting the part he has taken in this controversy, 
 that, in our opinion, he has done the Church an essential service, 
 and we are persuaded that the time will come, when she will feel 
 her obligations to him, as to one of her most dutiful sons and ablest 
 defenders. He has brought to light the system of error, which is 
 fast taking the place of the system of truth taught in our stand- 
 ards, given it form, exposed the sophistry of the arguments upon 
 which it rests, and pointed out its ruinous tendency in a masterly 
 manner ; and he has constructed an argument in support of the 
 doctrines taught in our standards, founded on the word of God, 
 which we believe to be unanswerable. And nil this, he has, by the 
 grace of God, been enabled to do. Mr. Barnes himself being 
 judge, in the spirit of the Gospel. 
 
 And with regard to the Synod of Philadelphia, loud as has been 
 the popular clamour against them, we believe, when all the circum- 
 stances, under which they acted, are duly considered, it will be 
 found, that this clamour is without any sufficient ground. And 
 though some of us, had we been members of that body, would 
 probably have been in favour of a different course, and one of us, 
 who was present, as it is well known, strenuously advocated a dif- 
 ferent course, still, we are persuaded, not merely that they were 
 actuated by " a conscientious zeal for the purity of the church," but 
 looking at the emixarrassments of the position in which they were 
 placed, and the provocation that was given them by the doings of 
 the Assembly's Second Presbytery, it is to us matter of surprise 
 that so little of human weakness and human passion is apparent in 
 heir proceedings. 
 
33 
 
 We now proceed to notice very briefly the second great subject 
 that occupied the attention of the last assembly, viz : — The Foreign 
 Missionary question, its discussion by that Body, and their final 
 decision upon it. It has long been the desire of niany that we 
 should engage in the work of sending the Gospel to the Heathen, 
 in our distinctive organized character as a church. They have be- 
 hevedit to be a duty resulting from the command of the Saviour, 
 "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature." 
 They have believed that the form of our government is peculiarly 
 adapted to the acconiplishment of this work. — That in no other 
 way could we so efTectually enlist the feelings and call forth the 
 resources of our people in support of Foreign Missions. — That in no 
 other way could we so greatly promote the best interests of our 
 churches at home ; the experience of other churches having clearly 
 evinced that there is a re-action in this matter — that just about in 
 proportion as they have engaged in sending the Gospel to others, 
 they have themselves grown and flourished ; and they have be- 
 lieved that consistency with our profession and fidelity to the truth, 
 require us to embark in this work. — That if Presbyterianism is 
 worth preserving among ourselves, it is Avoith imparting to others ; 
 and that, therefore, such steps should be taken and arrangements 
 made, as would give us the opportunity of examining our missiona- 
 ries, and of ascertaining their sentiments respecting the doctrines 
 and government of our church, before they are sent abroad. 
 Impressed with the belief of these truths, and under a solemn con- 
 viction of duty, the Assembly of 1835, passed the following reso- 
 lution: — 
 
 " Resolved, That a committee be appointed to confer with the Synod of Pittsburg, 
 on the subject of a transfer ol" the supervision of the Western Foreign jMissionary Soci- 
 ety, now under the direction of that Synod ; to ascertain the terms on which such 
 transfer can be made ; to devise and di jest a plan of conduiting foreign missions 
 under the direction of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church ; and report 
 the whole to the next General Assembly." 
 
 And at a subsequent period of their sessions, passed a second re- 
 solution in the terms following: — 
 
 " Resolved, That the committee appointed to confer with the Synod of Pittsburg, on 
 the subject of a transfer of the supervision of the Western Forei4n Missionary Society 
 to the General Assembly, be authorized, if they shall approve of the said transfer, to 
 ratify and confirm the same with the said Synod, and report the same to the next 
 General Assembly." 
 
 This connmittee attended to the duty assigned them and made 
 the report which follov/s to the last General Assembly : — 
 
 " The committee appointed by the last Assembly on the transfer of the Western 
 Foreign Missionary Society to the General Assembly, made a report, wliich waa 
 read and accepted, and is as follows, viz : — 
 
 " The committee appointed under the following resolution of the last Gene-al As- 
 sembly, viz. ^Resolved, That the committee appointed to confer with the L^ynod of 
 Pittsburg, on the subject of a transfer of the supervision of the Westi rn Foreign Aiis- 
 eionary Society to the General Assembly, be authorized, if they shall approve of the 
 said transfer, to ratify and confirm the same with the said Synod, and re port the same 
 to the next General Assembly,' beg leave to report, — That they submitted the following 
 
 5 
 
34 
 
 terms of agreement to the Synod of Pittsburg, at its sessions last fall, and that it was 
 duly ratified by that body, as will fully appear by its minutes. 
 
 " Terms of agreement between the committee of the General Assembly and the 
 Synod of Pittsburg, in reference Co the transfer of the Western Foreign Missionary 
 Society. 
 
 " ]. The General Assembly will assume the snperversion and control of the Wes- 
 tern Foreign Missionary Society, from and after the next annual meeting of said 
 Assembly, and will thereafter superintend and conduct, by its own proper authority, 
 the work of foreign missions of the Presbyterian church, by a board especially ap- 
 pointed for that purpose, and directly amenable to said Assembly. — And the Synodof 
 Pittsburg does hereby transfer to that body all its supervision and control over the 
 missions and operations of the Western Foreign Society, from and after the adoption 
 of this minute; and authorizes and directs said Society to perform every act necessary 
 to complete said transfer, when the Assembly shall have appointed its board, it being 
 expressly understood that the said Assembly will never hereafter alienate or transfer to 
 any other judicatory or board whatever, the direct supervision and management of the 
 said missions, or those which may hereafter be established by the Board of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly. 
 
 " 2. The General Assembly shall, at its next meeting, choose forty ministers and 
 forty laymen, and annually thereafter ten ministers and ten laymen, as members of 
 the board of »oreign» missions, whose term of office shall be four years ; and these 
 forty ministers and forty laymen, so appointed, sliall constitute a board, to be styled, 
 'The Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States;' 
 to which, for the time being, shall be cntn-sted, with such directions and instructions 
 as may from time to time be given, the superintendence of the foreign missionary ope- 
 rations of the Presbyterian church ; who sliali make annually to the General Assem- 
 bly a report of their proceedings ; and submit for its approval such plans and measures 
 as may be deemed useful and necessary. Until the transfer shall have been com- 
 pleted, the business shall be conducted by the Western Foreign Missionary Society. 
 
 " ;i The board of directors shall hold a meeting annually, at some convenient 
 time during the sessions of the General Assembly, at which it shall appoint a presi- 
 dent, vice-president, a corresponding secretary, a recording secretary, a treasurer, gen- 
 eral agents, and an executive committee, to serve for the ensuing year. It shall be- 
 long to the board to receive and decide upoii all the doings of the executive committee, 
 to receive and dispose of their annual report, and present a statement of their proceed- 
 ings to the General Assembly. It shall be the duty of the board of directors to meet 
 for the transaction of business as often as may l)c expedient, due notice of every 
 special meeting being given to every member of the board. It is recommended to the 
 board to hold, in diflerent parts of the church, at least one public meeting annually, to 
 promote and diffuse a livelier interest in the foreign missionary cause. 
 
 " 4. To the executive committee, consisting of not more than seven members, be- 
 sides the correspending secretary and treasurer, shall belong the duty of appointing 
 all missionaries and missionary agents, except those otherwise provided for ; of desig- 
 nating their fields of labour, receiving the reports of the corresponding secretary, and 
 giving him needful directions in reference to all matters of business and correspon- 
 dence entrusted to him ; to authorize all appropriations and expenditures of money ; 
 and to take the particular direction and management of the foreign missionary work, 
 subject to the revision of the board of directors. The executive committee shall meet 
 at least once a month, and oftener if necessary; of whom three members, meeting at 
 the time and place of adjournment or special call, shall constitute a quorum. The 
 committee shall have power to fill their own vacancies, if any occur during a recess of 
 the board. 
 
 *' 5. All property, houses, lands, tenements, and permanent funds, belonging to 
 the board of foreign missions to be constituted by this agreement, shall be taken in 
 the name of the Trustees of the General Assembly, and held in trust by them for the 
 use and benefit of the board of foreign missions for the time being. 
 
 *' 6. The seat of the operations of the board shall be designated by the General 
 Assembly." 
 
 The Assembly, instead of at once adopting this report and pro- 
 ceeding- to carry its stipulations into etfect, as we believe they 
 should have done, after much discussion, referred it to a committee 
 who were authorized to review the whole case and present it for 
 
35 
 
 the consideration of the Assembly. The report of this committee 
 is as follows: — 
 
 " The committee to whom was referred the report of the committee appointed by the 
 last Assembly on the subject of a transfer of the supervision of the Western Foreign 
 Missionary Society to the General Assembly, and also th" ovirture from the Synod of 
 Philadelphia, on the subject of foreign missions, report — That the attention of the last 
 Assembly was called to the subject of foreign missions by the following overture, viz. 
 on page 31 of printed minutes : 'That it is the solemn conviction of this General As- 
 sembly, that the Presbyterian Church owes it, as a sacred duty to her glorified Head, 
 to yield a far more exemplary obedience, and that in her distinctive character as a 
 church, to the command which he gave at his ascension into Heaven — ' Go ye into 
 all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.' It is believed to be among 
 the causes of the frowns of the great Head of the Church, which are now resting on 
 our beloved Zion, in the declension of vital piety, and the disorders and divisions that 
 distract us, that we have done so little — comparatively nothing — in our distinctive 
 character as a Church of Christ, to send the Gospel to the Heathen, to the Jews, and 
 the Mahomedans. It is regarded as of vital importance to the welfare of our church, 
 that foreign as well as domestic missions sliould be more zealously prosecuted, and 
 more liberally patronized ; and that as a noucleus of foreign missionary effort and 
 operation, the Western Foreign Missionary Society should receive the countenance, 
 as it appears to us to merit the confidence, of those who cherish an attachment to the 
 doctrines and order of the church to which we belong.' 
 
 " The Assembly feeling the force of the suggestions contained in this overture, and 
 believing it to be their most important and appropriate work, to spread the Gospel 
 throughout the world, adopted the overture in the form of a resolution, together with 
 the following, viz. 
 
 " ' Resolved, That a committee be appointed to confer with the Synod of Pittsburg 
 on the subject of a transfer of the supervision of the Western Foreign Missionary Soci- 
 ety, now under the direction of that Synod ; to ascertain the terms on which such 
 transfer can be made; to devise and digest a plan of conducting foreign missions 
 under the direction of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church ; and report 
 the whole to the next General Assembly.' 
 
 " Thus it appears, that the proposition to confer with the Synod, and to assume the 
 supervision and control of the Western Foreign Missionary Society, originated in the 
 Assembly. 
 
 '• At that time the Western Foreign Missionary Society was in a prosperous condi- 
 tion, enjoying the confidence and receiving the patronage of a considerable number of 
 our churches, having in their employ about twenty missionaries, and their funds were 
 unembarrassed. The committee having conferred with some of the members of that 
 society, and finding that the proposition was favourably regarded by them, indulging 
 the hope that an arrangement might be definitely made with the Synod, at their next 
 stated meeting, by which the Assembly would be prepared to enter on the work at 
 their present sessions, brought the subject again before the Assembly, when it was, 
 after mature deliberation, 
 
 " ' Resolved, That the committee appointed to confer with the Synod of Pittsburg, 
 on the subject of a transfer of the supervision of the Western Foreign Missionary So- 
 ciety to the General Assembly, be authorized, if they shall approve of the said transfer, 
 to ratify and confirm the same with the said Synod, and report the same to the next 
 General Assembly.' — p. 33. 
 
 " The committee thus appointed, and clothed with full powers to ratify and confirm 
 a transfer, submitted the terms on which they were willing to accept it, to the Synod of 
 Pittsburgh, at their sessions last Fall. 
 
 " The members of the committee not being present at the meeting of the Synod, and 
 there being no time for further correspondence, the Synod, (although they would have 
 preferred some alterations of the terms,) were precluded from proposing any, on the 
 ground that such alteration would vitiate the whole proceedings, and therefore acceded 
 to the terms of the transfer which were proposed by the committee of the Assembly, and 
 solemnly ratified the contract on their part. Feeling themselves bound by the same, 
 and trusting to the good faith of this body, they have acted accordingly, and have 
 made no provision for their missionaries now in the field, for a longer time than the 
 meeting of this Assembly, having informed them of the transfer which has taken place, 
 and of the new relation they would sustain to this body after their present sessions. 
 
 " It appears then to your committee, tliat the Assembly have catered into a solemn 
 
36 
 
 compact with the Synod of Pittsburg, and that there remains but one righteous course 
 to pursue, which is to adopt the report of the committee appointed last year, and to 
 appoint a Foreign Missionary Board. To pause now, or to annul the doings of the 
 last Assembly in this matter, would be obviously a violation of contract, a breach of 
 trust, and a departure from that good faith which should be sacredly kept between 
 man and man, and especially between Christian societies — conduct which would be 
 utterly unworthy of this venerable body, and highly injurious to the Western Foreign 
 Missionary Society. 
 
 " The committee beg leave further respectfully to remind the Assembly, that a large 
 proportion of our churches (being Presbyterians from conviction and preference,) feel 
 il to be consistent not only, but their solemn duty in the sight of God, to impart to 
 others the same good, and in the same form of it which they enjoy themselves, and to 
 be represented in heatiien lands by missionaries of their own denomination. They 
 greatly prefer such an organization as this contemplated, and which shall be under 
 the care of the Presbyterian church, and cannot be enlisted so well in the great and 
 glorious work of sending the Gospel to the Heathen under any other. Already, with 
 the blessing of the great Head of the church on the efforts of the Western Foreign 
 Missionary Society, in this form of operation, has a missionary spirit been awakened 
 among them to considerable extent, and an interest in the cause of missions been cre- 
 ated never before felt by them. They have furnished men for the work, and are con- 
 tributing cheerfully to their support in thp Ibreign field. 
 
 " As one great end to be accomplished by all who love the Redeemer, is to awaken 
 and cherish a missionary spirit, and to enlist all the churches in the work of evange- 
 lizing the world ; as every leading Christian denomination in the world, has its own 
 foreign missionary board, and has found such distinct organization the most effectual 
 method of interesting the churches under their care, in this great subject ; as such an 
 organization cannot interfere with the rights or operations of any other similar organi- 
 zation, for the field is the world, and is iciile enough for all to cultivate ; as it is neither 
 desired nor intended to dictate to any in this matter, but simply to give an opportunity 
 of sending tlic Gospel to the Heathen, by their own missionaries, to those who prefer 
 this mode of doing so, giving them that liberty which they cheerfully accord to others — 
 your committee cannot suppose for a moment that this General Assembly will in this 
 sia^e of the proceedings refuse to consummate this arrangement with the Synod of 
 Pittsburg, and thus prevent so many churches under their care from supporting their 
 missionaries in their own way. From this view of the case, they recommend to the 
 Assembly the adoption of the following resolutions, viz. — 
 
 " 1. Resohsd, That the report of the Committee appomted by the last Assembly, to 
 confer with the Synod of Pittsburg on the subject of a transfer of the Western Foreign 
 Missionary Society to the General Assembly, be adopted, and that said transfer be 
 accepted on the terms of agreement therein contained. 
 
 '• 2. Resolved, That the Assembly will proceed to appoint a Foreign Missionary 
 Board, the seat of whose operations shall be in the city of New York. 
 
 Dr. Skinner (a member of the above committee) made the fol- 
 lowing coimter report : — 
 
 " Whereas, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, has been 
 coimected with the Presbyterian church from the year of its incorporation, by the very 
 elements of its exist^^nce ; and whereas at the present time the majority of the whole 
 of that board are Presbyterians ; and whereas, as it is undesirable, in conducting the 
 work of Foreign Missions, that there should be any collision at home or abroad ; there- 
 fore, 
 
 " Resolved, That it is inexpedient that the Assembly should organize a separate 
 Foreign Missionary Institution." 
 
 The discussion of this subject in the Assembly took place, mainly 
 on a motion made to postpone the adoption of the committee's 
 report, with a view to take up the report of Dr. Skinner. The 
 grand question, however was, "Shall we carry into effect the 
 solemn contract with the Synod of Pittsburg-, duly ratified and 
 confirmed under the authority of the last Assembly ;" or in other 
 words, shall we, as a church, engage in the work of Foreign Mis- 
 sions 1 
 
37 
 
 This was opposed, on the ground that the Assembly had no 
 right to engage in this work — that it would be inexpedient, even if 
 they had the right, as the management of funds would secularize 
 the church — that it would be sectarian, and strong apprehensions 
 were expressed, that we should next have a Presbyterian Tract 
 Society, a Presbyterian Sunday School Society, &c.; thus clearly 
 showing, as we have already said, that these men have no sympa- 
 thies with us, as Presbyterians, that they are willing to retain; the 
 name so long as it serves their purposes, but that they have no 
 love to the thing. And finally, it was opposed on the ground,'that 
 it would be a violation of a supposed pledge given by a former 
 Assembly to the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign 
 Missions ; though strange as it may seem, it was strenuously con- 
 tended by this same party, that one Assembly cannot bind another, 
 and that, therefore, the Assembly of 1835, in their contract through 
 their committee with the Synod of Pittsburg, had transcended 
 their powers, and of course that contract was null and void. 
 
 On the other hand, the friends of this entei prise maintained 
 that we had a right to engage in it — that this right was clearly 
 implied in the great conjmission of the Master, to "preach the 
 Gospel for every creature," and in other parts of Scripture ; and 
 that the express language of our book was: "The General As- 
 sembly may, of their own knowledge, send missions to any part to 
 plant churches," &c. They maintained that if the management 
 of funds by the church in her ecclesiastical capacity tended to 
 secularize her members, the same cause must produce the same 
 effect upon the members of voluntary associations; and that this 
 argument, therefore, proving too much, was good for nothing. 
 They contended that for us to embark in this work, as a churchy 
 was not secta7'ian but simply denominational, and that many of the 
 denominations around us, in their separate organization, had al- 
 ready embarked in it with the happiest results. They shewed, by 
 documentary evidence, that no pledge had ever been given by us 
 on this subject to the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign 
 Missions; and they satisfactorily demonstrated, as we think, that 
 the acts of one Assembly are at least morally, if not legally, bind- 
 ing on succeeding ones ; and that therefore, the agreement entered 
 into by the last Assembly, through their committee, with the Sy- 
 nod of Pittsburg, we were bound to fulfil. They urged still 
 further, that no hostility was felt towards the American Board of 
 Commissioners — that no interference with their operations was 
 intended — that there was no wish to restrict those who preferred 
 to act for and with that institution — that all that was designed 
 was the liberty of doing, in our own way, what we were perfectly 
 willing to allow others to do in their way. They stated their 
 strong and insuperable objections to voluntary associations — that 
 they were irresponsible bodies — that some of them were in fact 
 close corporations, perpetuating themselves — that by the very 
 
38 
 
 terms of their association they must send out men of every shade 
 of rehgious sentiment, provided they are in good or regular stand- 
 ing in any ecclesiastical body — that having the control of a vast 
 amount of funds, they were enabled to exercise an immense pat- 
 ronage which might be exercised for evil — whereas the Boards of 
 the church were responsible to her, subject to removal by her, had 
 it in their power to make themselves acquainted with the doctrinal 
 views of their missionaries, and their whole proceedings could be, 
 and were reviewed from year to year. And in fine, they pressed 
 the consideration, that without the organization plead for, a 
 large portion, probably more than one half of the Presbyterian 
 church, could not be enlisted in the cause of Foreign Missions. 
 But it was all m vain — they were dryly told by a leader, or raiher 
 the leader, on the other side, " that the question was one to be 
 settled by a majority of votes;" and intimation was distinctly given 
 that thus was yet to be decided the fate of our Boards for Domestic 
 Missions and Education. The question was at length taken, and 
 the prediction uttered a few years ago, "that voluntary associa- 
 tions would soon control our General Assemblies," was found to 
 be already fulfilled — 106 voted in favour of the resolution to trans- 
 fer the Western Foreign Missionary Society to the General As- 
 sembly and 110 against it. The following protest against this 
 decision was presented : — 
 
 "Tlie undersigned do solemnly protest against thedecision of the General Assembly, 
 ■whereby the report of the committee of the last Assembly, respecting the Western 
 Foreign Missionary Society, was rejected for the following reasons ; viz. 
 
 " 1. Because we consider the decision of the Assembly in this case, as an unjusti- 
 fiable refusal to carry into eflect a solemn contract with the Synod of Pittsburg, duly 
 ratified and confirmed under the authority of the last Assembly. 
 
 "2. Because we are impressed with the deepest conviction, that the Presbyterian 
 Church, in her ecclesiastical capacity, is bound, in obedience to the command of her 
 divine Head and Lord, to send the glorious gospel as far as may be in her power, to 
 every creature ; and we consider the decision of the Assembly in this case, as a direct 
 refusal to obey this command, and to pursue one of the great objects for which the 
 Church was founded. 
 
 " 3. Because it is our deliberate persuasion, that a large part of the energy, zeal, and 
 resources of the Presbyterian Church, cannot be called into action in the Missionary 
 cause without the establishment of a Missionary Board by the General Assembly. It 
 is evident that no other ecclesiastical organization, by fragments of the church, can be 
 formed, which will unite, satisfy, and call forth the zealous co-operation of those in 
 every part of the Church who wish for a general Presbyterian Board. 
 
 " 4. Because, while the majority of the Assembly acknowledged that they had a Board 
 which fully met all the wants and wishes of themselves, and of those who sympathized 
 with them ; — they refused to make such a decision as would accord to us a similar and 
 equal privilege ; thereby, as we conceive, refusing that which would have been only 
 just and equal, and rejecting a plan which would have greatly extended the missionary 
 spirit, and exerted a reflex beneficial influence on the Churches thus indulged with a 
 Board agreeable to their views. 
 
 5. Because, to all these considerations, urged with solemnity and affection, the ma- 
 jority of the Assembly were deaf, and have laid us under the necessity of protesting 
 against their course ; of complaining that wc are denied a most reasonable, and to us 
 most precious privilege ; and of lamenting that we are laid under the necessity of 
 resorting to plans of ecclesiastical organization, complicated, inconvenient, and much 
 more adapted, on a variety of accounts, to interfere with ecclesiastical harmony, tnan 
 the proposed Board would have been. 
 
 Pittsburg, June dth, 1836. 
 
Samuel Miller, John Coulter, Robert Porter, A. R. Curry, J. S. Weaver, James 
 Lenox, J. H. Symmcs, Edwin Downer, H. M. Hopkins, Clement Velandinoham, 
 George Bishop, J. H. Gray, J. M'Ehoy, David M'Kinney, P. J. Sparrow, E. W. Ca- 
 ruther?, Robert Johnston, Ct. W. Musgrave, S. G. Winchester, M. G. Wallace, F. H. 
 Porter, R. H. Kilpatrick, Benjamin C. Sv/an, James M'Curdy, Samuel S. Davis, H. 
 M. Koontz, Samuel Boyd, David Morrow, John M. C. Bartley, J. Bemiss, Parly Co- 
 burn, J. S. Berryman, SViliiam Wallace, Jacob F. Price, W. L. Breckinridge, J. Le 
 Roy Davies, Thomas L. Duniap, James V. Henry, Wm. Maishall, Joseph"'Nimmo, 
 J. Stoneroad, S. L. Graham, John W. Cunningham, Orson Douglass, Archibald 
 George, Wm. P. Alrich, Sylvester Scovel, Benjamin F. Spilman, ]N. Ewing, Charles 
 Woodwar!, J. R. Sharon, S. B. Lewers, James M'Farren, R. Highlanc!s,^Wm. W. 
 Phillips, Alexander A. Campbell, Samuel Henderson, H, S. Pratt, Nathaniel Todd, 
 Evander M'Nair, John Miller, William Wallace, (of Lancaster,) James D, Ray, 
 Alexander Write, Jr., Archibald Hanna, John Elliott, Jacob R. Castner, John Stinson, 
 Joseph Campbell, James Kennedy, David S. Tod, Ananias Piatt, Jolinston Eaton, 
 William Williamson, John S. Gallowav, John H. Culbertson, Joseph Harbcson, John 
 H. Van Court, Archibald M'Callum, Thomas A. Ogden, Thomas R. Borden, John R. 
 Hutchison, John M'Clure, Isaac W. Snovvden, James Patterson, Jr., Ellison Conger, 
 James Alexander. 
 
 Now from this view of the discussion and decision by the last As- 
 sembly of these two great questions, it must be evident to every one, 
 not merely that there is in om" church a strong party who are op- 
 posed to her doctrines and institutions, but that this party begin 
 to feel conscious of their strength. This is clear from many conside- 
 rations, but from none more so than from then* boldness. When 
 prudent, cautious, cunning men, throw ofl" the mask — when you 
 see such men, in pleading the cause of a brother charged with 
 error in fundamental doctrines, abandon the old mode of defence 
 " its a mere difference of words" — " a little explanation is all that is 
 necessary to the entire agreement of the parties," and openly 
 declare that "they approve not only of the doctrines" (taught) "but 
 of the language employed" — when you hear them, in discussing a 
 question of church policy, reply to the arguments of men venerable 
 for their years and distinguished by their talents and station, "the 
 question is one to be settled by a majority of votes" — you may rest 
 assured such men feel that the days of their minority are over and 
 that they have reached the years of manhood. In fact, survey the 
 course of this party throughout the last Assembly, from their at- 
 tempt, at its commencement, to place in the chair to preside over 
 hundreds of Pastors, a man who has not held the pastoral office for 
 ten or twelve years, down to the hour of its dissolution ; survey 
 their entire course, and you see little else than the insolence of 
 conscious power, of supposed, numerical strengtlr. 
 
 It must be equally evident to every one, that whatever strengthy 
 whvitevev power these men have, they are determined to exercise at 
 all hazards. Stronger evidence of this could not he given than 
 that which has been furnished by the doings of the last Assembly. 
 He, who ten years ago, would have predicted that at this day there 
 would be found in our church, a party who would defend and sus- 
 tain a man, who denied the doctrines of original sin, of federal 
 representation in Adam, and of justification by faith in the righte- 
 ousness of the Redeemer ; a party that would refuse to us an ec- 
 
40 
 
 clesiastical organization for the work of Foreign Missions, and that 
 would threaten the annihilation of our existing boards — he who 
 ten years ago would have uttered such a prediction, would have 
 been regarded as at least partially insane. And yet, little prepared 
 as the public mind was to expect such a party in the bosom of our 
 church, and such acts of treason against her best interests, the ex- 
 istence of both is now a matter of history. We have then, not 
 merely a powerful party in our church opposed to her doctrines and 
 institutions, but a party who are conscious of their power, and are 
 determined to exercise it all hazards. 
 
 And now the grand question is, what is to be done 1 Shall this 
 party of foreign origin, and who in principle and feeling are opposed 
 to our whole system of doctrines and government — this party, who 
 have come in among us by stealth, and by the divisions and strife 
 which they have produced, have brought our beloved denomination 
 into reproach; shall this party be permitted to continue unmolested 
 in the possession of what they have already gained, and unchecked 
 in their advances toward further conquests'? Shall those who have 
 been reared in the Presbyterian church, or who have connected 
 themselves with her, from a sincere attachment to her doctrines 
 and order, stand quietly and contentedly by, while all that is valu- 
 able in either, is trampled in the dust 1 It cannot be ! Fidelity to 
 God, to his truth, to our children and to our children's children, 
 loudly and imperatively forbids it. What then, we again ask, is 
 to be done? Shall we go on a while longer, as Ave have been going 
 for years past, biting and devouring one another, grieving each 
 others hearts, weakening each others hands, undermining each 
 others influence, and once a twelvemonth exhibiting ourselves as 
 ecclesiastical gladiators, for the entertainment of the worldling, and 
 to the humiliation of the godly 1 The honour of our Master, re- 
 spect for ourselves, and a regard to the interests of righteousness 
 and holiness, all cry out against such a course. Once more, there- 
 fore, the question returns, what is to be done ? Fathers, Brethren, 
 Fellow Christians, whatever else may be dark, this is clear, we 
 cannot continue in the same body. We are not agreed, and it is 
 vain to attempt to walk together. That those who we regard as 
 the authors of our present distractions will retrace their steps, is 
 not to be expected; and that those who have hitherto rallied around 
 the standards of our church will continue to do so, is both to be ex- 
 pected and desired. In some way or other, therefore, these men 
 must be separated from us. 
 
 At what time, or in what manner this is to be effected, it is not 
 for us to say ; nor will we now undertake, even to suggest. We 
 would rather, for the present, solicit those whom we address, to 
 have their attention turned to these points, to make them the sub- 
 jects of their meditation, of their mutual conference, nnd above all, 
 of their earnest supplication at a throne of grace, for divine direc- 
 tion, that the event painful in itself, may not be rendered still more 
 
41 
 
 eo, by the nnseasonableness of its occurrence, or the mode of its 
 accomphshment. 
 
 In conclusion. — To those who agree with us in the general 
 views thrown out in this paper, we would say — be firm. Let not 
 the temporary triumph of error, a triumph achieved through 
 imrighteous means, dishearten you. " Honesty is the best policy,'* 
 and will always be found to be so in the long run — be firm then. 
 We would say to you also — be wary. Suffer not yourselves to be 
 imposed upon by professions of Orthodoxy, which are shown to be 
 false by the acts of those who make them. Let not the cry of 
 "peace," " peace," raised by men who have disturbed the peace of 
 our church, by trampling on her purity, mislead you. We love 
 peace, as much as do these men, but not peace at the expense of 
 truth. And particularly we would say to you — abide at your 
 posts. In a crisis like the present, for the sake of ease, for the sake 
 of quiet, let no man seek a connexion with other ecclesiastical 
 bodies, because by them sound doctrine is loved, and healthful 
 discipline maintained. This were indeed an inglorious business, 
 most unkind to those who have hitherto stood side by side with 
 you in defence of the truth, and a criminal desertion of the church 
 you have loved, and which, perhaps, has cherished you, in the 
 hour of her need. 
 
 That the great Head of the church, under the smiles of whose 
 benignant Providence, we have, as a denomination, been greatly 
 prospered, but who, for our pride, and unfruitfulness, and backsliding, 
 is now visiting us, may overrule all our difficulties and troubles, so 
 as to promote his own glory, and the welfare of immortal souls, is 
 the prayer of yours in the bonds of the Gospel. 
 
 W. W. PHILLIPS, 
 JOSEPH M'ELROY, 
 GEORGE POTTS, 
 JOHN BRECKENRIDGE, 
 FRANCIS M'FARLAND, 
 W. A. M'DOWELL, 
 JOHN M. KREBS, 
 HENRY RANKIN, 
 HUGH AUCHINCLOSS, 
 JAMES LENOX.