the sinner, that his sufferings bore a very distant 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 Redeemer; 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 imparting to the human nature of Christ, and is very different from the view of this subject given by the framers of our standards in the 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 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, for men have power enough in themselves, to hate both God and their fellow men, and it requires less physical power to love God than to hate him;' and on the same page he represents man's inability as solely in the will; and on p. 30, that men are not saved simply because they will not be saved. Here physical ability is represented as competent to the performance of a moral action, which is an improper application of terms, and human inability as resulting merely from the will, and not from total depravity, which is contrary to Confession of Faith, cap. 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, cap. ix. 3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation, so, as a natural man being altogether averse from that which is good, and dead in 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 subject of conformity to the standards 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 night desire. Thus, p. 6, he says, 'It is not denied that this language varies from the statements which are often made on this subject, and from the opinion which has been entertained by many. And, it is admitted, that it does not accord with that used on the same subject in the Confession of Faith, and other standards of doc

trine.' 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, within, or without the circumference of any arrangement of doctrines. He is supposed to be responsible, not at all for its impinging on any theological system; nor is he to be cramped by any frame work of Faith that has been reared around the Bible.' This language would seem to imply, that an individual may enter the bosom of a church by a public reception of its creed, and continue in the communion of that church, although he should subsequently discover that its creed was not founded 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 its creed, or to make a publick declaration that he is not bound by its authority.

In fine, a whole view of this discourse seems to warrant the belief, that the grand and fundamental doctrine of justification, as held by the Protestant Reformers, 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 them, do all rest upon the same ground, and must all stand or fall together, and that it has been found in fact, that those who deny one of these, do generally deny the whole, and to be consistent, must necessarily do so, it is no forced conclusion, but one which seems inevitable, that the sermon does really reject the doctrine of justification as held by the Reformers, and as taught in our Confession of Faith and Catechisms; that it does not teach as the answer to the question on justification in our shorter Catechism asserts, that "Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he 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 sinners;" 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 by his merit alone," of God, "sprinkling on the soul the blood of Jesus, and freely pardon ing all its sins;" since this language may be used, and is actually used by some who explicitly deny, that Christ took the law place of sinners, bore the curse of God's law in their room and stead, and that they are saved only by the imputation to them of his perfect righteousness.

On the whole, the Presbytery express their deep regret, that Mr. Barnes should have preached and published a discourse, so highly objectionable, and so manifestly, in some of its leading points, opposed to the doctrines of the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church; they earnestly recommend to Mr. Barnes, to reconsider 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."

It was then moved by Mr. Engles, "that Dr. Green, Mr. M'Calla, and Mr. Latta, be a committee to wait on Mr. Barnes, to communicate to him the result of the deliberations of this Presbytery in the examination of his sermon, and to converse with him freely and affectionately on the points excepted to in that sermon; in the hope and expectation, that the interview will result in removing or diminishing the difficulties which have arisen in his case; and that they report at the next meeting of Presbytery."

The reader has now before him the reference of the Presbytery, which, it should be noted, consists of two distinct parts. First, the whole proceedings of the Presbytery from first to last, in the case of Mr. Barnes, as recorded in the minutes of the Presbytery,-the book containing these minutes being laid before the Assembly, that a full and correct view might be taken of all that had been done. Secondly, certain specified points, some of which could not be collected from the minutes; but on

all of which the Presbytery was peculiarly anxious to have a clear and unequivocal decision, by the highest Judicatory of the Church.

By the first part of the reference the Presbytery expressed, not only that had passed in the case of Mr. a willingness, but a desire, that all Barnes, should repass under the inspection, and receive the approbation, the censure, or the correction of the supreme court of the Church. The parties in the Presbytery had been, through the whole of this unhappy and embarrassing concern, directly and earnestly opposed to each other; and many pages of the minutes were filled with protests and responses, reasoning on the subjects of difference, and each party seeking to establish the correctness of its opinions, and the solidity of the ground on which it rested its acts and proceedings. At · first, there was a considerable majority of the Presbytery in favour of Mr. Barnes; but subsequently to his reception and installation, the majority was changed, and became decidedly adverse to his cause and its advocates. It was wished that the principles and doings of each of these majorities, while it had the ascendancy in the Presbytery, should undergo the review of the Assembly. Notice, moreover, of no less than three complaints had been given, which although their details were not known at the time the reference was made, yet it was known that they all related to certain proceedings and decisions of the Presbytery, the true character of which could be learned only from the records. The minutes of the Synod also, in which some of the proceedings of the majority that voted for the reception and installation of Mr. Barnes had been censured, accompanied the other documents. Now, let any impartial mind decide whether, in this reference of the Presbytery, there was not manifested a frank and honourable

disposition and desire, that the supreme court should know the whole merits of this case, and thus be prepared to make an equitable and beneficial award.

As to the second part of the reference, containing certain specified points, it was indisputably true, as was stated in the preamble to the inquiries, that it had "become a concern of deep interest to the whole Presbyterian Church, that a correct course of procedure, in relation to the subjects of these specifications, should be clearly ascertained and distinctly delineated." A great part of the ardent controversy in the case of Mr. Barnes, had arisen out of the different opinions entertained, in relation to the proper answer to be given to the inquiries propounded in the first three specifications. And it was surely most desirable, that the ground for such controversies in future should be taken away; not only for the benefit of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, but of every other Presbytery under the care of the Assembly-by a clear decision of that body in relation to the specified inquiries. On the fourth specification, a decision was rendered desirable, because Mr. Barnes had declared in open Synod, that he did not believe in the statement made in one of the answers in our Shorter Catechism -that "the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature." It was also found on inquiry, that a construction given to one of the engagements made at the licensure and ordination of ministers of the gospel in our church, was becoming prevalent; namely, that the Larger and Shorter Catechisms were not to be considered as included in "the Confession of Faith of this Church," which is then professed to be 66 sincerely received and adopted." The necessity for

settling a point so important as this, must, we think, be evident to all who desire that the standards of our Church should be correctly construed and sacredly regarded.

In the fifth specification, in which the Presbytery craved the judgment of the Assembly in regard to the correctness of the objections they had taken to the orthodoxy of the printed sermon of Mr. Barnes, entitled "The Way of Salvation," and respectfully asked to be directed in regard to their future proceedings, there was surely no indication of that arrogance and tyranny, with which they have been liberally charged. There was, on the contrary, a demonstration of the perfect readiness of the Presbytery, to submit their judgment to the constitutional expression of the collected wisdom of the church. We also wish that our readers may attentively examine the manner in which the Presbytery have expressed their objections to certain parts of the sermon of Mr. Barnes. Let them say, whether there is any appearance of harshness or severity, in a single sentence. We avow it as a part of our design, in publishing the objections of the Presbytery in detail, that our brethren may be able to judge fairly and correctly in this matter. We think it due to the Presbytery, that the real character of their measures should be known to the religious publick. They have had a difficult part to sustain. A party though they are, they have a claim to a fair hearing-a claim to give the publick the means of judging whether they were not bound in duty to notice, as they have done, the sermon of Mr. Barnes; and whether, in discharging, what they considered an indispensable obligation, they have not acted with caution, temper, and tenderness. We maintain that all the authentick documents in the case go to show, that in proceedings in which,

at every step, they had to encounter opposition and opprobrium, they united, in a good degree, fidelity to their sacred trust as watchmen on the walls of Zion, with forbearance and moderation, in inflicting what they believed to be merited censure.

A highly respected brother said to us, in an early stage of the proceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes, "Had you taken the stand you are taking, twenty years ago, it would have proved the salvation of the Presbyterian Church; but I am afraid it is too late now." We then said in reference to this remark, that if it was a Roman maxim never to despair of the republick, we thought it ought to be a Christian maxim never to despair of the church of Christ-not even in that section of it denominated Presbyterian. Nor do we yet despair. We have a cheering hope that the conflicting elements which now agitate our denomination, like a tempest in the natural world, will serve to purify our religious atmosphere, sweep away the pestilence of false doctrine, and give us health and vigour in building up on its true foundation, and with increased activity, the church of our adored Redeemer. The whole of the convulsion which is now felt in every part of our Zion, and the entire responsibility for every evil produced, we consider as chargeable and belonging to the innovators on the doctrine and order of the Presbyterian Church. They strive to throw the blame from themselves, on those whom they have reduced to the necessity of either giving them opposition, or of violating their consciences and their ordination vows. In such an alternative, we pray that those with whom we act may never hesitate; nor regret, in any event, that they pursued the path of duty.

Our remarks on the report of the committee, which was sanctioned by the Assembly, will not

be extended far; and our readers will do us the favour to turn to the report, as given in our last number; that they may see the applicability of our observations, without repeating the resolutions which were adopted.

We think a general view of the report by any unprejudiced individual, acquainted with the cir cumstances of the case, will leave no doubt that two leading principles governed the committee. The first was, that Mr. Barnes was, at all events, to be acquitted, and all farther proceedings in his case to be prevented; and the second, that there should be as much soothing of the Presbytery, and of those disposed to advocate its cause, as could consist with a strict adherence to the first principle. We suspect that the committee themselves would admit this to be a pretty correct statement; and we doubt not that there are those who will justify the course taken, and say it was exactly right. Mr. Bacon thinks it was right, but then he maintains, and very truly-that this was not Presbyterianism, but Congregationalism. He says-and again says truly-" Your way isnot by proposing terms of reconciliation, but by giving a direct, distinct and conclusive answer to every question involved in the reference, complaint, or appeal. This I supposed would have been the Presbyterian method of proceeding in the case of Mr. Barnes. But this course was not adopted." No, verily, it was not adopted. If it had been, the Assembly would have been reduced to the dilemma of either flagrantly contravening the standards of the church, both doctrinal and governmental, or of not so fully acquitting Mr. Barnes. This, we doubt not, was seen, and to avoid the dilemma, the report, of which we have given summarily in our last number what we take to be the true character, was, in directTM violation of a constitutional order,