m?m • * i PrincetOJi, N. : ^/^ 3 \ BX 9193 .B3 T7 1836 Trial of the Rev. Albert Barnes 'Is ^ TRIAL OF THE REV. ALBERT BARNES, BEFORE THE SYNOD OF PHILADELPHIA, Iia SesMon at Torli, October 1835. ON A CHARGE OF HERESY, PREFERRSD AGAINST HIM BY THE R^^^EO'^^SSL? ' WITH ALL THE PLEADLNGS AND DEBATE. — l"''-. AS REPORTED FOR THE NEW YORK OBSERVER, BIT ILBTHUR J- ST AKSBXTRir . NEW YORK: VAN NOSTRAND & DWIGHT, 146 NASSAU-ST' 1836. .IIITGBTOII NOTICE. The trial of Mr. Barnes was an important event in the Presbyterian Church. The Prosecution was aimed not at him, personally, but rather at the the- ological views embraced and promulgated by him . and as on the trial of Dr. Beecher, which had re. cently preceded it, principles and not men, were at issue. As the sentiments of Mr. Barnes and Dr. Beecher, are approved and held by a large number of Ministers and Members of the Presbyterian Church, the case naturally excited great interest '■ and its decision is likely to be followed by exten- sive and important consequences. It was there- fore very desirable, not only that all the steps in the proceedings should be carefully noted down, but that the arguments in support of them, and the sentiments of the leading men engaged, whether in effecting, or in opposing them, should be preserved! and that a faithful and important expose of the whole scene should be presented to the Church. It has been the aim of the Reporter to accomplish thisim-. portant, but very difficult task. How he has sue ceeded, must be left for the actors in the scene, and for those who witnessed it, to say. He is, at least, conscious of an upright intent, and of the most scru- pulous impartiality toward all parties concerned. The favorable reception of the Report as it appeared J^ MOTICI. in the Observer, (to the enterprise of whose Propri etors the religious public is not now for the first time indebted), has induced the Publishers to throw- it into its present more convenient and permanent form. The doctrinal views presented in this trial and in that of Dr. Beecher, render the reports of both, items of great value, as supplying materials to the future historian of the American Church. VAN NOSTRAND & DWIGIIT. New York. May ], 1836. TRIAL OF ME. BARNES. The Synod of Philadelphia met at York, Pa. on Wednesday, Oct. 28th, 1835. At the opening of Synod, 245 members were present, viz. 133 ministers and 113 elders. On the vote for Moderator, 230 votes were siven, viz. for Wm. Engles, 155, for Reuben Post, 75. Wednesday and part of Thursday were occupied chiefly in discussing the right to their seats of certain elders, belonging to churches newly formed and at- tached to the (Assembly's) 2d Presbytery of Philadel- phia. This business having been disposed of, the ap- peal taken by the Rev. George Junkin, D. D. from a decision of the Assembly's Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, acquitting the Rev. Albert Barnes?, of Philadelphia, from a charge of heresy preferred against him by Dr. J. came up for discussion. Dr. CuYLER from the Judicial Committee, made a report on the Appeal of Dr. Junkin. declaring the ap- peal to be in order, and recommending that the synod do take it up. Dr. Green moved that it be adopted. Mr. Winchester objected to this course. If this recommendation was adopted, the synod would stand pledged to go into the trial and issue it : but Mr. W. would prefer that the whole subject be referred to the next General Assembly. For this prefer- ence he would state his reasons in brief; that the sy- nod might not suppose he had proposed a step so im- portant without having good reasons for it. The book of discipline declared that " cases of a peculiarly dif- 1 6 TRIAL OF ficult or delicate nature migrht be referred to a high- er court." This was certainly a case of that deecrip- tion : it wae both ditlicult and delicate; difficult, be- cause Mr. Barnes's book, on which the appeal was founded, abounded in contradictions; and that, to such a degree, that it was impossible from the peru- eal of it, to say what was the real belief of the author. Mr. Barnes here interposed. Moderator, am I on trial ? Is it in order now to discuss the merits of that book? The MouERATOR called Mr. Winchester to order. Mr. Winchester. I certainly had not the slightest intention to arraign any one, or to enter prematurely on the merits of the appeal. I was merely stating my reasons for wishing the subject rclerred to the Ae- eembly. I meant no oti'ence, and shall not repeat the remark. But the suliiect is not only a difficult one: it is a delicate one. There is a question of popular prejudice in the way. No one that is acquainted with the past can hesitate to believe that popular preju- dice will set strongly against any decision which this synod may make in the case. We shall be looked upon as having prejudiced it : because the same au- thor has been before us on a former occasion. 1 think we must all feel the pressure of this difficulty. Not that we are unable to act conscientiously. 1 mean to in- sinuate no such idea ; for 1 know and feel the contrary to be true : but I fear that act how we may we can- not act satisfactorily. 1 move you, sir, that this ap- peal be referred to the next meeting of the General Assembly. Dr. Green. I am opposed to the motion for refer- ence, and I will state a few of the reasons which in- duce me to oppose it. I am opposed, in all instances, to having an inferior court rel'cr its own duties to a higher, unless in cases far niore special than I appre- hend this to be. The Assembly, as we all know, will have much to dn : and when cases have been thus referred to that body they have in every instance sent the matter down again to be issued by the judi- catory below : and if I should be a member of the next Assembly I think I should make a motion of that kind, should the case be sent there. That ihe case is both difficult and delicate, is true: but it is eqaally true that it will be just as difficult and just as delicate ■when it comes before the Assembly. And as to the difficulty from popular prejudice, there is just as much oi that felt toward the Assembly as toward this sy- nod. No sir : let us do our duty. The case is brought before us, and let us meet it in a Christian manner. 1 have little doubt that there will be an appeal : but to shiit ort'all our business on the higher judicatory is anti-presbyterial. I am opposed to the motion. Sure I am tliat I have as little wish or disposition to enter MR. BARNES. 7 into this trial as any one. 1 have, I assure you, no in- clination to handle the subject: and I should, on the contrary, shrink I'rom touching it i( I could do so with j)ropriety. I am, I say, opposed to this reference : still, 1 have made it a princii)le throuj^hout my long life, always to go with my brethren whenever there was no conscientious scruples in the way. I hope we shall take up this matter at an early day. The House, I Tear, will soon begin to be thinned. Mr. McKiNNEY, I consider this case as dilHcult, to be sure, but not more so than other cases which come before us. Our churches expect us to take it up, and to examine it. Itisoneofthe duties of this synod to doit: and are we going to shrink Irom our duty? Why ? What excuse can we render for not perform- ing it? Is this a small body? No, Moderator, it is a large one. Is the synod unusually thin in numbers ? No sir: there is an unusuall fully and general attend- ance. A'Ve can as well determine it as another body can. Let us shew to the churches what are the real sentiments of this body on the great leading doctrines of Christianity. The Presbyterian church looks for this at our hands. Our own churches want to know what we think on these leading, on these disputed points. It has been confidently said, before w^e came here, that synod would shrink from the question. I hope we shall not shrink. I hope we shall take up the appeal: and take it up soon, while the House re- mains full. We have here a large body of our elders, who have, at great personal sacrifice^ left their em- ployments, and who wish to be instructed, and to car- ry home what they hear, and be able to tell to the sessions what they heard with their own ears about these matters. They cannot stay here long. I think, therefore we should take it up without delay. Dr. Cathcart said he should rejoice to have the case referred, under certain circumstances. It had been said there were certain prejudices against the synod as being prepossessed, a.vj as having preju- diced the case. Now if the members of svnod would all pledge themselves to each other that when the casecaine before the General Assembly, they would abstain from voting upon it, and let the Assembly de- cide it impartially, then he should rejoice 'o see the whole subject at once referred. [The Moderator reminded Dr. Cathcart that this would not be in order. Weil, said the Dr. we all have our'prejudices : but as it will have to go to the Assembly at last, my wish is that it should go now ; but with this restriction. Butifweareio refer it to the Assembly and then vote upon it there, I do not think it will be a lair pro- ceeding. Surely we can pledge ourselves, without any violation of order, not to vote : we are not forced 8 TRIAL OF to vote. This will be all fair and honorable and jus(. The cause ought to go there : and if we will only let the Assembly decide it for us and in an unbiased manner, I shall rejoice exceedinjriy. I hope, however, it will not be sent up, unless with this restriction. Mr. Hill. If what has now been called a pre- judice is sufficient to prevent the Synod from passing a just judgment in the case, I am apt to beheve there will be the same objection to any decision of it by the Assembly. I believe, Moderator, that we are quite as unprejudiced as the Assembly are like to be. But if opposition to such doctrine as Mr. Barnes is charged ■with is a prejudice, I hope such prejudice will be (bund in all our courts, and continue to be found and to pre- vail there, till all opposition to the truth issuccesslul- ly put down. Mr. MusGRAVE. I have but a few words to say. I am strongly in favor of referrino^ this whole case to the General Assembly, but with the understanding that the other party shall not enter a complaint against this act, so as to leave it in the power of the Assembly to take up the matter either on the reference or on the complaint, according as that body maybe found to have one complexion or the other. If you refer the case to the Assembly, and the other parly shall enter a complaint, and that party shall chance to have a majority there, they may serve us as they did the Sy- nocl that met in Baltimore, and we may be thrown out. If those amon;^ us who are understood as advo- cating Mr. Barnes' book will consent to the reference, then I am strongly in favor of that course: but if they are determined to complain, then a question of policy arises, viz: whether we shall, by reierring the case, do ourselves and the cause of truth, as we under- stand it, sheer justice. There can be no use of along discussion here when we all know that our decision is not to be final in the cause, k will go up : and il there is a complaint, the whole Synod will be thrown out and not allowed to vote. In which case nothing will be effectually settled. This is not a private question. It is not the case merely of a man, or of a congrega- tion — no sir, but the interests of truth, and the pros- perity, the purity, the peace, and I had almost said the uuiVy of the Presbyterian church are deeply in- volved in its decision. I cannot consent to the insinu- ation that we are so prejudiced that we cannot right- eously decide it. I disclaim any such feeling. I am prejudiced, stronsfly prejudiced, but I trust it is in fa- vor of God and ol his truth, and of tlie order of his house. In this prejudice I glory. But as to any feel- ing of personal bitterness toward the author of the book on the Romans, I utterly disclaim and deny it. All others, perhaps can say the same. I trust, at least, that we are not to be mfluenced by an insinua- MR. BARNES. 9 tion to the contrary. I came here with the determi- nation to call black, black; and to call white, while: and by the grace olGoil I will do it. I have no pre- judice for or against Mr. Barnes. But if his friends here will acquiesce in permitting the reference, it will save much time and much feeling, and will, I am persuaded, aid the cause of Christ in thin borough. I am persuaded the Assembly can go into this thing dispassionately ; and 1 hope in God the decision there will be final. "We are all, 1 am sure, sick at heart of this state of contention and endless disputation: Yes, sir, I, for one, am heartily disgust- ed with it. I wish for peace. And I now ask the brethren on the other side, whether they will acquiesce in the reference, if it is made ? if they will allow the case to go up to the Assembly with the distinct and acknowledged understanding that they will make no difficulty so as to exclude the Synod from a vote on the floor of that body? If they will give us this pledge I am ready to meet them: but, if they will not do this, it is a matter of doubt with me whether we ought not thoroughly to discuss and decide the case here, and now. The weight ol this body should be made to be felt, in some way If we are to be exclu- ded in the Assembly, let us act before we go there; so that our action, at some time, may tell on the cause of Christ and the interests of truth. My course will be shaped by that of the brethren on the other side. 1 wait for their decision. Mr. Winchester. It was not said by me that the Synod were prejudiced, but that they were charged Avith being sol 1 expressly guarded against the sup- position that I thought so : what I fear is the impres- sion abroad that we are too prejudiced to decide im- partially. Mr. Steele. I am opposed to the reference, and in favor of adopting the report of the Judicial Commit- tee. I was pained to hear the remark of the brother, (Mr. Musgrave) that a discussion of it by Synod would be injurious to the cause of Christ among the inhabit- ants of this borough. I was amazed to hear such language from that brother. Mr. Musgrave explained. The injury he depreca- ted was not from the discussion itself, but from the great excitement which it would be likely to create out of doors. The Moderator said he hoped the brethren would refrain from all remarks of that character. This oon- stant reference to some great apprehended excite- ment, was, itself, the most effectual cause of excite- ment. It tended directly to produce what it depre- cated. Mr. Steele resumed. I had the high privilege to witness the proceedings in this case in the court be- " 1* 10 TRIAL OF •low : and all who like me were preeent on that occa- sion can testily, as 1 most expressly do, that nothing transpired there which had any tendency whatever to injure the cause of Jesus Christ, if it had happened before any audience whatever. So far was this from being the case, that I heard Bome of the auditors on that occasion say, they could with i)leasure have sat for weeks listenmgto so delightful and interesting a discussion of the great doctrines oithe gospel. And why may not the same state o( things prevail here? I hope, for one, that Instead of injuring, the discussion will greatly i)ro- niote the cause ol piety and truth. There is another reason why the Synod ouglit not to refer this case, but to discuss and decide it. We have been told that to send uj) to a higher court that which rightfully per- tains to this judicatory will be anti-Presbyterial. And why should we do it? I know that many of our churches expect the Synod to do its duty on the pre- mises. I speak advisedly when I say this. Our church- es look for it, and they will not be satisfied if we take any other course. Moderator, we have no right thus to shrink from our duty : unless, indeed, we can by common agreement go into General Assembly un- trammelled. But as to agreeing not to vote there, as has been suggested, it is out of the question. On the whole I am of opinion that the interests of reli- gion, that the peace and the purity of Clirist's church call lor an immediate decision of this case. I hope we shall go into it without delay, and I can pledge myself for the parties more immediately interested, that no- thinij injurious to the cause of piety will take place on their part. Dr. MDowELL. There was a remark which drop- ped from brother Musgrave which I did not fully com- prehend. He talked several times about " brethren on the uthei- side:" what does he mean by the " other side ?" Mr. Musgrave. Those who moved for, and who advocate the adoption of the rei)ort of the Judicial Committee, and who wi., than any thing in those re- ports. Mr. Dickey wished the whole to be read : he wish- ed the Synod to hear these reports. They would, among other things, go far to show to what an ex- tent the Sabbath was violated ; and it was the desire of the New Castle Presbytery, that that subject should be especially attended to. Mr. De Witt moved to postj)one the orders of th«> day. A question being raised whellier that wo.uld b,e it^ order, MR. BARNES. 21 Dr. GnKEN said nothing could be more so; or more common in deliberative bodies. Mr. iVIoRss renewed the motion to poBtpone. Dr. J. Breckenridge opposed the postponement, because the committee appomted to draft the narra- tive wanted these papers in their hands, that they might be able to prepare their report. Mr. Vowel warmly opposed ihe dispensinsr with the refiding of these reports, and the postpanement. What could be of more iniitortance than the condi- tion ol>eligion? What oulHu. to be considered in preference to this by a body of' Christian ministers and representatives of Christian people? The Sy- nod had resolved that on this morning tiiese reports should be called for, and in what could its time be more profitably spent? He hoped they would be read. Tliere were many very anxious to hear them. The question on postponement bcincr put, it was carried by a very large majority. So the first order of the day was postponed, and the Synod resumed the CASE OP REV. ALBERT RARNE3. MonERATOR. The first question to be asked, be- fore proceeding to consider and is.suc the appeal of Dr. Junkin, is required to be this: Did the appellant proceed in an orderly manner, and lodge his com- pliiint with the hierher judicatory in the way required by our constitution? On tbis subject, the judicial committee of ihe Synod had made a report, stating that the appellant had proceeded in an orderly man- ner. Dr. Ely. Are all the documents connected with this case now in the house? The Moderator having replied to the interrogato- ry that the records of the court below were neces- sary. Dr. Ely said he had been instructed by the Assem- bly's Second Presbytery to lay before Synod a minute by them adopted and entered upon their records, de- clining the jurisdiction of this Synod in the premises. MoBERATOR. Wdl the Synod hear this paper ? Mr. R. BRECKrNRiDGE. Not unless it is from one of the parties. If Mr. Barnes pleads to the jurisdiction ol the court, we are ready to hear him. MonERATOR. Is the sentence of the Presbytery, appealed from here, present ? Dr. Ely now read the minute of Presbytery, as follows : At a meeting of the [Assembly's] Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, at York, Pa. Oct. 29th, 1835, the following minute was adopted, viz: " Whereas the General Assembly of our Church dissolved the Synod of Delaware, at and after the meeting of the Sy- nod of Philadelphia, which occurred yesterday ; whereas the 22 TRIAL OF said Assembly passed no order for the transfer of the books, minutes, and unfinished proceetiings of the Synod of Dela- ware and of tiie Presbyteries then belonging to the same, to any other Synod or judicatory ; and whereas his utterly in- consistent with reason and the excellent standards of our church, that any Presbytery should be amenable to more than one Synod at the same time, therefore Resolved, that the Presbytery will and hereby does decHne to submit its books, records, and proceedings, prior to this dale, to the re- view and control of the Synod of Philadelphia, until the General Assembly shall take some order on this sublet." A true copy from the minutes. Geo. Dlffield, Clerk. Mr. R. Breckinridgk. I move that that paper be laid on the tahie, and that Mr. Barnes be now called upon to say whetJier he is ready for trial. Moderator. Let this paper be inserted on the mi- nutes of Synod, as an answer of the Assembly's 2d Presbytery to the demand of the Synod for the pa- pers in the case. Is the appellant now ready to proceed? Ur. JuNKiN. I am ready, and I will now read the rule in our constitution upon which 1 rely for the tes- timony produced before tlie Presbytery in support of my complaint against Mr. Barnes. It is in the fal- lowing words : Chap. 7, sec. 3, sub. sec. 16. It shall alwa3:s be deemed the duly of the judicatory, whose judgment is appealed from, to send auihcntic copies of all their records, and of the whole testimony relating to the matter of the appeal. And if any judicatory shall neglect its duty in this respect; especially, if thereby an appellant, who has conducted with regularity on his part, is deprived of the privilege of having his appeal sea- sonably issued; such judicatory shall be censured according to the circumstances of the ease. On this clause of our constitution I rest for the do- cuments. Wlien the appeal was taken from the sen- tence of the Presbytery, acquitting Mr. Barnes, I proposed to carry up the cause at once to the Gene- ral Assembly, on account of the diliicully that might attend the question of jurisdiction. The Synod of Delaware had adjourned, as I understood, sine die; at least I could find no time fixed ibr its meeting (un- less I chcse to rely on a memorandum in Mr. Patter- son's pocket-b>'ok); but I consented to let m^ appeal lie to this Synod: and I now depend on the faithful- pess ol the Presbytery lor the production of the records. They mrde no objection, at the time of my appeal, to the jurisdiction of this Synod. Moderator. Is Mr. Barnes ready for trial? Mr. Barnes. I supposed that the Presbytery was a party in this cause. But if Synod say that 1 am one of the parties, and not the Presbytery, I am rea- dy. 1 expected, however, to come m, onjy as a meiri- MR. BARNES. 23 her of my Presbytery, and not as a parly to tlif; cause. On this point the Synod will determine. The rules say that tlie orig^inal parLies are first to be heard, and then the judicatory appealed from. Dr. JuNKiN. I was incorrect in saying that the Sy- nod of Delaware had no record of the date to which it stood adjourned. Mr. Barne.s. I came here fully prepared for the trial; that is, with ail the prepnralion I was able to make. 1 have all the papers here; and so far as I am personally concerneu, I am ready. Dr. McDowEL. I am persuaded some are under a wrong: impression as to who are the parties before Synod. A respected father (Dr. Green) has told us that the parlies in this trial are the appellant, Dr. Junkin, and the 2d Presbytery, from whose act he api)eals. This was the old practice: but it is not so since the adoption of our new book. The book now provides that the original parties, that is, Dr. Junkin and Mr. Barlies, and then the judicatory is to be heard in explanation of its own decision. The Pres- bytery then are not a party at all. MoDERATOu. I have decided that the original par- lies before Synod are Dr. Junkin and Mr. Barnes. Mr. Eustace. The parties before Synod can only be the appellant and the Presbytery ; not the original parties. MoDERATER. Tlic book prescribcs that the origin- al parties are to be heard, and the Presbytery is a parly only to be heard afterwards in vindication of its decision. Chap. 7. sec. 3. sub. sec. 8. In taking up an appeal, after ascertaining that the appellant on his part, has conducted it regularly, xhejirst step shall be to read the sentence appealed from: secondli/, to read the reasons which were assigned by the appellant for his appeal, and which are oa record : thirdly, to read the whole record of the proceedings of the inferior ju- dicatory in the case, including all the testimony, and the reasons of their decision : fuurtlily, to hear the original yax- lies: Jiflkly, to hear any of the members of the inferior judi- catory, in explanation of the grounds of their decision, or of their dissent from it. Mr. R. BRECKiNRroGE. I move you that the Stated Clerk of the Assembly's 2d Presbytery be ordered im- mediately to lay on the table of this Synod so much of the records of that Presbytery as relate to the case ol Dr. Junkin and Mr. Barnes. Dr. Green. The appeal of Dr. Junkin was from the decision of the 2d Presbytery. I admit it to bo right to hear the original parties; but the appeal is from the act of the Presbytery, and iroio that alone. Mr. R. IjRECKiNRiDGE having re^^uced his motion into the form of a written order. Dr. Cathcart. When the jiariies say they are 2t TRIAL OF not rendy lor trial, can a judicatory compel them, nolens volens, to come forward and be tried ? 1 never heard of sucli a doctrine. It is new to me, a new thinj^ under the eun. 1 never saw or heard ol such a. fhui^, and I have sat in Ibrty Synods. Mr. 11. jBreckinridge. This is a court; and the appeiiaiU and ai)pcllce have declared tlieinselves rea- dy lor trial, and here is a party who happens, acci- dentally, to have the evidence on which the cause luius, in his pocket: he enterc! an inttrpleadej-, and says tnat he will not deliver them up. Il'it was in a civil court, we should very quickly know what to do with him. Moderator we should send him to jail. Sir, the records ol" the universe do not show such a case. The judge bel.iw, whose decision is appealed from, puts the records ia his pocket, and takes them iiome witii him; ajid then pleads to the jurisdiciion of the couit above, and when the records are called lor, refuses to give them Up. 1 aver that such a case ne- ver occurred in the universe of God until this ilay. But. if the 2 I Presbytery refuse to produce their re- cords, we cannot, it is true, send the.n to jail ; but there is another tiling we can do : 11 they stand out, and refuse us the records, we can proceed, without the records, on the next best testimony we can ob- tain. If they I'raudulently withhold thu evidet,ce, we can take the best evidence the case will allow. We can order them to produce the books: if they will not do It, 1 think the Olerk of that Presbytery should be arraigned ; but in the meantime we can go ahead. Dr.'ELY. When a party pleads to the jurisdiction ofa court before which it is to be tried, it is usual to permit the jjarty lo be heard. It may be a conscien- tious objection, fcjurely they ought to be heard in explanation of it. If itsliall turn out that in this case there has been what Websrer called " a leak in the law," that leak should be stopped. You have no rijzht to direct oar Clerk to obey yon: he is bound to oBey only the orders of his own Pre.-bytery. You can hang, draw, and quarter us. and drag our car case before the Assembly. But it will be well for you to recollect, that our proceedings previous to the date of the commencement of your power over us are not subject to your revision, and you have no power to bring them before you. Those acts can now be re- vised only by the highest tribunal of the church. The case stands just so: and I hope there will be no exhi- bitions ot wriith about the matter. The Clerk of the 2d Presbytery is their olTicer, and the Synod has no power to " arraign" any one ol its members for not obeying those who have no right to command iiim. MoDERAToa. The Presbytery had no right to enter its plea. Such a plea can be received only from one M&. BARNES. 25 of the original parties in this cause. The paper pre- sented here has not been received as a plea to our jurisdiction: it is entered on our records only as tlie Presbytery's reply to our demand for their records in this case. Dr. J. Breckinridge. Was it not Dr. Ely himselT who in the General Assembly i)roposed the plan oi' referring the whole subject to tiie fcJynod of Philadel- phia by dissolvino- the iSynod of Delaware? If that was intended as a trap, it is plain the Synod have fallen into it. It is at least soniewhai singular that it should have been Ihe same individual who laid the plan, and who now takes advantage of it to thwart our proceedings. Dr. Ely. 1 did draw up the plan the brother refers to, but had it remained as I drew it, no such advan- tage would have been taken. It was not I, but one of the fathers of the Church, (Dr. Miller) who altered the plan as it came from my hands, by inserting the words "at and afier :" the effect of which was, that the Synod of Delaware remained in existence, and in all its rights, until tlie day this Synod convened. These words occasioned an important difference in the lorm and effect ot the Resolution. As for the transfer of the records it was a thing I never thought about. The omission of any provision on that subject was a mere slip of the memory : a lapsus in legisla- tion : and possibly it was permitted by Providence that it might afford that protection to tlie Presbytery which is now contended for. We plead to your juris- diction as having no retrospective control. From the day of your meeting, "at and after" that day we became subject to your control: but till then you have no power in respect to us or our doings. Dr. J. Breckinridge. I hope Providence is not to be charged with our lapsus of legislation, whether intentional or otherwise. Dr. Cathcart. The parties in this cause were under the jurisdiction of another Synod, which con- tinued in being till the 23th of October instant, but which reased to exist the moment we convened. As that Synod no longer remains to receive and issue the appeal, it must come here. Now one of the par- ties declares itself not to be ready for trial : and there seems to me something inquisitorial in our attempt- ing to compel them to stand a trial, ready or not ready. We condemn the inquisition in Spain and Portugal: I hope we shall not introduce it here. I never heard of such a proceeding before. M0DERA.T0R. Botli the parties declare that they are ready for trial. Dr. Cathcart. Do they ? I did not.Jiear that. My hearing as you all must peiceive isS'ery defec- Uve, •26 TRIAL OF Mr. Patterson of Philadelphia. It was the opin- ion ol'the court below, and on looking at the chapter on api-eals, in our Book ol" Discipline, 1 am ol' the same opinion that Mr. 11. Bkeckimudce "ailed to order. The mem- bers of the 2d Presbytery had no ris^ht now to speak. Mr. Douglas. Tlie b(ok declares that they are not to be heard till alter the original partien. Moderator. We have the answer of that Presby- tery in writing. It has been heard, and peel on our minutes. Dr. CuvLER. I move to amend the words of the order moved by brother Breckinridge for the books of the Presbytery by striking out the Words "stated clerk of" : so that the order should be directed to the .Presbytery. Mr. R. Breckinridge assented to this modification. Mr. Dlffield here rose and was addressing the chair. Mr. R. Breckinridge and Mr. M'Calla called to order, and Mr. Dulfit- Id yielded the floor. Mr. Magun'ly. 1 am in favor of the motion. No acts of the Assembly can set aside the provisions of the Constitution ; and the Constitution orders the production ol those records. Mr. H. R. VViLso.N. When the appeal was taken by Dr. Junkin, did the Presbytery consent to the juris- dictioji of this Synod? or did they enter their plea to our jurisdiction at ihai time ? Moderator. It appears 'rom the date that this act was not done until yesterday. Mr. \ViL30N resumed. It is strange if they are to withhold their records while there is an appeal taken from their decisions. It certainly was never designed by the Assembly that the lecords should be withheld in any case whivh came regularly before this body. It is pcrlectiy plain to my mind ihat Synod has a right to pass the order proposed. Nor does it evince much of generosity or magnanimity in these brethren thus to avail iJieniselvcs oi' a slip in legislation. The As- sembly had no thought of such a state of things. Surely when they made the Presbyteries formerly itnder the Synod of Delaware to constitute a compo- nent part of this l)ody, they concluded that those Presbyteries should be subject to our control. Our Book of Discipline requires them in case of an appeal to send up tlieir records : and if they refuse to do it, we may censure them for their disobedience. Synod may order up the records, and if the Presbytery re- fuses them, it becomes liable to the censures of the church, and we tiiay then proceed with the best evi- dence we can get. 1 lor one am ready to meet the case. Sure 1 am the Assembly will never censure us lor passing such an order : tor should they do so, MR. BARNES. 27 ihey would virtually be censuring their own pro- ceedinfi^s. Dr. Green. The period in my Ion;;? life is now passed in which I can say much. I im-rcly wisih at f resent ro read a clause Ibom our Book of Discipline.^ Dr. G. here quoted the rule o'' proceediiij^ in case of an appeal, and the order in which the parties are to be hearil] I must confess I have been rather surprised to hear the position advanced that the Presbytery are no party in any wise in this cause. It tliey are no party why are they to be heard ? The book di- rects that they shall be heard in explanation of their acts: but why so, if thev are no parties? Surely they are made a party by this rule, although they are to be heard the last in order. We are now however arrested by a refusal of the record of the sentence below. Mr. Dickey. Although there is, probably, no Eower in this Synod to compel the delivery of those ooks for our review, might not the Presbytery be persuaded to give an extract from so much of their records as relates to this case alone. It certainly looks ill on their part thus to arrest the course of our proceedings. They have, no doubt, the form of the act of Assembly in their favor, il they choose to in- sist upon it : but they may perhaps consent to waive their refusal- Mr. Hill. I can state what Avas the impression of the Assembly in regard to this Synod. The very reason why that body did not dissolve the Synod of Delaware on the spot, was the information that the Synod was not to meet until after the meeting ol this body. Then its constitutional existence would be destroyed, and its papers would, of course, come re- gularly before us. Mr. M'Calla. I was out part of this morning, and was not till now aware that any motion had been made to compel a Presbytery to do this or that. Now as I talk much against compulsion in old mother church, I ought in consistency to be equally opposed to it in any of her daughters. I am for order : but not for compulsion. Now in my contests with the Pa- pists, and they have a false point to i»rove, I have al- ways heard them talk much about Paul and about the fathers: and experience has taught me that the very best way to refute all such arguments, was to go to Paul and to go to the fathers, i have generally found them confuted by their own authorities. Now if we pursue the same course I think we shall arrive at pretty much the same result. If we go to the re- cords of the Assembly we shall find no such wonder- ful charm in these words " at and after." If it be true that they were inserted by Dr. Miller, I am very certain that it never was his intention to produce *28 TRIAL OF such a state of thing's as this. The intention was to place that Presbytery under the jurit-diction of this Synod. 1 am told that Dr. Junkin would state, if called upon, that wfien he declared his iniention to take an appeal from the sentence of the Presbytery, he enquired whether he could appeal to this Synod: and the answer he received was such as will justify a call for the papers. Mr. Davie. I understood Dr. Junkin to say that the Synod of Delaware stood adjourned to meet on the 28lh of October. Dr. Ju.NKiN. You misunderstood me. Mr. Davie. It it was not aojourned to meet before that day, then, as there could be no pro re nuta meet- ing, with the reception of that Synod and those Pres- byteries into this Synod, all their books and papers which do not prejudice individuals in those Presbyte- ries or that Synod are of course the property of this Synod. It is a matter of right that we shall respect and review them. The plea of the Presbytery says that no Presbytery can be at the same time under the j'urisdiction of two different Synods, but it is worth nothing: for one of the Synods was so situated that it could not exert its authority, while the other did exert it, in all its strength. Mr. Macklin. Dr. Junkin said Dr. Junkin. I want what I did say should appear on record. I am persuaded there is not a man in that Presbytery who will deny the statement to be true. I have drawn it up in writing, and now ask leave to submit it to Synod. Dr. Junkin read the followinii paper, which he requested might go on the miiiUtes, viz : "I wished to appeal directly to the General Assembly, and made a proposition to the Presbytery and to Mr. Barnes to that amouni. He objected, and the Presbytery acquiesced in the objection. The question then was, whether the Appeal should be to the Synod of Delaware or to the Synod of Phila- delphia. This question depended upon the priority as to the meetingsof the two Synods; and I asked whether the Synod of Delaware would be in existence and would have session before its expiration. I was answered in the negative, and accordingly with the consent, and as I believe, according to the wishes of the Presbytery, I appealed to this Synod. Geo. Junkin." Mr. Barnes. Is the Synod willing to hear me for a lew moments ? Mr. R. Breckinridge. He is here as a party, and has a right to be heard. Mr. Barnes. When the subject first came up, it was proposed by Dr. Junkin that the appeal should be taken to the then next Assembly, viz. that which met at Pittsburgh. I objected to this, on eevera grounds ; the chief was, that I had not then time to MR. BARNES. 29 prepare myseir: and the Presbytery deferred the matter till their meeting in June. 1 always stated my belief that the appeal ought to go through the Synod, and that none ought to wish it to take a differ- ent course. But if any such remarks were made re- specting the Synod ot Delaware and the Synod of Philadelphia as have been alluded to, it must have been at some time when I was not present. I am very confident that the opinion was never expressed that the appeal should be made to the Synod of Dela- ware. Mr. M'Calla. Does Mr. Barnes recollect any ob- jection being made by the Presbytery to an appeal of this Synod 7 Mr. Barnes. Dr. Junkin and I agree in our recol- lection on that subject. We had a conversation about an appeal to Synod, but nothing, so far as I re- member, was decided as to whether it was to be made to the Synod of Philadelphia or the Synod ol Dela- ware. In reply to the enquiry of Mr. M'Calla, I would say that I do not remember that the subject was spoken of in Presbytery at all. Mr. Patterson. If 1 am allowed to speak I can give the information desired. Moderator. I hope he will be allowed to explain, Mr. Kennedy, of Lewes. Had he any right to make a reference to this Synod ? Moderator. It is not a reference but an appeal. Mr. M'Calla. Did the Presbytery object to an ap- peal being made to this Synod? That is the question I put: and I presume there is not a member of the Presbytery who will say that any objection was made to it. Mr. Barnes has stated that Dr. Junkin, in con- versation with him, expressed his determination to appeal " to Synod." Can any man doubt to which Synod he relerred ^ As to the Synod of Delaware, it was never expected to meet again, and it must therefore have been to this Synod that he intended, and was understood as intending, to make his appeal. Mr. Barnes, it appears, was of opinion that the appeal ought to pass through Synod : but Dr. Junkm did not know, and could ncTt, when the Synod of Delaware was to meet: and could he appeal to that body ? Mr. R. Breckinridge, interposing. If he had ap- pealed to that Synod they could not have tried the appeal: because the Synod consisted oi' but three Presbyteries, and one of them was to be appealed from: so that there could not be three Presbyteries left to act upon the case, which the constitution re- quires there should be. Mr. M'Calla resumed. The Presbytery knew this, and yet did not object to his appeal. But now they object. It is plain to me that this is a constitu- tional proceeding : all the fault, if there is any irregu- o 30 TRIAL OF larity, rests on the intermediate court. A brother [Mr. R. Breckinridge] has told us that there never occurred such a case since the creation before. Now I am Sorry to ditl'er I'roni a brother usually so accurate in Ins positions: but there certainly has been more than one case very like ir, not only since the creation, but since the flood : it was under the famous constitu- tion of Nimrod, in which mis^ht made ris;ht. Mr. Campbell. I hope our Synod [ihe Synod ot Delaware] will not be blamed in this matter. If thi brother over the way [Mr. R. Breckinridge] is cor- rect, no synod can receive an appeal, which does not consist of more than three Presbyteries, if we had no more, it is certainly not our fault. The question before us now is wlielher there is law for our demand of these documents. The right of review and con- trol is a constitutional right ; it arises under the con- stitution. If the constitution gives us that right in respect to these records, then we have the right to demand them : but if there is no law lor the demand, there is no crime in refusing to comply with it. Where there is no law there is no transgression. Now what is a Synod 1 The book says — - As a I'resbytery is a convention of the bishops and elders wiihin a certain disirict : so a synod is a conveniion of the bishops and elders within a larger district, including at least three Presbyteries. 7\.nd what is its power? Over what Presbyteries has it control ? The Synod has power to receive and issue all appeals regu- larly brought up from the Presbyteries &c. The Synod, then, can issue a])peals fiom the Pres byteries. But from what Presbyteries? From those which constitute the Synod. Now the Presbytery appealed irom did then belong to the Synod of Dela- ware. And there was nothing to prevent that Synod from holding a pro re naia meeting at the call of its Moderator. It has never been authoritatively deci- ded that he cannot call such a meeting. But, sup- posing this to be impossible, and there was no remedy in what the Synod of Delaware could lawluUydo: what then? Why then there was a " leak in the law." For this neither the Synod of Delaware nor the Assembly's Second Presbytery are responsible. What then is to be done? I say that it is best to abide by the law. What said Mr. Webster in a like case '2 Conjrress laid a duty on lead in bars. An ira- Eorter, wishing to evade the duty, imported lead in usts and other forms. The collector demanded the duty: the importer refused to pay it: and the cause went up to the Supreme Court. Mr. Webster's ar- gument was that as there was here a leak in the law, It was better to adhere to the law until it was mend- edt than to establish law by mere construction. I MR. BARNES. 31 hold to the same doctrine. It is dangerous to make laws by construction. You may hari-? a man by con- struction. Dillerent minds, we know, will put difl'er- ent constructions on the same laniy;uaf;e. In our case there is no need ol resorting to ct)nsLruction, because we have a remedy. The remedy is to be£:in de novo. We cannot try this appeal witiiouL tlie documents on which to try it. But you may begin anew. You may put Mr. Biirnes into tlie bounds ol a Presbytery which you can form, and you may order that Presbytery to take up his book and try him upon it. The Assembly has no control ovev this case. Hiul they ordered the records ol our Synod to be delivered over lo this Sy- nod, then you would have had the right to review them. But now you have no such right. It is, as I said, a constitutional right, and the constitution does not give it to you. The assembly might have dis.solved the Synod of Delaware at once, on the spot: and then its Presbyteries would have passed at once under the control ofihis Synod; but it did not do this. And it is not the business of the Synod ofDelaware to fiupply wbat the Assembly omitttjd. Nay, it has no right to do it. For ray own part I should be glad if it could be done: we might then issue this appeal now as well as at any time: but as we are Presbyterians, and as some ol our brethren are so zealous lor adhe- ring to the very letter of our standards, why let us fo where the book says. This is then our doctrine; say amen to it. In a word, the whole question be- fore us is this. Have v^e law for our demand of these records? iJ' there is lav/ for it, I am ready to bow to the law. Dr. JuNKiN, interposing — Here is the law. [Dr. Jiinkin here read again from the Book, of Discipline the first clause of the paragraph. Chap. 7. Sec. 3. Sub. Sec. 16. See ii above.J And now, if the brother does not sit down he will have forfeited his character. Mr. Campbell. Very trut\ the Book so declares: but the book supposes, at the same time, that '" the judicatory above" is a judicatory which has a right to demand the records : il so, the court below must send them up: that I do not dispute. But we are no nearer to our conclusion, unless it can be shown that tlie eourt above has legitimate cognizance of the case. Suppose the Synod of Virginia should undertake to issue an appeal from a decision ol the Second Pres- bytery of Philadelpliia ; would the Presbytery be hound to send up copies of its records to the Synod of Virginia? Will the Dr. take that ground? Will he apply the rule he read so triumphantly to such a case? Suppose a man aggrieved by the Presbytery of Phila- delphia had appealed to the Synod of Ohio ; would he get up and read his rule, and insist the records should be sent to Cincinnati ? I ask him the question. 32 TRIAL O? Dr. JiiNKiN. Read the whole. Mr. Campbell. Well, I will read the whole. [Mr. Campbell then read the remainder of the paragrapk quoted above by Dr. Junkin, declaring that the presbytery shall be censured for neglect of duty, &c. See it aboTe.l Well fir: and so if the Pyesb) tery of Philadelphia refuses to send up its records to the Sy7H)d of Virgi- nia, il ia to be censured, is it? Let him first show that the Synod of Virginia has cognizance ol' the case, or let him keep his seat. Mr. PiCKANDS. It has been asked whether the Se- cond Presbytery assented that Dr. Junkin's app»al should be issued before this Synod. A previous ques- tion is, whether the Presbytery had a right to assent to any such thing ? They had nothing to do with it : nothing to say about it : no assent or dissent to give in the matter. A man feels aggrieved by a sentence of theirs and says: I will appeal from your sentence. Very well, the Presbytery are not bound to say, we consent that you shall. They could not regularly consen' *x an appeal to the Synod of Philadelphia, be- cause t :€/ were under the jurisdiction ot another Sy- nod, the Synod of Delaware. But it was said by bro- ther M'Calla that it was acknowledged at the time, that the Synod of Delaware was dissolved, or virtu- ally dissolved. Moderator, I knov/ of no such thing. Our Synod stood adjourned to meet at Snow Hilh True, we were, at and after a certain day, to be dig- eolved: but until then we were in existence as much as ever we had been. And it would have been pass- ing strange if one of our Presbyteries should consent to an appeal's being taken to a foreign body, while their own Synod was still in existence. Again, it has been said that it takes three Presbyteries to consti^ tute a Synod, and as one of those was a Presbytery appealed from, there would not be a Synod left to act upon the appeal. It is very true that it takes three Presbyteries to constitute a Synod; but it is also true that if but seven menibers from the different Presby- teries are present (hey constitute a Synod. There must have been one from each Presbytery to consti- tute the Synod, but, once constituted, it can continue its sittings, whether it happens that there are mem- bers present from each one of the Presbyteries or not. Mr. R. Bkeckinridge, interposing — No; it is said that some from each Presbytery are necessary to con- stitute a quorum, and business cannot go on Without a quorum. Mr. PicKANDS. True: they must be there at first to constitute the Synod : but when the Synod is con- stituted it can proceed with its business, though its numbers should fall so low as seven only, and they all from two Presbyteries, or even from the same P-re%4 bytery. MR. BARNES. 33 Mr. R. BRECKiNRinoE. No: there must be three of ihe seven froi-ri three difiereiit prcsbyteriee. Mr. PicKANDP. Suppose members sliould ffct leave of absence : and it should so happen ihat all me mem- bers of one of the three presbyteries should leave the judicatory, would that dissolve the synod ? I conceive not. 1 believe the clause which has been read refers only to the opening and constilutinp of (he synod. Mr. J. Latta. I hoi)e we shall have an end of these desultory remarks. Have you j^iven up your call for the presbytery records ? 1 hope we shall come up to some decision, and not waste our time in this manner. Mr. Ki>NNEDv. The motion, as introduced into the Assembly by Dr. Miller, was that '" at and after" a certain day the Synod of Delaware should be dis- solved. MouERATOR. Not SO. The brother is mistaken. Lee the clerk read the act of Assembly dissolving the Synod of Delaware. The act of Assembly was according read as fol- lows : Resolved, That at and after the meeting of the Synod of Philadelphia in October next, the Synod ot Delaware shall be dissolvid, and the presbyteries constituting the same shall be then and thereafter annexed to the Synod of Philadelphia : and that the Synod of Philadelphia, constituted by the union aforesaid, shall lake such order concerning the organization of its several presbyteries as may be deemed expedient and constitutional : and that said synod, if it shall deem it de- sirable, make application to the next General Assembly for such a division of the synod as may best suit the convenience of all the presbyteries, and promote the glory of God. Mr. Kennedy. Very well : was not the Synod of Delaware in existence until ihe day of the meeting of this synod ? And if it was, then the records of all its presbyteries were under its review and control up to that day. This synod has no more right to the re- cords of the 2d Presbytery of Philadelphia than to the records of the Presbytery of Lewes, or of any other presbyiery belonging to the Delaware Synod, or to any other Synod. The day this synod sat, ours, [the Synod uf Delaware] was iii^\solved ; but not before: consequently it was itiipossible the appeal could regularly be taken to this syiuui. Mr. Ma'^klin. II the records do not belong to this synod, what other synod, 1 abk, is to receive them? Either we have the power, or iris no where. Here are the proceedings ol an entire ee> lesiastical year not to he reviewed by any synod whatever ! It was taken for granted by the Assembly that the records of the Synod of Delaware and ol all its presDyteries were, as of course, to pass into the possession and control of this synod. Mr. Winchester now called for the reading of Mr. Breckinridge's motion, ordering the records of the 3*- 34 TRIAL or Aasembly'fi 2d Presbytery to be laid od the table. And^ it was read accordinjrly. Dr. J. Breckinridge. When was the Synod of Delaware to have met if it had not been dissolved? Mr. Gilbert. On the day after this synod met : viz. on the 29th of October. We met on the 28th. Dr. J. Breckinkidge. Much of this discussion is certainly irrelevant. We are not, now, claiming the records either of the Synod of Delaware or of the Assembly's Second Presbytery. All we want, at present, is the evidence in the cause before us. The motion calls for tnis, and for this only. The Pres- bytery do not pretend that they are not, now, under the jurisdiction and control ot" this Synod. They ap- pear here as being under our control. Here is a. case in which they are deeply interested. One of their own members has been charged wiih holding hereti- cal opinions: they tried and acquitted him. The ap- peal has been m:sed. The SynoJ have asked I'or no such i iformation, save once in the ca-^e of Mr. Eusiace; and I am opposed to the liiierty'.s bein;^ irraiUed. VVe asked lor tliose documents wiiich were necessary in oriler lo cniii^ht- en our ju l.;ment, in the casi^ subniiltod, Uy appeal, to our decision: tiiese they r. fused: anJ now iliey han» on our (links, and spend the time of the Synod in tellinir us l'inut any niL'afiin'j: and whenpressed to liic real ()oints in dispute, ihey tro round and round ihem, luii lake care mver lo touch one of them. 1 am against liie continuation of such treatment. I hope the leave u^ked will not be {jrant- ed. The Moderator said that it was his opinion, that to ^ive Mr. Eustace pe; mission to speak would not be m order. Mr. R. Breckinridge now moved the following preamble and resolui ions: Whcrens the 3d scciion and 16th siib-sention of the 7th chapter of the Book of Discipline confers on the Synod the power to censure, according lu circumstances, any judicato- ry that shall nei:l' ct to send u. auiheiuic records of ;iny trial in which an appeal is lakiin : And whereas tile (Asscnitiiy's) Second Preshyitry of Philadelphia has not onlv neglected, but refused, by a niiiiuie thisdiiy laid on the table oi Synod, to produce the record in the case of ftlr. Barnes and Dr. Jun- kin, wliii h is nn appt-al tegularly taken, and prosecuted, al- though it i.-? r.dcnitied by the Stated Cleik of snid Presbytery that the said recoids are present, a"d in posstssiun of said Presbytery: And wlicrpas, that refusal is aecravaud in i. sin- justice, by the fact that ilie nienibersof that Presl)vierv itself prevented llie appellant from ap|)ealint! dirtcily to the General Asaembiy, as was his declared desire, and this ai a pLiiod MR. BARNES. 43 when there was, nnd could be, no Synod to wliich he could nppp.-il hut ih:9 Synod; hcuiiise ih ; Assembly had ordered tlie dissolutiDii ol' the Synad of Djlawnre b-f ire the next stated meeiinsr Id wljicli ihu -Synod siooJ adj )iirned ; and tliereis no provision Uuowii to us for any pro re iiala meeting of any :>yi)od : And u hi-reas, this Synod has passed a special order direct- ing saiJ Prcsiiyicry to prodiicu the record necessary in the case on truil — vvhieii orili r the I'i(.\-I)yiery explicitly refuses to obey : iXow, thcref ire, he it Ilrsulvcd, ihat. in thejudirment oflliis .■iynoi', ih.; cmduci of the (Assembly'?) S.coiid Pres- byiery "I Piii.adelphia. in all ihe premise;', is obHinale, vexa- tious, ut.Jitil, KHcandid, contumacious, and j^rossly disor- derly. Aid whereas, liie (Assembly's) Secf>nd Presbytery of Phi- iadelpiiiii has suppressed the records in ihe case in whicli Dr. J.iukin has apficaled to .his Synod from the decision of thai Pri-sbyttry in the ca-eof Mr. Barnes: And whereas this Synod has used, without success, such means as seemed pro- per, to obiaiii possession of said records as proof in the case: And wjit-reas, ii lo known to Synod, that tiue copies of all the proceeding's and prool in ihe case are, from other fouices, accessible lo it: And whereas ihe orii,'iiial paitits have beea asked, and declared their readinesi for trial ; and it d )es not app ar to Synod that the cause ol the appellee would be pre- judiced by the conduct of said Presbytery, in suppressing the reconls, .is stated above, contrary to the oider of Synod and the wis!i of ihe appellant; .And whereas, lUe cause of truth, and the j.'lory of Gjd, do, in the judgment of iliis Synod, reqaire u to make still fjrilier t ff irts to issue his case : There- fore Resolved, that Synod wili proceed to hear and dispose of tlie appeal .low pendme. Mr. Blythe called for a divi.sion of the question on these ffff-olutioiip, luuI wished the paper read and consider, il l»y paragraphs. Dr. AlcUowtiLi. I perceive in that paper one prin- ciple vvluoli, waile il does not strengthen the docu- ment at all, may, I think, li'.ad us into diiliculties. 1 mean thai, which relates lo the doctrine that u Sy- nod coiisi.«litig ol three Presbyteries cannot try an appeal tb.v Iitv , ccriaiidy, is not bound to siTul up lis rccorils. II a ii ini-itr appeals to the l'i)|)e, iimsi liie l*ie.sltyiiry fvrn\ its docnmenls to Rome ! or lu! censurt'd. il it relnses? MoDKKATuH. It lias liecii decided thill this Synod has j^ll•i;^dlcllon in ihe case: ihut point cannot be ajrain drawn into mieslioii. 'J lie clause ua.- iheii ai^reed lo. The tecond claiibo was ih'/ii read, as follows: "And wliertus the (Assembly'?) si^noii ! Pres!)ytery of Phi- ladflplna II s 1101 on y iicgUcieJ, but reruseti, by a iiiiniite this diiy luid on ilie iiil)lc »il' Synod, lu prodnce die record in tlie car^c ol Air. li.irnes and Dr. Junkin, wiiit-h is an appe.il regularly taken and prosecutt-d ; aldi'Hiyli it is not alleged that iIk said recoid is i.ot prtstiu and in possession of said Presbytery " This clause vvns also ajjrecd to. The lliird clause was then r ad r "And whereas tliat reliisa! is aii^'ravaled in its in.iustice by the lacl liiat the Presbytery itseli prtveiiifil ilic appellant from appeuliiiy directly lo lilt G^iierr.1 .Assembly, as was his declare*! desire; and tins ut a period when there was, and could be, no Synod to vvhi. Ii he could iippeal hui ihis Synod." Mr. L'lAK.NK-s. I am very conlideni the Presbytery never dill what is liiere ulh-L'tul. Dr. Jiiidun and I had acdiivcrsatioii on the eubjecl. belbre ilie decision ol" th'^ Presliylery, in uliich I told him thai it was not cerl.un thai lliere would he ihc necessity i'or any ap- peal ; lull that il' there was, I should proceed in a re- gular manner as l-;ecaiiie a Preshylertan. Dr. JuNKt.\. In one sense it Is true that my notice of appeal was iriven in before the decision ol" the Presbitery was declared; iliat is, before tliecom- niitlee a|)|ioinied lo put. tie jiidy:ment of the Presby- tery inio a writieii form, had done so. Bui llie votes of the Presbytery liad been taken and had netfalivetl the prosecution. 1 had a c.onvers.ition wiMi ibe Mo- derator ol Pres-ylery, and told him, i hat if Mr. Barnes would consent, I was desirous ot going at once to the Assembly. 1 believed itiere was no danger that the Assembly would remand the case to the Synod. But wneii I stated in open court my inteniinn ot' ap- pealing, there was a distinct a. q liescencc on the par. ot the Presbytery thai, I sliouhi take my appeal to the Synod ol Pliiladelphia. Mr. Grant, 1 am con- fident, \\ill Icll yon so now. Mr. PiiEi-Ps. From the lansruagc ofthispart ofthe paper it would seem that Ih.ere is an mieiitionof casting on (•o-presl)vt(Ts, who are absent, and out of court, an impuliuioii of duplicity unworthy ol" the ministerial character. W luii iJr. Juiikin was up on a former occisioii, lie said that be could api)eal for the correctness of his statement to all the lueinbera MR. BARNES. 45 of the Presbyterv, who would jusiify (he correctn !ss of hi.s sfaleiiiciii. To lliis aiipiMi, iho me iit)crrf of Presiiyiory, aldioui^h Ihey were lorhidden lo Oi^eii their imniihij. fxpretjsed iheir die^enl hy shaking their iuMds. and yet now tlie (act is assnm d as not to be di.-|Hi'cd, and I iu'y arc lorhidden ail oin fjriiinity ol' re.|;ly. Is this lair dealiiiii^ ? 'I'lie as.-iMil ul't-onie individuals is a dillcrenl thing from the dt dared as- B nt ol the wliwie l*re.sl)ytery. Privale (^onversalioa is; one i.iii.ii.'', and an ollici A act is anotlier. li i^ un- necessary and ini()ro|)er to im|jlic,aie men in this man ler, whose li|)s are sealed. I d) tiiird<, indeed, tliai it would he a wiser course in ihe Pri'>hyte. y, to "five up llie records, and not to Insist upon the legal light of witliholiliiig them: but the Presbytery tiave consiilcr.il the case, and come lo an ojjposiic conclu- sion I am, ii iwcver, opposed to the adoption ol' liae clause UDiv under discii.-siori. Mr. L'ami'bcll. Many of Ihe argumenls which havi; been usidin tiiat p.ipcraie wholly out ol place. What if It sliuuki be provtd tliai ijic Presnyiery once thought it would be regular for Dr. Junkin to appeal to liiis 8ynod, dues tliat provu that I hey must of ne- cessiiy ihink so now, when, on e.x iinination, they find tuere is no 1 tw lor it .' Tlie Presbytery's con- eenl, .uimittinii it lo have been given, does not give this Synod a constitutional jurisdiciion over Iheir acts. iSo that this aggravation ol' their oti'eiicesinay as well be left out. ]Vlr. McCalla called for the reading of the clause again: and it was read. 1 don't see, said he any thing S) very furious ill that. An article is reao ; iVIr. Barnes objdci- to the statement : Dr. Junkin answers him : and it is tiien said that there is jrreal injustice, because Al.-. Barn s caiuKU ueny it. Is it lo i»e ex- pected, wlieii tiiis I'reshytery reluses to come hefore us in a iegi.nnate manner, that ilicy shall afterwards be allijivcd to come ia tiy a side door, and take up all the time III speakuia, and deflating every point that may ai ise ? 8ii , no histoiiaii will ever condemn eucli an artitde as this. If tJiese geiilleiiun vv. nt to come into court, the constiiution lelis them uliere they may conie and how : buiil they uant lo jump in at tlie unid.>vv, it is l(>r us 'o say whether we v\ili permit u lo bo done. 1 iim against it. [Mr. Phllps here maile some remarks, which the reporter was prevei.ted from hearing. Pie gathered the su'isi.iiice lo he, that if Ur. Junkin was allowed to uiaki; siatciiUMits ol laci, tae Pre6bj tery should have an Oi>)iortuniiy of reply.] Mr. bAR.sEs. 1 do not wisii lo take up the time, or to emOirr.icrs the Synod. 1 vmsii ihai the history of facts received liy the S^ iiiul should bv- a true history : and it is a trulii thai tne 2U Presuyieiy, as a Piesby- 4^ 46 TRlAl. OF tcry, took no order as to what bo(1y was to he appeal- ed lo. In M.ircli, llic I'rtvliyioiy ilul ik'ride iliiil. the appi'iil vVfis nut. It) ^o up lo ine A.-scinlilj ai that time; l>ul iii Juiiey ii was a>fit'f(l thai it should f:o up regularly. 1 never i.lji ( led lo its going lo ilie As- sembly. Il was nolliiiig lo me. But il you adopt llmt chiuse of llic pro|)0;-eci preanihle, ) on will pot yoiir- eelves, us lo a matier ul laci, in direct r.olliiiun with the Fieshyiery. Mr. R. Bkeckinridge. I am willing to meet the dilliculiy, hy aliermg tne ijhr.nr^eohiiry. and in.'stead of say mg, '' ihc Pre.-ou that we refer thia^ whnle i^ibject. 10 a committee r but I wish, by nay of prelace lo that motion, to otier a lew rema, ks. My objeci is that a coiiiniiilee he appointed lo |)repare a nimuie to go upnii oui- records. Mr. R. J. Brfxki.nridgi: here interposed with warmth, iirolesmig ligam.si liaving --i resolution of this kind llirown directly across ihe | alii id the judi- catory v/hen it was proeeeditig in ihc discussion ol the paper belore it. Moderator. If ihe motion is to commit, it is in order. Dr. M'DowELL. That is my motion. Tdo deplore, and highly disapprove ol the course taken by the Presbytery in rei.ition io its records; 1 regret iideep- ly: I am persu uleJ iliat iis ell'ecL will be to prejudice their cause, e!si)ecially be ore ihe publif. But, at Ihe game time, 1 iicoHect that our proceedings in Ihia matter are all lo he reviewe0!?e lo inHici censure upon a Freshytery, th'; I'resiiyiery iios.-ess a i imii to be heard. The Assembly will nor, attend to the pos- ture of eircumsiiuice:^, a id will not disriniruish as Bome ol'iis are (h.<|\ised lo do: they will only look at the litcl toat ttio Presbytery was cond(;i!itied unheard, and t.lie wliole AssemMy will ciy out aiiaiost you. Insleiul of ado|)iinj^ a pai^er I ke tiii--, 1 hopi- wc shall appoint a connniltee, wjio will draw up a temperate statement ol lacis. such an one as we shall lierealter be ahie to biok at with, pleasure : but tins document contains languaire, and aprdies it to a court ol tfie Lord'* ii luse, sui li as 1 never could adojit in ril'er- ence to the worst enemy t h ive on earth. I trust we shall look at the whole case temperately .ad cooily, and mat bel"ore we attempt to cen.'^ure a Presfiyiery, we sli.tli at least allow tiiein to be heard in their own defence; and that we .shall not attempt (o spread upon our records an f.?: parte slatrment of I'acis, such as the judicatory may di;oy. 1 think the wisest course will i)e to reler iliis nutter to a committee, and in the meanwhile let tSyno I jiroceed with the trial. Mr. iVICalla. The tl-iree arguments 1 !,av'e heard ajrainsi the adoption of this paper are llie.se: first, that th'i lan:^Uiiire is too si;vere: secondly, thai tb.e Presbytery is unheard: and lastly, that all tlie lime we are iliscus^in^ it we are putiin;? oti' the trial of Mr. Barnes. i\o\v, as to the severity ol the language, I shi>ulil hke to hear the clause read once more. Mr. R. Brgckinkidge n-ad ir aj^ain. Mr. M'Calla. Very well: and iiow I should like to see liow tiirtiiy men there arc on this floor wiio are afraid to handle a contumacious Presbytery without gloves, and without a pound ot' nutter in each liand. Mr. R. BuECKiNRiDGE. It is obvious to me, and must be to nil, that in this thing we are to fight ai^-ainst time, as well as against sup|)osed friends. 1 hope we shall be aware ol' tins, anil that the Synod will pro- ceed with the business before it. Mr. M"C;alla. It is plain that this measure is ia- tended to introduce Mr. B.irnes' case without a law- ful iafioduciion. Our wo.st enemies could not Jiave recommen led a course more injurious. We read tfiat 111*^ child'-en of Israel were once commanded to make brick, and that lo aggravate their hardships, their cruel task-masters would not allowlhem straw. And now it seems that we of this Synod are to be 48 TRIAL OF sent down into E^ypt, and treated much in llie ^ame Wiiy. VVe are lo ^o at Mr. Banus' case wiilioiii the necKasary iireliiiiiii.iry iiie.isiircs : and ilicn we are to get ourselves kickt'd oul olthe Astii-iiitdy. And as to condeiuniii^ tiiis Pri-sbytcry witliout ilieir being heard, were they noi invited to conic in their proper place, and in die proper way / We opened the door, li lliey cliose to »vali< in. I suppose it is not necessary to sei a cliair lor iIhmii, wliile the whule Synod ehall stand wailing, c.ip in hand. No, sir; thiy have re- fused ihe jiir isdiciioM of tins Synod, and the Synod can do its ilnty wuiinut them. When the linie as- signed by the con-tiiLiiiiiii shall arrive, tlif n kn ihem be lieani, and not butore. I am ujiposed to Ihr conv- milment. A man who has liveJ i.hrough so many BCssioMS and Presbyierifs and Assemblies as many of us have, must know ihat if we will lio (jur duly with- out the lear of man. llmri'. is a portion oi' our cuinpa- nioiis whum we must be willmg to jiart witii as soon as mailers ajiproacu a crisis. It will alw.iys be so: it is hum. Ill iiaiure, at ieasi ii is the nature ol some men. And, rely upon i:. as soon as you appruarii tlie enemy mar enough to see the whiles of ilu-ir eyes, iron vull aiwa)s lind ihcte men very gUid lo jumji be- lind a log. Mf. AuAiR. Moderator, this paper, which some of the breilircn wani us lo s.v'.iliow entiie, is aho- ether too li>>l, and loo liigh seasoned lor our palates. 1 hope we sliall have soiiietliiiig in its |d- mem- bers of the second Presbytery, or the Pretbytory aa MR. BARNES. 49 a body, prevented this case from goin^ up to the As- eenil)ly. Dr. M'DowELL. I wish to know whclher such ia the laci. If It be so, U-x the (act now be staled. Mr. Stkelu. 1 staled it to be a fact. Mr. Barnes. I wi-h the paper wiiich the Presby- tery h iiided in on this Bulijcc.t. lo be read. Mr. LI. Bkeckinridgk. The paper denies it, only in re.speci lo the Preijhytery as euch. Moderator. If the discussion proceeds, there must be a motion, cither to aiiopt or to arneiid. Mr. Steele here reail a paper pretcnted by the Moderator of the secoritl Presbytery (who was for- bidden l)y the rules of proceediii,:^ to ppeaU in iiis own person.) U declared, in substance, that he, as an in- dividual, had not been opposed to penniilitjir the ease logo to the Assrnibly, but hud desired, if it did go tiiere, that the Synod should not be deprived of its vote: and tiiat this opinion he liad dcclaiedin the Presbytery, but not oflicially, ms its Moderator. Mr. R. Breckinridge. This reminds nie of the case of a German Prince, who was also a bishop, and who, on receiving a blow remonstrated wiih horror: " What? do you dare lo strike ilit; Lord's anoinied?" to whom his adversary rejilied, " 1 do not striliii^ liis a|)i)ciil iiiio any jijJ:.-.;iii»iy lie sliouiil iliink lit: nor diil Uii-y. so lar ua seinl)ly also. Mr. CAMrnKi.i,. 1 move you that this portion of the preamble he stricken out. 1 admit that ihe conslruc- tion mcniioned by brother Gilbert is consiruciiort only ; and 1 should not be very strenuous in insistinff upon il : thongli 1 do not see l)Ut what ihe rule will apply .is f lirly in this case as in any oJier. The constitution does not say " Presbytery," but it says '• juilicatory ": and ihui term will as well include a eyii'Hl as a jiresbytery. Dr. J. BuKCKiNiiiDGK. I do hope that inasmuch as the tirsi cl.iuse is siio.ijr enough, ihat the second will be slricken out. The Synod of Delaware could not meet unless called pro in iisda ; and the biter cd'ihe clerk which has heen read was evidenily written in full view oflbe lact ihal the adjaurnid meeting of that synod would be superceded by a previous meet- MR. BARNES. 51 in? of this bodv. But wliy eliould we discjFS this, whori I he other claiit-c i.-^ s;ii(Tifieiit ' 1*" '.'.v""'/;ar r. li. i.s ii very doubidil point whether a moderator ol'ihis synod eiin or cann ii rail a pro re nciLi oicetinif ol" t^ynod : and wiiy should we coaimit ourpelves on such aquestioji ? It has heen tent down to the. preshyterie.s iiir deci:--inr), and they will decide it. As to what hrotlier Cu\ler said about the rules in?,lu lin-j; ihe moderator ol' au aesenibly, as much ay the modt'raior ol" a .synod, he overlooks a jireat and obvious (iillerence betwceri them : the synod is a per- maiiHiit body, the assembly is not. 'Tbe synod con- tinues, and may be called lo;?eiher if need he ; bit when tlie assembly adjourns, it is gone: it is out of existence: there is no assembly to be called, and no inoileralor to call it. The (juesrion was now put on striking out the clause, and decided in the negaiive. The readin^^ of I lie docament then proceeded. "And sccdndiv, because, even il'aii ai peiil had I een taken to the Synod of Djiaware and a ;»■(; re nu^u meeting had i een lawfully called, tiiere is great reason to cluuht wiieilier accor- ding to c)ur consiiiiition that synod coid^l have tried the case while two pre sbyieries only could sit as judge-. The synod having out three, and one of theiii beni^ excludi.tl, as the court appealed Iroin.' Mr. W-VNKOOP. I move you that this clause be stricken out. Mr. Breckinridge. The brother will observe that the clause iloes not stale it as a thinir ceriain, that Buch a synoil could not try ihe tiiipeal ; but only speaks of this as a tiling extremely doutnlul. The I'rcsby- tery which tried tlie cause must be ext-luded, of course: there then remains oidy two presbyteries to decide the case; and, accordiiijr lo oar book, two presbyteries do not consiilutc a synotl. The booke.\- pressly declares that ibree presbyteries are requisite to constitute a synod, and that there cannot even be a quorum to do business unless the three presbyteries are represented. It is iherelore to my mind intinitely clear that the SyiioJ of Delaware could not have tried the appeal even if it had iroiie there. Yet, out of deference to an opposite optmon, exi)ressed by Bome brethren, I have only sa d " that there is sreat reason to douht" on this point. I hope the clause may be retained, because, as far a-? it i^oes, it strenjjth- ens our reasons for passing censure on the presby- tery. I hope this case wi'l be suliicient to show the folly ofattemi)tin? to draw u > a |)aper which shall gather in the opinions of every individual who may hdpi)en to take general views of the same kind. Mr. Grier. I hope that the clause will not be etricken out. Itdoes ai)pear strange to me that where language has been adopted with the express view to 5^ TRIAL OF conc.ilia.lion, all the brethren who are on one side shill i'lsis! en f^ivinii it. iheir own construction. Dr. Ml DowELL. ! c;ill the attention ofpynod to our form nriiDveriiinent. cliai)lcr 10, section 1st. Tiiis sec- tion thows liuw iiidiiy |)reshyti;ries are necci=sary to coMstiliite a synod; and it dies require three pret^hy- teries lor th ii purpo.~o. But then, in the Iburtli sec- tion, if expr' j:.-ly declares that a synod " shall have power lo luceive and issue appeiil.*." 1 know that, in the second section there is something said about a quorum: but to make the liook consistent wilii ilselK [and that is a sound principle in conslructini? hiwsj we must suppose that the riresbylery appealed i'rom niiiy constitute a partofthe q\iurum, though not ol the court. The l)Ook, at all events, (iocs declare that three presliyieries are a synod, and that such synod can issue nil appeals. Why, sir, in the earl> history of'o'.ir church, tlie most of our .synods were in this Biluiiiion: they consisted but of three presbsieries ; and yet they did try apjjeals: it must have been by two presbyierir's sittiiu' on the act of the third. I hope that ihc clause will he stricken out. I want the document strenu:ihened, not weakened ; and 1 want it to app.;nr in such a form thai the assembly shall not find lault with us. Dr. Uatucvri'. Under our old consUlution, even if thirty members were present they constituted no quorum uidcss they came from three dill'irent Pies- byt(;rie.s. We had fr» quenily to wait lor days ioyiery. He is a member of that Presl)ytery, and a party in in this trial. He stood silently by, and saw his Prey- bytery contumaciously suppress the proof necessary to the trial; when, had he but expressed sudi a wish, the testimony would have been produced. We are now going on the next best testimony within our reach: and he may ol>ject to this, because the records of the Presbytery are the best evidence in the case t(k Mit. BARNES. SY guard as^aiiist this, we now enter the (hcA. npon our record that lie did not olijecl to iFie siippreseion of those record-, hy his Presbytery. HMr. Barnee will eay that lie objects to it, or that ho attempted to pre- vent it, I will erase ii in a moment. God i'orbid, I should enter upon record what is not true. I ilesire to use, in tin's case, the utmost i^cntleness and candor. Mr. Camphei.l. Make an epi-ome of this argu- ment, and see how it looks. It Mr. Barnes does not Kiy that his Presbytery diil wroiiir, we will s:o on to violate the Constitution, by trying him without that proof which the Constitution requires. Such an ar- fument sounils stran^'e: — and from such a quarter, 'he Constitution requires that the whole proceedings heiow, with all the evidence, shall be read before we frocecd. Hear it. See ihe extract from Book of Discipline quoted just above. J Mr. R. Breckinridge. The only reason I have not •hewed why we proceed without this, is, that the Synod have not resolved that they will proceed with- out it. Mr. Campbell. Then it seems we may violate the Constitution provided Mr. Barnes will not blame the doings of his Prctbytery. He mubi, take sides, it ap- pears, ayaiiist his brethren; then we will not pro- ceed: but il" he will not do this, then it is a good reason why we shall go on ! Can any thing on earth be more .supremely ridiculous? Mr. MfSGRAVE. CinnoL we divide the questioa? Is it not euoLijjh to say what precedes this, without saying a word about Mr. Barnes ? I move to strike out that^ part. Mr. (JiEsox. Mr. Barnes did admit that the minute contained a true record of the historical fact. Mr. B.vRNEs. The Synod has a right to make any record on ii.-^ minutes which it pleases. I shall not contest tiiat riiriu: nor iiave I objected to the minute proposed. You liave not called upon me to do so: nor could 3011 lawfully do so: and the Synod 1 believe 80 understood the matter. And so far as Synod know, tiiat may be (he reason why I did not object. But \\ ill il not appear that the Synod felt embarrassed and Wished to bring me in, inlhe unhappy relation ia which 1 stand ; in coiilrarieiy to all deliCMcy ? Mr. II Breckinridge, lam uilling to go on and etate all thai is inie. I think the claufc should not be stricken out. Mr. Barnes stands here in a double attitude ; he is both a parly, and a Presbyter. And thougii we hrive no ri.ht to ask him wluuher he ob- jects to the doiuiTs ol'his Presbytery or not, we have a right 10 state f icis.to fortily the correctness of our course, before a future tribunal, which is to pass judg- ment upon it. 5* 58 TRIAL OF Dr. Green. I hope the clause will not he ptrickeis out. We have. I tliink, eulfirient indications to warrt U9 to be on our jruard airainst every exception which it shall be possible to take. Rely upon it, everv ex- ception til It can be taken will be t.iken in the higher court. Now as this is the mere statement of an his- torical troth, and asii may meet an exception, 1 hops it will not be etricketi out. Mr. Gilbert. Does the minute relate to the past only 7 or also to the future? As to the past, it states what is true ; but not what may be true in future. Mr. Bauncs. If you will add that the Synod did not ask me whether i objected or no, the nuuute will then state tht; whole truth. Dr. M'DowELL. Would it not be better to waive all I his, till we see what evidence we have? Mr. R. Brcckinridge. The moderator stated that this was I tie proper place. Mr. Mc:jGRAVE. Is 't uot enough that no objection appears? This leaves the case just as it oujijht to be. It leaves it entirely open. It places us on equal terms vvith iMr. Barnes before the Assembly, ll' he objects there, we can say, why did you not object in the court below ? Then both vvill stand upon an equality. But if we shall now attempt to take the advantage of iiim bv sayinjj that he made no objection to the acts of his Presbytery, when he was not in circumstances to say either yea or nay, we shall not appear well before those who are to judge us. As judges we had better omit what may appear like a wisli to take advantage of the situation of the ac- cused. Mr. R. Breckinridge. I think not. There is a brother, who isa lawyer ofdistinction (Mr.Carothers) thinks it important that this should be stricken out ; but I say iliat it is important it should be kept in. Mr. Carothers. 1 do not take either side in the matter. 1 am not an advocate or a party, but a Jud^e. Mr. R. Breckinridge. I am not a party either, but am a Judge too : yet my understanding is not a mere tabula rasa; 1 have an opinion. He admits that if the clause is put in, it will prejudice one side. 1 say that if it is left out it will injure the other. I consider it very important that it should be retained : it may influence the whole decision. Mr. Barnes is not re- quired to say anything. He stands nakedly before us with a verdict in his iace: but he also stands here as a Presbyter: and it is proper that our recorU should shew that as a Presliyier he did not object to the withholding of these records. Mr. M'Calla. There are two parties in this mat- ter. Mr. Barnes has spoken what is condemnatory of the Synod; and the Synod have done the same with respect to him. Mil. BARNES. 59 Mr. Barnes. I do not know when I have so epoken. I ehoiild be ijlail to hear when it whs. Mr. M'Calla. Then I am mislnken. But did not Mr. Barnes say ihat to enter such a record would be to do an act ot injustice lo him ? MoDEKATOK. No : he Said it would be recording whatwiis historical truth. Mr. M'Calla. Well : I will leave off stating what Mr. Barnes saiil till I can hear better. It is obviaua that there are two did'ereni and opposite objects de- sired in this house. There is aimrlion of the mem- bers ol' this Synod who wisli that this prosecution may be dropped ; or that if it is not, it may Tail. And there is another and a larger portion who desire that we shouM goon to issue this appeal. Now here is a document brought belore us which may be instru- mental ill issuitig it, shall we reject it, or adopt it 7 Now supposing a vessel was bound for a certain port, and litting out for her voyage : a portion of her owners are opposed to the voyage, and had rather the vessel went: to the bottom of ihe ocean, than to her destined haven. These men, if, while the ship is fitting for sea, they can take out. ol her some bolt or fastening, or screw, or plank, and thus cnuse her to leak and to founder, will take pains to do ir. I have so often seen a course like this tiiat I am used to it. But another part of her owners are determined she shall make ihc voyage, and these will insist that every bolt, and knee, and plank, and screw, and lasi.ening of every kind, that may secure her safety, shall be sup- plied in a proper manner. And il' any part of her tackel, apparel or furni'ure has been stolen away and secreted, they will do what in them lies to get it back or to replace it. For myself 1 had rather go lo ihe bottom among the sharks, than have on me the guilt of purloining so much as a m-irlingspike belonging to the g®od sliip. Why, 1 ask should we omit tins para- gra|)h, il it will, or may, do anything toward conduct- mg the Synod to the end we have in view ? Mr. Barnes does not say that it states what is untrue, or that it is unjust to state it : — yet we are urged to drop it. We are to be kinder to Mr. Barnes than Mr. B'lrnes is to liimself. Let us not forget that a British officer has s-iid that the losing ot' a single screw caused the defeat at New Orleans. And are we going to give up any of the lastenings of our ship ? I trust nor. Dr. Cathcart. I thought we were sitting here as judges, ami not p'eading the cause. Let us first have all tlie evidence tiefore us, and we can listen lo the pleadings afterward. Dr. J. Breckinridge. It is certainly very import- ant i.hat in tins case (a case tor our conducting of which we are lo give an account on earth as well aa •► 60 TRIAL OF in lieaven,) ev«iry one should be satisfied, if possible. A purl ion ol" very iniporl.juit evidence is wiihlield from ihe Synod. Mr. Biunes is ptandins: in very pe- culiar circnmstiincfs, as interested in liie absent evi- dence: and so is Dr. Juokin: and so is tlie Synod. [Dr. Junkin, inierposnijf. All ihe evidence is here, and can he proved lo he the orij^inal tesli.nony pro- duced aiui re id helbre the Presbytery.] That may iie very irue : vet we have not the official evidence, as such, from the Presbytery. And lliough we m;iy have what, some may deem an equivalent, yet if we could ^^et tlie evidence tliruugh ttie re-rular channels, it woidd certainly be far better. There then could be no possible ground of complaint. I make this remark because brother Campbell seems to impeach the propriety of our course in proceeding lo trial without the evidence which is withheld. Here we are in a dileauna, we are waterlogged on either hand. If we listen to the arguments ol" breth- ren it will be impossible for the Synod to go on: we must enher refer the case, or let it die. Now, in the absence of the regular docnmeaiary evidence, even supposing that. Dr. Junkin can get that whicli, in fact, is equally good, yet we want lo put matters in such a position that we may be able to shew that we have done every thing justly, and that all the injustice in the case lies with the Presbytery. One ol the facts in the case is, that Mr. Barnes did not object to the absence- of the documents. It may be said by some that had they been produced, the efl'ect would have been in his lavor : — if so, why did he not call for them? But, by his silence, he says, in effect, that he does not ci'iiip^iin of the absence of the ollicial evideix'e in his tri> the beginning ol the trial to the end of it. The proceeding occupied lour or fivo days. The documents read and the speeches made were both of great length. When it was lit:ishcd, I hoped that the whole matter might rest there. Tiie Eresbylery acquitted me, honorably : and 1, of course, ad no iiuention to apijeal. But the question occur- red to my mind whether there were not somecxpres- eions in my little work on the Romans, which gave unnecessary olfence to the fathers ol the church, and which mijfht be, and ought to be corrected. B;it, aa it might be said, if I made ihese corrections, that 1 had been driven to do so by tear of the trial, and as, besides, the trial itself would direct nie with more certainty lo the parts of the book which were most objected to, I concluded not to make them until alter the trial should have been over. Accordingly, I sat down, immediately after, and made a number of cor- rections, wiiere the language was in itseli ambiguous, and had been ereaily misumieretood. Some of these expressions, however, had given otience as not heinff in strict accordance with the Conlession ol Faith: and one, in puriicuiar, in which 1 was understood as MR. BARNES. 67 denyinw that we sinned in Adam and lell with him in his lirst transirression. 1 iiavc alU'.red nmtiy of these passa^i-s in the siereoiyptf:, from vvliicii a lourth edi- tion of (he hook will shortly be |)ri(iieJ. I procured from ttu; piihli.shers, proofshfeis ol'ihuse parts ol'the work, and bronchi iheni with me to this place, not doubt inij that the whole book would come up lor ex- nmitiaii>ri in the course ol" the trial. I was desirous the book should fro before so iar^e a synod fur exam- ination, be.-ause 1 hada secret hope that I should be able to saiisly my lathers and brethren ; that iTin any unguarded expressions I had unconsciously pre- eenteil a meaning diflert tit from vviiat 1 had meant to express, I was not disposetl tenaciously to insist upon retaining them. And I do now believe that if this trial had proceeded in a reirular manner, 1 could have been content to let the matter die h(.'re : for I had formed the purpose not tu appeal fr.)ni your deci- sion, unb.'ss a course should have been pursued which I (leeitH'.d unjust in itsell and injurious to me. When I came to this place it was in the full i;xpectation that the cause would come on. I hat! not heard any thing of a purpose lo arrest its progress by withholding the Eresbyterial documents. iSuch a thing had never een uitimated to me, nor had I once thought of it. Yet I do not say that were the case tliat ol another, and not my ovvn, 1 sliould not have jjone with my presbytery. I have no doubt whatever, that they are perfectly conscientious in what they have done. But it was a matter in which I look no part. I neither advocated the measure, nor did I vote on either side. My brethren have -acted according to their viewolthe case, and liave acted conscienciously. It is highly nrobd)ie that, had 1 been similarly situated, I shoula have done the same. The question I have now to decide is wheiher justice can be done lo this whole business by my standing here and making my defence in a way that appears to nie altogether illegal and again.-3t the constitution ot our church ? Is it proper that [ should proceed and go over all the documents connected with the trial, when an essential leature in the process is wanting, ami must so appear, to any court in the world? I am not afraid of atrial. I have been always willing to be tried, cither before the General Assembly, or before any presbv tery yoa can form in the city of Philadelphia. II you order the matter to he taken up de novo, 1 will explain every thing fully and honestly, with ii deep sense of my re- eponsibility as a presbyterian minister. I have no thought of disclaiming that responsibility. I say, here, that at m,y ordination I received the Confession ol Faith and Form of Church Government as my rule, and to continue lo be my rule, so long as I con- tinue to be a presbyterian. I am willing to submit to 68 TRIAL OF the judjfment of my co-presby!ers : and no man can lay Ilia Silver on a single point of lime durinsr all the •tru^ijles ot ilie last five years when I called in ques- tion the right ul' synod or |)re^byle^y to try me or my writings in a proper and a regular nianiier. But in tiiis case the records are not in the Hou>e, and the constitution is explicit in rociuiring them to be pro- duced and re id. Its language is, " In faking up an appeal, after ascertaining tliat the appellant on hie part has conducted it regularly, tliejffra^ step shall be to read the sentence appealed from: secondly loread the reasons which were assigned by the appellant lor his appeal, and which are on record : thirdly to read THE WHOLE KtcoRD of llic proceecliiis^s of the inferior judicatory in the case, including all the testimony, and the reasons of their decision." Yet tlie sjnocl has decided to proceed in the trial without this re- cord. But, supposing the first step should be want- ing, and I lie svnod had no copy of the sentence ap- pealed from, could the trial proceed ? Or sup.-ose the second step is in liUc manner deficient, would it be right to proceed ? And can it be right to adjudi- cate on a question involving the character, opinions, and ecclesiastical standing, the rank and intluence, and usefulness of a chr'stian minister, without liie record of the proceedings in the court appealed I'rom, when the voice of the whole Presbyterian cliurch has said tiiat that record sliall be present and shall be read and considered ? As to what autheniic records are r.one can doubt. The coiisiitution has said that they must be record? certified by the moderator or clerk of the judicatory whose records they are. There is not the slightest hint about a record's beini? authen- ticated by oral testimony. The idea is wholly new. There is no authority which will allow a court to take one half of a record, or less, and decide upon that as if thtJty had the whole, and on such grounds to jeopard the liappiness, and character, the pe.ace and useful- ness of a brother in the ministry. I therefore pre- sume that the records of the court below form a ma- terial link in the chain of orderly proceeding, and are not to be dispensed with. You Siiy that by t leir ab- aence tiie cause oft he appellee will not he jeoparded j but is tiiis presumed ? or is it not rather in all cases to be presumed that the records of the court below are material to his cause? I believe such of my fa- thers here present as have stu diiorJerly. which Ironi my heart and soul i l)elieve, — and 1 am i '(pared, now, at once, to cut oil the Presi)yiery. Here are lour courses we may adopt. We n)ay dissolve the Presbytery, and if they refuse to fiive us up their books, we can cut them oH : or we may proceed against ilieni fur contu- macy : or we may drop (lie whole business. I am ready for eiiher ol these c urses, if peace and right- eousness require it at our liatids. 1 repeat ii — I am ready lo cut oil the Presbyiery ai once. 1 renounce them. I disclaim then), i disclaim them, not merely ns ministers arid as brethren, but 1 disclaim them as men. Dk. JirwKiN. The appellant has some ri'.'hts here, and I presume that these are cliicHy lo be rc^prdeu I will reaii ilie rule laid down in our Book ot' Disci- pline, chap. 9, sec. 6. ' Ol New I tsiiiiiony.' "Cases may arise, however, in wliicli ihe judiciary appealed hum, and the appellant, may contur in r; qufsniig the superior juciieatury to takf up and issue the .■ pi" al, vviih the addiional light which the new evi- dence may nffird. In this case, and especially it very seri- ous injury is likely to happ-n, eiiiier to the appellaiii, or to the church, ly the dehiy which a new trial would occasion, the superi ir jiidiratory may proceed to hear the nf^w testimo- ny, and to issue the apjiea', with ihe aid ol the additional light wliich thai ictetimony u.uy affard." The oidy bcarir.fi: of this ciiaptcr 'on New Testi- mony' upon il'e present case is created by the conduct oJ the Asscmlily's 2d Presbytery. Tlieir course in wiihholdiiii: the records h.is retidered it necessary lo authenticate iliese documents. Under these circum- stances the plain cour.-e lor the Synod is (o yo on and issue the case t»elure ii. All the testimony is here. There is none lackinir. The whole tes' iinony I adduce is Mr. Barnes' own language. : thai is all I plead : that is all you want : and this can be read out of his book. When that book is read you have al Mil. BARNES. 71 ihe lestimony in the case. I cannot see how your proceeding without these records ciui work Uie least possible injustice to :lie party accused. You have his own words : and what more do you need ? Thi next step, therelore, is to show that this is the earrte f)aper which was read bel'ore the Presbytery, it is iterally the same identical piece ol paper wliich I used bel'ire the court below. Moderator. It should first be decided whether the paper oti'ered by Mr. Barnes constitutes a bar to our farther proceeding in tlie case. Dr. CiJYLiiJR. I deeply regret I lie necessity which induces nie to make the motion 1 am about to oH'er. There is a proverb among the JSpaniards ol which I am forcibly reminded by Mr. Barnes' present situa- tion: " Save melrom my friends, and 1 will take care of my enemies." 1 yould have wished that the whole case had taken a ditlerenl attitude from the begin- ning. But, notwithstanding these regrets, and what- ever our personal feelings may be, we have a Juty to perform: and we are not to be arrested or thwarted in renderi.ig righteous judgment in the premises. I move you that Jie Synod now proceed with the trial. MaoERATOR. There i.s no need oi" a motion to that eft'ect, provided the paper put in by Mr. Barnes is not a bar to our farther proceedings. Mr. M'Calla. If we adopT the motion that will prove that it is no bar. Mr. Wynkoop. The best way for us to pursue is, first to make an extreme elfort to obtain the records and testimony from the Presbytery. 1 move you to BUSjjend the course of the trial for the i)urpose of taking up and considering the following resolution. Resolved, That the Assembly's 2d Presbyiery be, and the same hereby is dissolved : and that tlie staled clerk of the same be required torihwith to lay the records of that Presby- tery on the table of the Synod. Moderator. Is the motion of Dr. Cuyler seconded ? Tlie motion being seconded, The moderator pronounced the motion to postpone to be in order: and the question being now on post- ponement, Dr. Cuyler. I as deeply regret the motion now submitted, as I did the neces.^ity lo present my own. I do not yet believe that we are arrived at the ex- treme point to vvliich that motion refers. I would first try every thing in our power to issue this case on its merits : but I am ready at the proper time to adopt the measure now proposed, should every other course fail us. To adopt it m the present state ol the business would throw this assembly into great agita- tionn; or do I believe that we are at present in a state of mind to judge with calmness on the expediency of Buch a course. 1 could wish it let alone. 1 could 72 TRIAL OF wish every thing let alone which wouKI be done in haste, and es|)ecially with feelinj^s which may here- rJ'ier cost us regret. 1 hope die motion will nwt be prc!?5?ed. Mr. VV'ynkoop. I will not persist in urging the mea.?ure : hut let me explain why 1 introduced the motion. My only design was to get the records which are withheld from us. I proposed the dissolution of the Preshytery only as a means to that end. I still hope we shall ohtam ihem. I liope we shall io far- ther in demaiRJing ihcni — and 1 am prepared to go on and cut iIk' IVesloyiery oll'ifthey refuse to deliver them. 1 withdraw tjie resolution I offered. MoDEHATOH. Tlic question now is on Dr. Cuyler'fl motion thnt i^ynod proceed in issuing this appeal. Are you ready for that motion ? Dr. McDowell. i\ot yet. I presume the trial will proceed as oi course, unless our course is arrest- ed. Dr. CuYLER. Let me explain. The Moderator desired lo know what was to be done, and whether the paper jnil in hy Mr. Barnes was a bar to our lar- ther [ rocecdiiigs. 1 made my motion with a view to obviate all doubt, and as declarative of our determi- nation to proceed. Dr. McDowell. I am not prepared to oppose the motion. My original wish was to have the whole case referred at once to the Assembly, because 1 be- lieved that ii would be as speedy u way of disposing of it as to decide It here. 1 thought wc should ap- pear better before the Asseujbly, by adopting such a cour.?e. But 1 do not oli'er that moiion now. We are under great excitement: and in such a solemn business, att'.cting so deeply the standing of a bro- ther who has certainly treated iliis Synod witfi great decorum and respect, I think it will be better that wc do nothing to-nighl : nor, indeed, that we do any thing at any time while we remain in our present Biate ol t'eeling. 1 wis.'i firllier ti;ne to consult and ascertain whether we cannot yet fail upon some plan to relieve us. Dr. Catucart here moved an adjournment. Dr. Cuyle;{. I am not conscious of being under any excitement: but if the Synod resolve lo adjourn, after such a course of remark, it would be best, be- fore they do so, to ai>|)oint a connnittee lo consider and report on the proper course to be jjursned. Dr.CATHCART withdrew his inoion to adjourn. Dr. McDowell. 1 move you the appointment of a committee. Moderator. You must first postpone the trial, then. Dr. McDowell. A motion to commit is certairily Id order. MR. BARNE9. 73 Mr. McCalla. There arc isumc men who appear not to be suHiciently arqLi.iiiileJ witli human nature to give us at all timet; ^oocl advice. What conceiva- ble neud can there t)e ol putiiui? oti'thi.s bu>irie>s utitil to-morrow ? iShall we by that nifaiis eet cle ir of the excitement which seems to alarm tiie go.)d bro- ther ? For my part, I have been iookinjj about in all directions to see the excitement he talks about, but I can see none. Every body around me Hcems to be very composed — entirely iii their rig;ht mind. Mode- rator, it puts me in miad ol' tiie case urtlie ladv on wJiom her Iriends resolved to m ike a medical experi- ment. Every one that met her told her she was very ill, and y.dvised her to go home instantly, an i e nd for a physician; and tlie tale was so often re|)eaied, that at length it became true, and the lady took to her bed iti ijood enrnest. It was ))erfecily natural. Let a man tell you that he will not talk witiiyou now, you are too aiiirry : is there any thiiisi in the world more exciting^ So an assembly may be warned against excitement, until they become i erfecily luri- ous. And besides: if you do pui, the business off, will you in that way get rid of exciieiuent '? Not at all. You are quite as likely to increase it. Moderator. I am opposed to all such remarks as rpHp.ct upon the Synod. To say that this body is not in a state of mind" to act on tlie bu.-incas b.-(ore it, is libellous : ihe Synod is al le and ready to act. A*!^. Ca3sat. 1 hope th.-re will be no premature r CO nmitment ofoursel e-. Dr. McDo a en seems to ihmk tual tae liouse is uiid-r such a vi(deni slate of excitement, thai we need both to sleep and to pray, before we are tit. to do business. Now, to pray, 1 ad- mit, is pro|)er at all times: i>ut 1 leel no such excite- ment as demands sleep to allay it. 1 hive lived loiig,^ and been conversant for manv years with business of both a civil and ecclesidsticaT kind, and the result of my experience and observation is this: th.it the best way to get out of a dilficulty, is to iio strait forward. Sh.-ill the paper which Mr. Barnes has put in arrest us in our course? The book provides for such a case : and I, for one, am in no wise afraid to pi oceed. I believe that honesty is aUvays the br;si policy. This thing of stopping, and pausing, and loi)litiir rmndfor a way to get out of dilticulties, is one of the bi st ex- pedients to get farther into them. Let the world see you are honest and resolute, and it will do more for you than all the consultation and hesitation you can adopt. Dr. J. Breckinridge. While I have been inclined to think that the excitement my b.-other speaks about is not all that it is fancied to be, yet theie is certain- ly some reason for believing that much e.xciteuieat 74 TRIAL OF does rxist. From the sounds wp. lately heard in this ^lace, Kjunds vvhit no question was taken. Moderator. That is now the quet^tion belbre Sy- nod. Dr. McDowell. I do not wish to fnsist upon my motion. I withdraw the motion. Moderator. Then the question is now on Dr. Green's motion, that the paper presented by Mr. Barnes is no bar to our proceeding with the trial. Dr- Green was ordered to draw up reasons for that judg- ment. Dr. McDowell. This paper is, in my view, a very serious bar in our way : so much so that, according to my apprehension of the matter, we cannot procee. I hope it will be entered. Mr. GiLBiuiT. I move that it be recorded. Mr. R. IvRi'CKLNRiDGi:;. It is obvious tiiat there is a settled design here to consume our lime. Mr. GiLHKRT. Our book says that "all persons who have submitted to a regular trial in an inlerior, may appeal to a higher judicatory." The question being ])ut on recording Mr. Barnes' notice ol appeal, the rnoutrator pronounced it to bo decided in tiie negative. A division of the liouse was called for by several members. Mr. II. Breckinridge. I wish the Moderator to de- cide whether Mr. Barnes was not disorderly in giving llie noiice as he did. MooEUAToH. i think it was an improper time to give such notice. Dr. M'DowELi.. Vv''e have just now voted the pi -a he put in to be no har to our proccf'ding with. ^ iQ trial: and he now appeals from that decision, MR. BARNES. 81 Moderator. At every five minutes of our pro- ceedingrs puch an appeal may be put in. Mr. M'Cali.a. a eynod in Scotland would have deposed Mr. Barnes the moment he declined siihmit- lintj to il(« authority. How will it look if we allow him the right of appealing at every fctep of our pro- ceedinjr ? Dr. JuNKiN. If my friends here will allow me, I can sro on. But they jump and f?eize at every bait which is thrown out for delay. 1 beseech them to po on. There is no n(HMl, when we have ninety-nine of a majority to be answering every little quibble that is rMir-ed. MoDKRATOii. The appellant will proceed with the tepf imony. The clerk now read the letter of Dr. Junkin to the Assembly's 2d Presbytery. Dr. JuNKiN. I now oiler two letters which aro to Btrerii^lheii the case by fiirtiier showing my ellbrls to orocure le^^il evidrnce lo lay helbre thi* SvnoJ. I wrote to the stated clerk of the 2 I Presbytery, and asked him to give me a certified copy of a pirt of the proc«'e(iings. I have hi-te his answer to that letter. It is impDcianr, because it shr contain the whole ofthe te-timuny adduced bclbre the presbytery aa taken by the clerk ? Mr. Steele. I was not clerk of presbytery and do not know what the clerk put down. I saw this vyrit- ing. There are some additional niiirk? in the linal part of it which 1 saw written : and 1 find ibem here on this paper. A close e.Kamination convinces mo that it is tl>e same. Mr. R. Breckinridge. Was there ofTered upon the trial any other testimony which you know or ever heard of? Mr. Steele. Not by the prosecutor. Mr. R. Breckinridge. VVas there by any other person ? Mr. Steele. I do not recollect whether there was any olfered by the accu.?e'l: tiiere may have boen portions I'rorn his book, but 1 ilo not recollect. Dr. JuNKiN'. The witness is mine. I have ihc privilege ot asking him queslions. In conducting a trial, lej^tiiiiony, il 1 und^r.^land it, i>! always taken before the parlies argue the c ise. When they begin their argument, Ihe implicatioii is that the evidence is done: that it is clo.-cd. If 1 rciid from a book it is part of my argument ; it is not topiimony. The whole of Mr. Barnes's argument was inid on the titble of (►resltyiery asadocument : 1 asked for Ihe s^amejirivi- ege. and it was rifusKl. Mr. Barnes did reltr !> his book; but he offered no more le.^timony. Many parts ofliie i)ook itself were read ; but not a> testimony. I now ask Ihe witness whelln r any ihiirg elt^e wus of- lered its irstimony before Ihe aryuing of ifie ciiuse? I admit that iVIr. Bai nesdid read out of his book with MU. BARNES. 83 n view lo shew that 1 inieunderstoou ihe passaj^co quoted by me. Dr. JuNKiN. Were you present during the taking of the tesliiiiony before :he i)resbytcry7 Mr. Steklk. I think I was, durinjjthc whole time. Dr.JuNKiN. Did Mr. Barnes oli'er, as tefitiniony, prior to the opening of the argument by the j>arliep, unv testimony whatever ? Mr. Steele. If my recollection eerves me, Mr. Barnes always read a pas.-?sge from his book in an- swer to the pas.-agcs cited by Dr. JunUin under each charge, and commented on them at the time. I'hia I eui)pose he adduced as rebutthig testimony. But whether the court so considered it or not 1 do not know. I give merely my own individual 6uppo«;ition. I ask leave to remark here, as a reason wiiy 1 euj)- pose ihis, that the trial before presbytery was con- ducted in tliis manner. First the prosecutor read a passage trnni Mr. Barnes's book. Then the prosecu- tor w, IS heard in support of that charge. Then, when he had hnishcd his remark?, (he accused was heard in re()ly, when he first read passages out of his book and then commented upon liiem. Dr. JUiNKiN now read the rule in reference to tho recording of testimony, from the Book of Discipline, cliap. vi. sec. 10. "Every qnpstion put to a witness sliall, if required, be re- duced to v.iidng. When answered, it shall, together with the answer, I'c recorded, if deemed by either parly of suffi- cient iiiiporiance." Mr. Bark. I insist that ail that is said by the wit- ness sliall t)e taken down, if any member of the court shall desire it. Mr. R. Breckinridge. The meaning of the rule is evidently itiis, that even if the court shall not deem a thing said of suliicient importance to be recorded. Btill, ifeiiher of the parties shall think it so, i: shall be taken down. Of course any member of the court can have it done at pleasure. Moderator. Any part ol the testimony may he re- duced to writing, if any member of tlie court or either of the parlies shall desire it. Mr. Steele then repeated his last answer, and it was t iktMi down by the clerk. Dr..lu.\KiN. Was the whole of ihe testimony read in the lirsi |)lace, and iifierwards read in detail? Mr. SrEELE. 1 tliink it was. Dr. Ju.vKiN. Did Mr. Barnes bring any witness into court llir examiiuision/ or any documentary evi- dence of any kind ? Mr. Steele. I have no recirlleclion of any person'* being i.iiroduced as a witness by eiiher parly ; nor of any d )cu.iie itary evidence bring adducey Dr. JuiiUiii. It Mr. iiarnes read at any lime the same pu.-sij^es i'roni iiis book which Dr. Juiikin re;id, ihen this conlains a part of what Mr. [jrime-s read : if not, then it conuiins no- thinir of what he read. Mr. Campbkll. Do you know that this documct>t coma ins Ler) ony reliuiiinjr lesiimony Irom the eame book iu fore i is iri^umcnt in reply ? Mr. Sri-Ei.E. He ilnl. Mr. IIaimner. Did Dr. Junkin produce before the Presbytery .uiy oMier Le.-iinioiw. tiocnm niary or otherwise, iliiii i- found in Mr. iJarnes's book ? Mr. Steele. Dr. Juokin slated in his teller to the Presiiyifiy ihai he li.ul no oUmt wiiness to adduce than 'ln' book iisi If: and that Mr. Birne.s' notes on the Romans weic the vviinesses lo wiiom he would appeal ill snppori of his cliar^^e.-. Bui in his pleadings refen nee w.i.- i.l'teii I. ad to oilier auiliorilits. I add, in answer to Mr. M'Caihi, that iu introducin;; the W'l '' '"''" ^'"■" '' -tv 1>C ^ ?^,.J.J'- MR. BARNHS. 85 evidence, rcmarlct; iiii<^hl have been iiiiulo. prcvioue to !l:e reading of passci;iefc- by bolli or eillier ol tbc )mr- lics: but, 111 ,2;eiic'i ill, i)Js«Li<;e-i Ironi llie book \vcrc roaeiiig read in defence by any one but by Mr. Barnes himself, and that was read by him either belbre, or at the introduciion of his argument. Mr. Barr. Do you certainly know that this paper contains nothing but the testimony adduced by l)r. Junkin in the trial ? Mr. Stgele. Dr. Junkin has already stated to Sy- nod that he has interleaved the notes of his argu- ments with the pages of Mr. Barnes' book: but the document containing the testimony is regularly paged without noticing the printed pages interleaved. Mr. R. Breckinridge. Tliis witness was introdu-' ced to autheniicale this record, and ibr that purpose only. He has done that, and I think gentlemen ouehc to be satisfied. Mr. Hamner. The nnsw.T of the last question do38 not meet the question. Does the witness know certainly that in the numbered pag' s of this manu- script there is nothing but whatDr. Junkin introduced ua testicnony on the trial below 1 {We are bound, a^ a court to look for every particle of light we caa obtain.) Mr. Steele. I have already elatc!y avoid any proceeJure that might, in any degree, do injustice to Mr. Darnes, y;?t, in as much as the Sj riod have in their possession, verified an oath, a correct copy of the charges preferred against Mr. Barnes before the (Assembly's) Sf cond Presbytery of Phil.idelphia, and the decision of said Presbytery thereon, acquitting Mr. Barnes : and in as much as the Constitution of the church, in a fair construction of its provisions and spirit, does make provision for proceedmgs in a trial, in which, as in the case now before the Synod, ihe usual documentary evidence cannot be obtained : — and in as much as the admission of the validity of Mr. Barnes dcclina- isre of a defence, in the circiMiiSianccs in which he is placed, would be to perini' him to avail himself of a wrong done by the Presbytery of which he is a member: and in as much, finally, as this Synod entertain a solemn conviction that the purity and peace of the church are deeply involved in as speedy a decision of the case before thetn as can be made, in consistency with justice and equity : therefore, the Synod feel constrained to reg.ird tiie stTteriienl and paper submitted to this Judicatory by Mr. Barnes as formikg no bah to the continuance of the process already commenced in his case: and thai said process be accordingly continued to its legiti- mate issue." The report was accepted. The Synod then took a recess. After recess, the examinatioQ of Mr. Steele wae resumed. Q,aeBtion by Mr. McRsa. Were the passages ol 88 TRIAL OF Mr. Barnes' book, wliich Dr. Junkiii rcfttrred aa^ evidence in support ol" his cluufrcs, road by or »' the Presbytery before the arjrunient was cnlered upon? Mr. Steelk. I have already stated the order of proceedinjT. The vvliole oCtlie evidence was read in the first place, ai;d bciii.T read, 1 take it lor granlt-d it was read by autlioniy, or by permission of the Court ; but by which, I do not know. Mr. VViNcuESTKu. Wart there at)y other evidence adddced by either parly ia the cause, except the book of Mr. Barnes on the llon)ansf ? Mr. Steele. I do not recollect any. Mr. PicKANOs. Did the Presbytery order their clerk to take a copy ot' this evidence, or procure a copy to be put on their filet^? Mr. S fEELE. I preter to give tlie answer to a ques- tion put by Mr. Gibson. Mr. PicKANDS. That answer is not satisfactory, I ask whether Presbytery ordered a copy to be taken of this evidence? Mr. Steele. I do not recollect such an order : but. I recollect the conversation that passed, and theotleT made by Dr. Juukin to lay the evidence on the table lor tlie use of the clerk; and I saw him do so. Mr. Pekkins. W'ho read this testimony before tbe Presbytery ? Mr. Steele. I cannot answer certainly: though it strikes me at present that in consequence of tiie peculiarity of tlie liand-writinpr, Dr. Juukin read it by .permi.-sion. Dr. JuNKiN. Was it by permission, or by request? [No answer was given to this quesiiun.J Mr. PicKANDs. Was Dr. Junkin directed, or re- ■quested to read this testiiiiony ? 1 wish the witness to give a straight-lbrward answer. Mr. R. BuEcKLNRiDGE. 1 hupo the Moderator will Erotect the witness, and not permit such language to e used. Mr. Steele. I believe he was requested to read it, either by the Presbytery, or by the clerk. Mr. Blythe. The Bonk of Discipline requires of you that " VVirnessej shall be e.xanuned (irst by the party introducing them : tiien cross-examined by the opposite party: alter which any member of the judi- ca(ory, or either p.irty may put additional interrogato- ries." It also declares that " The second citation to an accused person or a witness ought always to be accompanied with a notice that if the person ciled do not appear at tiie time appoinled, the judicatory, besides censuring him for his contumacy, will, after assigning some person lo manage fits dtfence, pro^ ceeu to lake tlie leslimony in his case as if he was present." 1 move you that, ia confoiniiiy with this MR. BARNES. 89 rtlle, somp porcon be nppoinlKl lo manage llie de- fence (if ilie :trciiP»'«l. iiiul tliiit FH< h i erKcn bf allow- ed to txnniiie ilie \\iti;»'frs on luh;ill oj Mr. 13iirrieH Mr. Oi.MsiEAD. The howK peniiiu tliio only where the HcciutHl li-els iini>ble lo pie. ii hi* own i :mse : and iht'ii it inu.-t l>edon»' ui his I t(i lest. "" No proU'Ks-ional counsel isliill he perinined i« appear and plead in ratses of procese in any of oin* et-clei-iac-iica! eoiiriK. Bui if any acctie-ed p« rson feel unable, lo repietent Hiul plead his own cause lo advaiiia:ie, he may re- quest any ininisiiT or elder, beluntjins lo the judica- tory l)elore which he appeal k, lo prepare and exhibit his ciiu«e as he may jud^je pr-'per. Lrmahiies as if be were presenl and answered. All advoc.aie is appointed f.)r him, and the trial ihen f^oes on. Now solar as this niiy be pr.ciicable in llie presenl. care I am lor h.ivm^ 't done. I wish to do every ihin'' that vve can tlo, lo prevent lufnre cavil. 1 woulu do all that jjsiice, liial equity, and 8 90 TRIAL OF even that formality can require at our liand^. I hope th.ii ill ^'•) lie way ive islmll get a resHoiident. Mr. M'Calla. When the accused is prei-ent and rel'ust'p to plead, this course is purtueii, but not when he is ab-ent. Mr. Olmjiead. The accused may complain if an advocate is asoi^jcncd him who is not as able as him- self. Mr. AIuscRAVE. In the At^sembly this is done : and I wi.vli it ilone here : especinliy as tome m(-ml>er? uH' derstiand ilie hook as requirin*; it. 1 wigli it e?p» cial- ]y with a view to public senliriienf. We have under- t.ikeii to try ttiis cause williout h.iviriij; the docuiMcnta of ihc court appealed from. This alone will operate as a j^real disiuivarilage to tis. so far as popular im- pre.-sions abroad are «ronceriied : ami now, if we pro- ceed uitli liie examinaiion of witnesFes wiilioul any one to croi^sexamine on Mr. Barnes' beliall, the {ge- neral 0|)ini>)n of our proceediajTs will be that they have bt-en wholly t^x parte, 'i'he moral ellert will be priKJi^'iou.-ly injurious to Ut-. To {ruard airaiust pucii c>iMt:equences, it is due to ourselves lo niakeihe appoiiitnieiu proposed. ftlr. M Kinney olfercd a resolution for the nppoint- menl ol an advocate to manajje the cause on the be- half of liif accused. Mr. WiNCiiKbTf.R. The book, in the very clause referreil lo, n quires the secontauces the trial uu^ht not to proceed : and [ belij/e thu SynoJ wi 1 fiid it sj when t leir aciscome before the public and before the General A.«senibl> — ([and there you are ^oin^.) I ani iiere constituted a judse : would it be coneisttnf, in me to become the advt)rate of Mr. Barnes ? 1 disclaim all piny leel- insr in the businest;. 1 utterly diea\o.v ail identity wi'h any p; riy. 1 am no party man; never was: and I hope never shall be. Mouekatok. I have permitted these remarks, be- cause the sugi;;esiion seemed intended :is a sarcasm. They are not strictly in order. Mr. McCalla. Is tnero to be no end to these no- minatiotis ? 92 TRIAL OF Moderator. I will try again. I nominitte Mr. De Witt. Mr. Ue Wilt tlcrlineiJ. Mdderatoh. I nominate. Mr. Campbell. ]\lr. Uuin|)lull «iesnM'(l to l)f exivitjfd. Mr. \Vi\c"K«ri:(t. As ilie MudiTaior has now ful- filled the dniy ii.^siiriM «i liiiii, wiihoiil eucce&p, 1 move that the I rial procetd. MoDKRAiuii. Is [Uere ovy moniber of llit- Synod who if; willing to endLrlake liic duly of an advuculo ior I lie d< If lice ' No risjjoiisfe being given, it was resolved to pro* ce- (I. Dr. J. BtiKCKiNRinGF.. You have now derided the princijde ilial ii legul.ir part ofyour prixretliiii^s if to Mpi)oi. It an advocate for llie defence. Now it this ij a necessary fie|)in tlie proi^rts.-^ «.|'ihe caut-e. aril nc advocate can be got to .^erve. djes not ihat faCi. a courpe, arret^i >onr pr(lg^^•s^ ? I lutve thought it wrong from iiie lir-giiuiia^ iliiil you shonKl pri»ceeii vviilioi.it the j)roper ilociiiiH-iils from ihe Ple^t'yl^ ry : but I bowed to llie e,\p.ee;std v\ill of the judicatory. You now occupy a singular poi-iiion. Anil iluTemay be iioou rcagon why ) h d to be- lieve that il he did undfriake Iht- d.feiicL', he would e.nier iiiio u moie warmly iluiii any other member of Synod. Mr. MiKiNNKV. I ihink since none will volunteer, we ou;ihl lu a.-sign fcome memiter to the duly ol ad- vocate. Moderator. The Chair has given a free permis- sion to any member to come forward and uiuieriako the task : he could do no more, unless he should go about anil beg. Mr. Bly I hi:. I doubt, for my own pavt, whether if the ju.hcaiory appoinifi a mftiiber, lie has a riiflit to reUise lo serve, even ahnuugh his o[»iiuoiis may lead him lo take ihe other side. I do beljive we can- not constitutionally go on with the cuuec without eucii an appointment. MoDERATuR. I appoint brother Bly the. f.-i laugh.) Mr. Bi.v rut:. Moder.itor, I Hf\i, alter one has been appoint) d and ha.< U d Iciue to declinu, whelher I um not entitled to decline ali-o? [ iiuch hui^itier ] I Buppoee a lueuibet can be conii»».lltd lo serve : but if MR. BARNES. 93 one is allowed to excuse himaelf, another may claim the same privil«'{i^e. [lauslJter.J Dr. Neill. Thmi^h none 18 more inciintd to do JHftice to Mr. Barnt- s than I am, yei I am not re«iuir- ed to do more. I think we have done all we can in this matter. It wii.'s ordered that the trial do proceed. Dr. JuNKiN. Is tlie court satisfied ofihe authenti- city of the paper I am abuut to read? Has it been suflicienily proved? Mr. R. BKECKiNmoGE. I move that it is the judg- ment of the Synod that the ducufneni has been 6um- cienliy aathentioated, and that it he now read, Mr. Wi.\CHES"ER. i hope that ifie etlortol ilie Sy- nod to obtain an advocate lor the deleuce will be en- tered on our records. — It was so ordered. Mr, Kamner. I wish that the pai)er be authenti- catezen more witncssea to prove it. Why then con- vert our Moderator into a wimess in the cause? Mr. J. Latta. Let the Moderator put the ques- tion, and ascertain whether the minds of Synod are not suiii^fied. Moderator. That question has been propounded, and one member expressed a wish for farther teeti- mony. Mr. J. Latta. Well then, I move that the Synod is satislied that the document is authentic. Mr. Haimnek. Our book says that more than one witness shall be brought to substantiate every point. D 94 TRIAL OF We. are liiyins tlic piilistrnitim of tlie whole raasej and ran you rtru>e ilie cali Tor nddiiioniil leptiiiiuny, when you txact more ilmn i>w: wifrii-ss for llie i»ub- BtJituiitlioii <>l u;ic,li item of I he rliar^re? MoDKRAToH. 1 h:we iio (ibjeciioii to ite exiin)iried if it is r( quired. 1 can only eorrohorute what lmt> been aheady ^^.1led. Mr. D.AvrK. One good witnees lor the purpose of RullieniHuiui!; a piper is as j^ood as a ihouH.ind. But il you wisii iliu Moderalur e.xainined, he if jutt aa good a vviine8.~! as any other nieniher oriiie body. The (piestion w.ik now put on rti eivingr ihe paper as auihentie, ami earned So the copy ol' ilie le^ti- niony prodiicetl i»y Dr. Jnnkin wae receivtd as au- Ihemic by tlie 8ynod, and wa.s ihereupun ordered lo be re ul. Dr. Junkin read it a odiou^: l)e(ause it too often happens that in eucii a case tiiere is a mixture ol unkind personal feel- injr which secretly prompts the procet diiiL', or at least irl^inuates itself amoiiif the motives wliich lead to it. I wish to read this leiler, that 1 may show the real spirit and design with which Lliid matter was ua* derlaken. Uc. J. then read the letter. Mil. BARNES. 95 [Fop this document, see Appendix, p. 4 ] To tliit; li'ller 1 rcccivi d llie I'ollowini; r« fily : Philadelphia, Maich 18, 1935. Rev. Sir— Yi>Mr letter c iiiic t > inn I t. - \i\y. In reynr-l to the '■ po'iiilalfs" wliicli )i)ii liave Mihinitied tn niv aiitution in your leiies I ri'ina.k, that the Noiea on the Kuinnnsj ars my (irudiictiuri, and llml I trust I sha.l never 'O tar forcet niyst-lf. a.>< to pui any one i<> ilie " trouble ofprovin.: ir." On those Notes I have bisiowid many no anxious, a prayerful, Bnd a phaaant hour. 'I'hi-y aru the result ui niueli deliberate attention, and of all the researen which my circuinstancei anil my time permiaed. 1 c.jminenced and looiiniied them, will) Ihe humble l.-o])e o. exundini; in> n-efuliasii beyond tho iMimcdia'e .*ptiete 't. 1 iiave never hien si vain ad to think tnat, in >hee.\pu!i' ti :all]r diffi all— so prolbund— fo oiten the s-ulj-'cc oi comni.ntarf aid conlfover.-y, vty woik was inl'aliiole: or that there might not bj room tor lU'iCh honest difference --f opinio i and exposiiion. Nor can 1 conceive of any such stubborn attach- nieiit lo my own viuw* there express d, us to be unwilling to be convinced ol iheir error, if they .ire meorrtci, or lo retract them, if 1 dm convinced ^li iheir eiror. Whether the act of charginjt a imnisitr with heitey; of arrai^ni/j^ liim for a hwli c■^^/nfi— vviiliout a liiendly note, without u enri:siian in- terview, witlioiit any attempt to cc»/.ri;ice of erroneous inter- preintioii— be the si-iipiuie mode, or most likely to secure the desired end, belongs lo others, not to me, to deicriiiine. 1 wuuld jnsi say, that 7 have not 80 learnt d Maiihew xviii. 15—17. 1 have no reason to druid a trial, or its tesnir. I mom n only that ^'Ou/- lime, and mine, and that perhaps of Bonie hundreds oi others, should be taken liom ihcdireet woik of saving men, and wasted in irritaiin^i strifes and con- tentions. O.I others, li0»ve?er, not un myself, will be the ro- Bpon^ibility. In iej»ard 10 the "postulate" in your letter, that f would waive the constitutional rii;ht of ten days, &c. I have only to Say, that it any man fee s it hi-< duty to arraiun mo ■ tfore my Presbytery, J presume it will he best, in the end, and most sjlistactoiy lo all parties co.icerned, that ihe principles and ru es 01 the Book of D.s.-ipiine be formally adhertd to, and that it is not my purpos- ti) make any further concession. 1 am, «&c. Alczkt Babnes. Rev. Giorge Junkin, D. L). Moderator. What notice is to be taken of these pa pert! ? l)r. CuYLER. I understand this as forming a part of ihf It Slim- ny. MonERATOR. Let it lie recorded in the minutes, tliat ii letter iVom Mr. Barnes, admitting hinl!^i-lf to be the. author of the Notes on the Koiuuns, was pro- duced and read. 96 TRIAL OF The next slf p is lo hear the orij^inal parties. [Sjiioil lore look si rt'cees.J AlitT iffi pp, Syn; d iif^mn met. MoutRATOR Are ihe ori^inul parties in this caueo both It H V lo be lieiinl / Dr. JiiNKiN. The Hppel!;int is rcndy. MoDi.RAioR. If5 llie aj pellee ready ? (No ;iiis.\er heiiijf jiiven,) V\ ill SyiiOil i>.«ue u c.ilation for Mr. Barnes? Mr. V\ liNCHKSiEK. I move, ihai. lie he rited to ap- pc'ar. L»i him have a fair chance lor jusiice. Dr. M'Do\VKi.L 1 phould like pcaiie hrcthcr to f)oiiii out a claii>«! in our liook, which eiilier express- y, or by implicalion, avilhoriger bu« h a Ften at the present sia^re of the tiial, after llie accuecd liap put in hirf appeal and complaint to the General AKtembly. If it ip! in the huok, I ^lloul(l like lo know wliore. MoDK«ATi.:R. It is compcleiil lo the Synod lo issu9 a eiialion at :ny stage ('I'lhe trial. Dr. CiiYi.t'R. A ciiaMon is unnecessary, unless there be an express la w requirinff it. Mr. Barnes ha^ laid in a declaration, rejeciin^ the juri-^diclion of the court : a citation would ne wliolly useless. Dr. M'UowKi.u. 1 suppose the rcfrular course will be, lo hear the appellant lirst ; then, when iiC ia ihrouich, call on Mr. Barnes to rejily. If he is silent, you then proceed as il he had replied. MoniRATOR. The Moderator has thouglit if pro- per lo call on ihe jiarties to say if they are reat'y. Dr. GitFE.N. I sup|)ose we ai e to dispose ol llie sev- eral charj^t^s against Mr. Barnep. seiiulivi. When the appellant shall have jrone ihrou":!! his first charjre, the appellee is to have an opportunity to re- cpond ; and he must respond then, or never ; lor wo are lo vote on the charges in order, and say whether they have been su.-tait!t(l or not. 1 thtnk the most orderly course is lo tiie him. The book directs ir.at repeated citations should if^sue in similar cases: and if Mr. B irnes ilisolieys the citation, we have thea done what we could. Dr. Cathcart. Will our ritnf ion be constitutional, unless we allow him a certain lime ? Mr. Wynkoop. Sup|)ose he is not to be found? or thai he ide.ujjj that circumstances have detained him from anpearinii? ll )ou cite him, it will show that you admit a ciialioa to have been necessary ; aiid if BO, you should have cited, before you read the icsti- motiy. Di. M'DowELL. If this ci'atioa is intended fo pre- pare the way for dealing with Mr. Barnes as conlu macioiis, then here is a new crime charged, and he liae had no notice of ihe charge. You can'i tlo it : unless you allow him ten days on the first citation; and litis will be the first. You have as much right now lo go on, as you ever will have. MR. BARNK». 9T Mr. R. Breckinhidgi;. This motion i.-" not mine; nnd I liiiv«; liui III lit- \o s;iv iipun it. I am no'. YA'iWoun ill liivor oft tie ciiuiii)ii : nor hiii I o|)po^( d to it ; « iilier course v/iil Ix- orderly. We do ii>>i k ej) in mind the disliiielioii lori'ed on u^ liy tht; dith'cultit r- i\I.mIi liavo been c'lniiiioiilly llirown .urof^p i or palli. W e nayr hear Dr. Joiikin, and lie i;idill', by ifoing parijy by eominon sens^e and pirtly by leclinic.il rules, you will he sure to i;o wrong. Proceed either by the one, or ! y the otiu r ; but don't afienipt to mix iliem up togeih' ;. In ordinary eatee, ifii m in eoes lo an upriirht ma^ii^trate, who knows noihing ol the science ol law, he Jia.< a eood chance ot'ir»"tim:; lud case properly decided. But if he iretsa half bred couiiry lawyer, who makes a iirta di^^i lay ofle;ral nicelie.-;, he is hkfly to get the veiy worst decision the world can furnish. The hoiiesi magris- trale, with sucii Hgoid.-, is in a likey v\ay togetOQ out of 100 of his decif'.ions r« ver^ecl. Now in ti.ia case, wli.it says (H)inmoii seiiee? AVhy it ^ays, first hear one of tiie p.iriies, and tlien hear the ollii r; iitid then proceed to give judgment. P'irsi see il both par- lies are present: if one is not, then }ou can decide whether you will deal wiiii him. One thing is cer- tain : there is a setiled ileterminaiion in this body to dj souicthiiiic vviih mis case. I am ph-d^ed to settle it, in someway. I am ready to a< quicsce in either ot the various inethuds which have been proposed. I am wiMiM ; or \ou may proceed witii the cause and decide it, and then deal with him fur contumacy. Your n sources are al uiidant. Dr. M-D iwell asked for :i pass ige from our Look ; if he will turn to chip. iv. seclioiis 11 and 12, he will tind the following: " Although on the lirst citation, ih» 98 TaiAL OF ((prson cited thall d:T!;»re in writin?, or otherwise, lis fixt'tl ileiiTiiiinatioii nut to obt-y it; this derlara- lion f-hali ill IK) c.ti=c iiuliictj liit* juuitaiory (o deviate ji'Hii thf rt^gul ir (•(»iirf;c prosctrifud tor cilulions. Tlipy sli ill iirociH'tl ae if no siirli doclaraijoii had been made. Tlie jji-rson riled may altervvard alter liis nnnd. 12 Tlu* liinc vvhicli must claive between the first eiiaiinn of an accu.^ed jierson or of a wit- ness, and the m.ermij of the jndieatttry at which he is to appear, is at least ten days. Bn't the lime ai- lotle.l I'ur lii-j appearance on the .tiiljfi*ue a disurderly courpc, a fortiori, is ii riiiht to do ilu- i-ame in a liiriher Ptage ol'tlie prociedinj;s,alihouirli the acciif-td niiiihl have paid 1 hat he rijeeled lie aailnji iiv ol'lhe coui t. The reapori hokling. the rule holds, 'i'heoiher paFpage I read, direeis, ihtl tliouiih on the first ciiaiion the accused must have tendays, yet on ihe second, the time is Jell to llie disc.(eiit)n ol'the judicatory. 11" lie ehall b- now ciieil, tins |;art ol'lhu rule willa()ply: lor his fir^r ciiaii m issued loiifT since, in the court below. If Mr. Barnes i.-? in the loun, Synod can jud^-e about ihe leiiirih ol" tim it uill he proper to ailruv. Tlie due and iiecosary time is lor the court ta judge of. The exact meaning of the term " reu- «oM'//;/c"," .ts ai)p'ied to time, has never been settled by any court. Y-ai musi decide; that lor yourselves. The case s clear ai d open; aid it does appear to me that ike best course wdi be to let ihe caufeiro on. Hear Dr. Junliin: then Inar Mr. Barnes, or know certainly. alier a ciialion. that he will not a | pear. Then call ihe Pr«'f-b)leiy : hear it: or know certain- ly that ii will not comi-. Then appoint a committee to reporl lifresy. or no heresy : and then say what Bhall be done with Mr. Barnes. Then take U|» Mr. Barnes ami the Fresl)yierv for coiiiuinacy, and do what is rijhi niih boih. This seenie to me to be the pl.iin c uirsecd'your duly. MnnKRvr.H Tht- question i.^, shall Mr. Barnes nov/ be ci c I to appear? LT. J. ijKt,i;Ki.\iiH;Gf;. A brother has said that this is not liie I one fur a c.iiatloii : it appears to me that it in, and ih n the ciiation oui^ht to l^sue. 1 have huped against hnpc ihat brolher Barnes and the Pres- bytf-ry u ill both yiil.l to the ciiaiion oT this Synod. I think, in tlie mean whd.-. Dr. Junkin ought to be heard. You have taken your i/round; you have re- gulvcd :o proceed vviili the trial, and the ai>|f. callt'il on lo rccly. 'J'lie qiiesiioa <>ti t-iiiii:; Mr. Barnes was now put, and ;e, in onler / tir sliall ii. lie to llie whole? Dr. CuYLKR I tiiovo i\\i\i. Ur. Jiinkin he heard once in clncl : hut let the Synod, in dccidinjf, lake up the ch '.Pires sfiialim. J>r. Ju.NKiN s.iid lie liiid a pevere cold, and that a lahoriou-j .»nd eoniinned [jrofrresw thronjirh liie whole lijsf ol' c.n.ir^t;;?. vvithuui intervals ol r» st, would he iinpracti(;ahle. He said he yjiould lM terize tno>e who eomiuct these proceed ini2s. By such persons I hive oil en been niisunder.sttiod, and liave been s^^upposed to he speaking under ereat ex- citemeiil, and iVom a very bad i-lale oireelina', when, in truth, tin're was iioihin^ ol" it. Those wlio know nie, know that I am i i the habit ol Ihrowinjr much force into my voice wheiievir I speak in public, and lliat I always speak with mucli api)areiit leelinjr in my maimer: anil in truth I cannot bear to hear any man speak on a suhj-ci ol"j:reat in'riiu ic importance, and yet app.-ar to i.ike no i iterest in it. Ir is n t to be inlerreil. and I hope will not be. Ir^m the lad o( the speaker's raising his voice, and evincimr occa- sionally much warmth ol' manner, tha.. he is in a las- Biori. It' tucb an inlerence j-hall he drawn, if will be done very unjustly. 1 pray ihererore the Synod, il 100 TRIAL OF there plia'I appear any exriiompnt in my Hierufpion ol' ilitpe tliartjofs, lu coiit-ider iii> ix'ciili.ir hiiluiM hi d iraiiiiii^. L)r. Uanartiul I'liiaik-iphii*, ciuiliimfd me uii iliis ^ullJt•^•l. He lold me I had two voictr^ : one of them natural in lis time ; hiit tliat when 1 heeatiie exiMied, I hid aiioiher voice, whuh sometnnea umount'il loa perlecl Hqiityjj. [.t liuif^h J I am aware of ilie I'. CI : iti5> my mielbriuiie. 1 lell my home with u had colli, whuh 1 have «imre {ireaiiy increufccd ; und ihiri I lear will ai?:,'riivaie the evil. In rlH- (SL-cdiid |,Uue I remai k thai the object ofihis proiseiuiiun has alii-.tdy been staled : it was to t^t'cure union in ih-- iruih; ami iherei-y lo ptcure anion in anion, ami put an eiiil to the dispeiipioiis which bo inn li .ilibii us. Kor It will, 1 trufl be nuide to ap- pear Ihai ihe innoviiiions ol" doruine iiilro(lu«"( d into the b lunil.- ol' Ihe Synod ol' I'nil.idelphia, have been the ;^ie.ii leadinj; cmse ol' all ihal di»ira«Mio:i in our coini.-i-l;?, and ih.it ext'itcm lit ol i)ersonal I'et liii;j which h i=: sti loii'^ aj^itaicd us all. \\ hen those doc- trines were fiitt introduced amonjr us. ilie memlierH of ilie Freshyiery of I'ldla lelphi.i, and of ihe Synid of l^iidadelpiii i were i iiiladcliihians ; ihere wi:)f. no di.-ir.iciioiis, no diversiiies of ^5eIltimenl, which have of laLe risen lo such a heij^hl as to disturb ihe peace of Ihe chur.li, and eve i lo ailract the |)i)blic eye. I \v:is for several ^e.ifs connecled pt rsonaNy wiili ihe Presbvter) of Piiiladelpliia ; and when llieetiife be- {jan I w.:s oiiliued, Ironi my po.-iiion. to miii'^le in it. All th il .-ird'e ji;ie»v out of iheiincirmes taujhl in this BooK ; it exis ed indeed before the Book v\as publish- ed, bill luvcr ml lUcse dociiiaes niaiie llieir appear- ance amonssl iis. 1 alter wards retired from the lioimds III Ihe Pres' yttry, Imt the same ddlicuities liad a rea ly pr. coded me. I was ihrown into con- nexion uiili an iiif-iiiuiion for Education uhicli Hood grcaily in need of |)eruniary aid; t-ut in makiiiff an etibrl Li> obiaiii ii, t found the chi ic:tiaii community, ejjpeciaily m Phil.idelpliia, in such a stale ol feeliiifj thai in-iilier ^lde w s dieposed lo aid il. The ener- gies of the church were completely i)aralyped by llie.--e very diilii uliies, and 1 soon became convinced thit the coiiiiiiii ms never coold l)e allayed suct^ese- I'ully, or pennancnily, but by set! I ii>r ihe disputed iloclii es wliiihlas at tlie root of the whole. Some breMir»;tt aslujd me whether there cmild not be ellcct- ed an am il:iamalioa of the two Bo iid? of Educa- tion: (Hiat of ihook ol Mr. B irntrs appeared, it struck rne mat a door was now opened, and a most favora- uble ojiportunity presented, lo cut out a decision of MR. BARNES. lOl purely flo>'liMn;il puinfp, apart, entirely, from all local cin uiiislanc-cs cf" t-iril'ti vvlm-h liiul licrrtolore uhvaye beeci mixed up vviili iheni. I bclicveti Ihui if one from H ui^iaiir.e. vviiollv scpar.iicil iViuii llie iiiijcanli--, migiil come in. anil hring u|) liie ;;real doci rinalqiiee- tioiis in a .«|)i'( ifie sli;i|)(!, .«o as to liavc a (li-ci.-i.iii on tlieai alone, he woulil rtiuJer an iniportaril Rirvice to Ihe oau,-e ul' iruili; and lai^lii, nnder liie divine bles-siiiL'', i>e an in.strunicnl. ot' fjeiiJiiiir ihc questions ill contn)V(',r.>y, and l.iiereUy I'esiorin.ic ihe church lo a state ol" pe.u;e and nuiin, and ol' airayiaii licr in ilie beauty and glory ol licr true chararttr. Thid is the obje'"l and lues^jle object ol the |)re.sent prosecution. It Mas nothing' to do uiili any unkind leelinij toward the accused. I trust the whole course of the pro- ceeijiajr wdl show tiiat notliin;; like i>cr£ccution has be;'ri ii'itcfu!etl, or |jr.ic;i.-ji d. (.'erlaiiily there has been iiothii,^ to deserve that name, thus far. 1 here e.xisis, I am sure, no sucii le^'ling ui liiis Body. On my own part t,nt:re liad loi!;^ h-en a '.'rowing attach- ment to the brother accused : I have long telt a kmd- Jin;col"love in my bosom toward him ; and I can truly eay. lliat since this bns.ness hrst conuuenceu. my de- votional rceli!i;j:s solar iVi^m iiaving l)een impaired or chilled, have rather been augmtnted ; nor have ujy Buppli.-ations tor any man heeu more ardent, or more fr» q lent, than lor ihai hroiher. In the third place, our ministerial responsibility, the responsiwiliiy of every one ol"u5, in liiis nuitier, is oC fearl'ul weight and magtntude. Our labors are of eiii-.h a charai-ier as to hil the soul with awe and trembling, and constrr.in us to say, '" Who is sulHcient for tiiese things?" I knew sometliing. as well I trust ol the joys as ol ilie sorrows and burtlens of liie mi- nistry, wl'.'n 1 assumed the charge, and when I lieard addressed to me liiese solemn words of the Great Master, " Take heed to llnsih' and to thy doctrine, that thou mayest save thyself and them that hear thee." In view of this resi)on^ii)iuiy it has been ask- ed why. when a (dirisiian |> isior is laboriously en- gaged m feedimr the Hack committed to him by tlie g^reat Shepherd, and trying most di'igently, liv all nseans wuhiii his power.!) advance llie cause o{ piety in lise world, why lay such a burdt-n on him aa IS nnposed by this prosecmion 7 My answer has-been already givt-n. Let it not be alleged that tliis step was unnecessary. Truths of vital interest lo the cause of Christianity are here at stake. Oa ihis part of the subject 1 will ref r to a passage which was quoted belbre the Presbytery v;ith great api.lause, from the writings of the late Rev. Dr. VV uson, of the first Presbyterian church in Pliiladeiphia, in a note of his upon llidgetey's Body of Divinity, p. 86. To impute, signifies in general, to charge, reckon, or place 9 10% TRIAL OF to account, accordine to the diiTorent obj^^c's to which it iaap- pied. 'l'iii!> word, like iimiiy uihers, has a proptr, and an improper, or liguraiive Mieanina. Kirsi : h IS appliud to the charging, rtckoninp, or placing to Ike account o\ pc-rsoiiji and iii ngs, that wii.ch riiuPaRLV B.-LO.-^Gs TO THE.M. This 1 coiiHider as US' proper nicuiiiiig. !•* thiri yi-nst; tliu Word IS lis. d in the following passagt-s : " Kii thought ~hi- (ll-diiti!x\\) h.id been drunken — liunan and Mai- laniut), the treasurers, were counted laiiliful — Let a in in so account ol' us as the iiiinit^ters ol Christ, and s'ewards ol" the mysteries of God— Let such a-j out tnink iliis, tliat such as we are in word liy lefers when w.' are •■l>3Ciii, s.ch will W6 be also indeed when we are present — I rtckon llial iho sutler- ings of this present tune are not worthy to bj cotnpartd t*ith the glory iliat shall be revealed i.i us." Rjekonin^ or ac- cuuiiiiiii;. Ill the above in-ianee-s, i* no other ill in j idling of persons and thini^s accjrding to w'kU thei/ ar<-, or aiipair to be. 'V-) i'lipuie sin in this sense |5 to th.ir^ie guilt upon tho guilty in a judicial way, or with a vicwto punisliinen!. 'I'hua •Shiiuei besought Uavid ihat his iiiii] my inight no', be impu'ed to him; liusihe man is pioi oun ed btssid to whom the LiijTii iniputeih not iniqnitij: ^iid thus I'aul prayed that the sin Ol tliuse who deseiteil hint iniiihl nut be laid to their charge. In this sense the term is ordinarily uscfi in c 'mmon life. To iiiiput • irtas'in or any other eiiine to a iinn, is the same thiii<; as charging him with having coninutl.:d i!, and with K view to Ins l)eii)t< punished. SeCiindly : It is applied to the charging, reckoning, or pla- cing lo llt^. account ol persons and thing , that wh ca does NOT PROPEHLV BEL )NG TO THEM, AS THOUGH IT DID. 'i'hlS I coiisidi-r iis lis improper • r rtguni ive intamii^. In ihisseiiso the wor.l is used in the fo lowing passges — " And ttiis your heavc-odeiiay shall be rickjntd uuio yuii as thuuah it uere the Corn ol the thiefching tl.jor and as t'le iuln»-ss- o. the wine- press — NV'hcic ore hidisi iiion ill) fiee, and hotdc^t iiie tor thine enemy— li the uiicireunici:>ioii kei p the iij;. teousnessof the law. shall not his uiicircmncisioii be cou?i/eii lor circuin- cisiin — li he hath wronged ihee, or oweta itite aught, j^u^ that on minf. accoiinl." It !b 111 this /j^/cr sense that I understand ih; term when applied III justilicaii'jii. '' .Atiiuhnni believed God, and it was coun^tc/ u'lio hiiii liir r ghieoM>ne;-s— I o him thai wo. keih not, but beiiev..tii on hini iiiat j stitieih the ui;g,)dly, Ins Idith is co« «.'£(/ lor righieMiisness." '1 he countinji, or rt'ckoiiing, in tiie>e instunccs, is not a j .dgiiii; if ihnitis a»' thiy are, but as they arc no, as rhuvf^li ilmj were. 1 do hot ihiiik that fciith iieie means the rig'iie.iutiiess of the iMes.-iah : for ii i3 expressly c died '■ Liilicving." It means bi lievuig. Iiuvvtver, not as a virtuous exe 'eise of the mind \v h eii G .ii coiisi nted to aeci-pt insctad ol perfuci obi dicnee, lui as having mput to the promised Alcsiiuh, and so to his ri^iittousiii.s.-. as the ground of aeeeptanct'. Jus;ificai;o:i is a!-ei;bed lo lailli i.d healing trcqui-nily is in tie Aov Te^tuniciit ; not as ihai from which the virtue proceids, but as thai winch rece ves frotn the Sav.or's fulness. But if It were a lowed that faith in these passages really means the jeci believed in, sill this was not Abraham's MK. «AKNFfl. 103 own righteousness, and could l,e propcily covnitd by him who jud^TS (tf ihiiiirs as ilify are, iis I'diiy; so. it was nckomd uritu him a.v if U weic Uw : and the • HL-c is or Ix m Tits of it weri^ aciuitlly irii|iarted tu iiiin : hut til is was all. Abiahain did not hccuine nit'ri:t>rioii\)0 iiiiwDrihy. •'VVlintisii to placi- our ritfliteousuc^'jj in ilu obedience of Christ, (sMyj Culviii ) hui to allirni that hereby only are wo accuuiiitd ii'^hhu-.is ; bucausc the oheJie:ice ol Clirist is iiu- pUtcd to us AS IF IT WERE OUB OWN." It is tinis a'so that 1 iin.ler-sijin i the impu'niion of sin to Chris'. He wa-i acciiiiiiti d in ihe divine ad.iiiiisira'ion a^- './" he ircre, or had be^ n the siiuk r, that liiose wju) bclK Vt- in h.m niijihi bea^couiitvG an if Ihe y were, or had been nghrt.()us. I have quoted litis pis^.ti^e in order to pIiow lliat the doctniiti ori.MPu lA I'lu.N is one ol lln'- (lef|ict-t. ini- pirtiinr.i'. He whu loindiL's it, sliakes llie loimdalion of a sinner's liofie. The e^ |)re.»ioiis here (isi-d liy J)r. Wilson iiearlv cuiiicdt- will; iho!?e 1 etn|!lii\t'd iu niy ielier to Mr. L3;iriie.--. 1 luld liini ilial in .uivuiic- i \g at-.d iirniiiuLaiiirr ilic seiniineriis in Ujis hook, he elin)- my own hope liir eterniiy, rind ili-i, iC what he tiiiiaiit VV.I.S true, I eonid no Ioniser '' reail niy liile cjear lo in in?K>n< in the siiic.s." I think ii wTll appi^ur beir-Te vVPrtrnve (toiit'7TTraT (Iii=:docirine orimpuiaiioa Ctsince of ihes^os- pel Vet Mr. 13 irnei d n-s deny the inipulaiion of Ad.iin'.-| j.'uill 10 lis, and ol"oiirs to Clui-i. The doc- trine of ilie covenants is rtjf-cied: and ihe giimer's j isiificaiion is rested on God's sovert ii.Mity alone, anil II ii on any lejial {iiouad. Now I here profess that ii llie vuarinn.s sittltrinss ol' Chri-t and the le- jrai iiiniuialion of his sulicrinirs and rijrhieoiK-nesa are taken fr^ni umler my le> r. my hope is .''-»*' There i-: no tii7'e*iTi the matter. If ihe vic.irit>us f-ul- ft^riiiiTs and ohediem e of the Savior are not iru'y, pro|)erly, and leiraily iiiijjii/id to Ids people, po as to constitute their title lo heavt-n, there is no title in it: I'oriliiti-s Iheliile. In .-itpport of this view liefer the Sviio I lo the Eihiical lleperlofy. where the very same, idea is expressed. I e.mnot now quote ihe |)as- Kii^e, hecanse 1 have not the hook ht re. I have, ho^vever. the q i aiiUion- mat kid, for I did anxiously >\i-'h that iliei'.ause mi^'ht not. he issued liere. Fourthly, The accused, will, of course, it is una- voidable, hear ihiiii^s said of his book and his 0|)iiiioii8 which can 1 10 1 be |. 'lea suit to ihe feelings of an am hor. This cannot be avoided. And I know, and we all ieel, th.it no m in can statu! Iiy nnd !-ee tne child of his bosom abused and his b )som be unmoved ai d in- dirtierenl. It cannot he. There is a stuif^tn.n )tarn- injrof llie heart over o-ir own oll>prin;;-, whit h cannot be suppressed, whenever we liiink ihey arc: rniMis»d. And 1 Know ijot, to a man who has acquired fa me by 104 TKIAL OF his writings, :i manoChiili talent iind ofilii^ ronromi- tnnt lii^li reeling'- wliicli ht-lonas in ii, whicii is crreal- iT, hi.-J paiodlal keliiiLf li»r Ins liook, or lor liis rliild. The accuised will ciNiiiiily luivc lo li(!ar wir.it caiiriol liut he ex(tee(liii2:ly iiaideasaDf. 1 am happy, how- ever, in heiMarnes'd book, and noicd, as I w»'n! on, what i decn^ed excep- tionable. 1 af.eruards arraniretl liies'" excepiionsiu cfi^ses, in separate columns; and as I proce( iled and rcllecied the v.liole, 1 lonnd tin in to form a coirpl. te syslem ol" docirine, a rc.'uiar system of error. Ji.st as there is a re?rular system in tru;h. The irreal out- lines of the system cmtained in our Cjidi ssion of Faith, may he sju)mid up in a lew words. It leacli- es till' fact ihm ;;ian lraiisH:r:s.-cd the law ol God; lliat he did il as a t;t}veiiani In ad. and iliai, his act extended to his posicriiy. As soon as In- ciiimtd, guilt l.iy on llie Irans^iressor hitnself, and, according lo the principles ol rrprescntaiioii, the samejjuilt exiendt-d u ail who.n i:e represenicd. Adam v\a3 the moral h' ul of his race, and all his mendjers were idem i lied wuii him. Jesiis Chritl is the second Adam, lie stood as ihe. Head cl another t-'re.-.t moral b'uly, and Ins obedience and sullerinsr brina hisiace, in like m.mrier. under the juslityinj^ senence of the law and !n-,i!:e tln-m liijhiious t>y i.-npuialion. This is our system. But ihe system hi this hook denies ini- putanon, denies ih it Adam's pos'erity are liable to punisiimenl lor his sin: tiiey mu? i be siimcr.? Ihern- eelves, before tiny arc Ii ibie to any evil as a punish- m'Mit. !S(Hlial boih Adam and Clirist siaiul alone. The ri'zliieousness ol this st cond Ailam is not im- puted lo his seed, any more lliau Adam's oUcuce IQ MR. BARNES. lOS his seed. ClirisI diJ not bear the lnjal consequencea ol their sin — lie w.ik not, hrgally f-peiikinar- aiiv^e coiiPequeniMi ; .md il' uhstrjicletl honi the rest and considered in tiieni^elvt's ali>ne, would noi he ea- tislactory proolOrhcretie.ul opinion : yet when taken us pans of llie evidence toi^eiiier witli llie oiiiers, they lorni a connected chain of evi h-nce, wiiicli in- cre iseri as we advanct-. One position impMet* ano- ther, and the const (piencos' then tijNow. So, in view- iiiir some of these iliarjjces, they may a|)pear ot" iiilia compirativ't; con^eqn nee, until we re;,ard their rela- tion to the eniire pvptern. I nn\ now ready to proceed witli the eh ir^es themKelvcd. and there are three quesi ions to he asked on each, viz: 1. Are the words ajletied to ruiitain error, in the hook? not whellier they do coiiiaiii trnlli or falsehood: laitare they liiere ? 2. Are tiicj con^ietent with the Conies- pion of Faith? And 3. Are they lonsistent with the Bible ? diarize 1. Mr. Harfies teaches " tiiat all sin consists in voluntary action." The first passairc I eliall qiote in proot' of this charge i.=j fron) Mr. I3a.'-.ie<^'ei Noi.ei; on the Lomane. P. 219. " in all this, aad in all odier ein, man iii volun- tary." Here in lan'^uaire loo plain to he mirsnnder.slood or cxplaiiied away : it atli. nis the very point to ^*ii in the one c it^e is a.-" neces- sary as acuon in the other: so that it th»-re i.^ no ac- tual s .!, there i- in) liabiliry to punishnieni, no cX|)'K-^eilne^s to eierial death, im pindshiin nt. no rondenni iiion. Before any thing of tins, there must be voluntiry personal action. The ariTuinent of the above qiotat ion is borrowed from- Ptdai;iu.<— not indeed, I suppo.-e, imniethaiely, but really. It is his prt-cise argument, and how near- ly in his words you snail jud^-e. Pelaguis sa)s: "If Adam's sin hurt thosi who are not i.'uiliy, the riuhfc- ou^'ip-ss of Christ protits those who believe not." — MUner k. 3:0. 9' 106 TRIAL OF The only t'jlTi'r«»nce between this arj^nmerit nnd Br. Barnt s's, is, ihat it is more iminred and pilhy, he- c.uHi' lef;.-= ImrdeMcd wiih vcrhiajrc. li is ihe t-^tme precise iirrmiii'Mt. Nnw, niiirhi not a Prt'shyU'rian iniiiisiMT tn he iilarrm d, when he (irids liiinsrll' inad- verremly (ii'i' so t)e) n.-iim ilie t:aine arirnnienl with an aoUiowifdired herein-, ami liir Ihe same piirpoHC ? Cm any ihin?? pos-ihiy prove mure ronehisively unity ol (toclrine ? But 1 have more of the !e avoided." — /•'../a^'tKs, as quoted, Bib. R p. vol. ii. p. 102. My third proof is from pai^e 192 of the same ivorU : V. 19'2. '' ■' rhcy [J icoli and E.-an] had done no'hing good or bad, and where th.ii is ihe c:ise iliere cap be no churacier, for cliaracii r is iho result of conduct. (2) That ibe period of moral agency had not yet commen- ced." Here was no moral action, and therefore no ein. Th'.' iloivvr, Mu; vohinlary a^Ljency is ntcess-ary to cha- racter. Prior to ihi.s ihi-reisno sin toexpo.se to pun- ishment. VVlieii ihis voluntary action o curs, it will be. he riiiuiis-, t-inl'ul; and then, but not utilil ihen, are they sini'.ers. My (ourth proof i? from pasre 121. P. IM. "A3 the work of Christ dot s not benefit the race urdt ss li is eiiibrared, si does not the rea>oiiin^ of the Apos- tli^ lead ns to ;he collciu^i )n, iliai the deed of Adam does not condenm, lodi ss thtro be some vo.untary act on the part of each individual '?" T!iis is tiiniost the lan^uaffe ol the, rl-nr?c iieelf One of these fortns of CNpreftion conviys the iiiean- in^r of t!ie author in the very eiroiigesl iiianner, wliftiier i:eiiaiive or positive. " If Adam's sin hurl ihcise uh'> are notgui'ty, the righteous- ness of Clnisi pr'dii:* itiosc vvlu) believe not." I have placed tiie.'^e la.^t two quolaiions in jd *. 1J3. i liui.i lii!re, toavoiil ttiis.ipprelieti.sioii. tlie Teiierii! re- mark : thitt it id nit nece.-jsary to ideiiiily Mr. l^i.'rf i^en- tinieiils with all ilio.'^eorPfiiigiu.?, so iiir as 1 havcac- cusi'il iiiin ol niaiiitaitiiri'^ Pelasrianism. I quote this to pIiovv liiat lie lias set liits loot on Pelagian a round, and tliai illie hdld.-j it, lie must {j:o onward. lie can- not slay lliere. He is in danger of tiillin;i inio oilier cogiiaie errors. 1 hold up his error in liiis point as a beaco!! of warnitiL'' l)etore his eyes. It is imi to prac- tice what has been denoininatt tl l\\e udiinn t/itvlo- picunt : no : hut it is to warn my l)roiher of where he ia ii"oiiig. I (io not ciiarge hrolher Barnes wiih heinjr, as yet, a Pelagian, hut I say that he holds a doctrine which is ihe h.tsis of ihe sy.^lem ol Pelagius. 1 know that hrolher Barnes is very far from being a Pclagi .n in sniiny points; but on tins poiui, he and Pela;;iua exacily coincide ; tliey hoUl tiie selt-sanie doctrine, and support it by the same argument. We have now proved that the doctrine chnrged ia contained in the laiiHuage of the hv!,ok, and have shown the coincidence of this original position witli a so ooi of error wiiich spread deeoluiion over the church of God. And no v to compare this with the language ofour Btardards. Confession of Faith, chap. vi. 5. "This cbrrnption of na- ture, dining this li c, doth remain in those that are regene- rated ; and ail hough it be through Christ pardoned and mor- tifiid, yet both ihe\f, and all the moiiuns thereof arc Iruly and propcrlij sill." 6. " Every ^iii, both original and actual, be- ing a ti.-insgrrssion of the rii^liieoiis law ol God, and contrary thtitunio, doih, in its own nature, bring yuilt upon ihe sin- ner, whereby he is boim 1 over to the v^ratli of Gjd and cursa of the law, and ?o made subject to death, with all miseries, epiriiual, temporal, and eterna'." Larger Cat. tiues. 27. '" We are by nature children of wrath, bond-slaves to saian, and justly liable to all punish- ments, in this w.irld and il.at which is to come." Shorter Cat. 19. ''Al' mankind by their lall lost commu- n on with God, are under his wraih and curse, and so made liable I ) all ihe nnstriesof this li:c, to death itself and lo the pains of hell forever." 108 TKIAL OF On thrpe a remark or two: I. Thip rorrnpfion of naliiro is «if 7/.sv// ^in. " nn \v«ll an ull tlie iiioiione ihfrcKl," 2. Tliis I'ornipiioii dl' nature wliicli i8 tin, doili ill its out! imiiirt' hi inir ;:uili ii|'< [i the t-innt-r. it iti not Kuici his voUmtai y iicrioii alone l>riii*:8 guilt, hut thr-ir liiil phicfd liifiu iiii.ItT his wraiii ai'.il cnriie. uiid < xposi'il U;t; 11 Id (It-aiii ami lifji I'ort'ViT. No I Ea> e: Mr. B., ;iii in iikiiul are tint ui dtr liis wi atli atid rur.'-e hy their I. ill; liji-y nuiBi. Iii>t. act voluntarily, and liit'ii, but not nil ilieii, are lliey liable to tlie puina ol hell. Coi.fii'-ion nf Faith, chap. x. sec. 1. Ail tlioFC whom God haih pitd^.^iinai.d iiiU'> liie ami thoso only, lie is |i!f!jtf.d, in his a| point d arid uy his word jiiid .Sj.irn, um nfiiiai stine of siii und dtnlh iii which they arc tiy nature, to ciace and siidv.iiioii hy .lesus Cliri^t ; cuiiiihioiii. ^ Uuir in nds i^piriiuiil y, and savinij;ly to undet- Bland the tiiini;.'' of God, inking away tlu ir he irt ol' tlune, and j;ivii){r ujito ihciii an htbit oi llcsh, niiewiiii! their wills Biid by Ins idniigniy power detirnnninsi tin in to dial which jj good, and t Hit liially drawing to JiSns Christ; )t( so aa ihfV conn- ino&i I'lei ly, heiiif; ina.ii- willint; by hiy jjrace. This shoAS 111 il .ill vviioin God has predisiinatpd he calls: an I thai such as coniiniiled i.o voliiniary ein, and yet .v e i^aveil, were iiaih r a penieiceof death, ana if t-aved, ari^ tav((l Iroin tin: and il so, then ail sin dot-y not (■.on^is^ ii) voluntary action. I will now quote a lew scripture pioole, and leave this branch olthe charge. Epii. ii. 3. 'And were l»; nature the children of wrath." Uom. 111. 19. "ihai all the woild may bi.coHie guilty before God'." Psalm Ii. 5. "I was shapcn in iniquiiy, and in sin did mjr mother coneiive ine." These pa?saires cannot be turned a?idf-. They prove inroiiU'et;ibly that man is a !^iIlncr, iiuit peinleut olaiul prior lo lii-' vi>| miary a"ion. Tlii-sisone iieni of llie sysitin taught in ihisbook: find it will he necessary to touch aj;ai:i the tuuio points herealter. 1 will now take up ilie secoml cha.-ge. C/inr'^e If. l\Ir. narnos tepchts "ih.ii AJiiin (before and after his fall) •was ignoraiii of his iimral r. laiions lo such a det^iee. that ho did iioi know ihe coiiM qui iicis of his till would t,r sl.oicd leach any funhtr than to natural death." Under this charge my prool is a n te on p. 115. Proof 1. No'c p. 115. "If an inquiry be made he c, how Adam would understanl li.i.", (ihe ihreat<^iiin<; of death ) ( le()y that we Jiave no reason to think lie would iinderfeUiud it as reft rnii" to any thinjiz more than the loss of he as an expression of ili< di.ipleafrure of God. IVlo.-^es does not inti- Ittate liiai he was Itaiiiid in the iiaiure ol laws and pinalttea aud his lurraiive wuu.d lead us lo tuppu^e liiai ibis waa all MU. BARNKS. 109 that would ocrur to A(!am. And iiidfcd tlierc is llie liigliesi cvid'-nci' ilic case udinits ul', lliat this w as hid uiidersianding ' vt'it. For in itie account of ilie irjl'.cllon of ti.c peuiiliy, ofler till! law was viuliitc d, in Goil'a o>\ ji irrciprc aiujii ot it, in Gun. lii. 19, ilnru is sii!l no R-luicnce u> :iny liiin'r I'ui tlicr. ''Dust iliiu ;iii ni d iiM.ii dust fliou sh lit rttiuii." Now ii is iikC eiiib L- ihai Adam sliou d have ui dt-r.siood tiiis »s it; cr- riiifr lu what has b en c.ilkd " spiii.uv! di-aih," and lo '•ttir- nal dtaili," w hiii iir iti ihe ai> cuuiit ol' ihiniill ction ol the scniinci", is intie liie !?lij;hiest recorded ickri-iice to it. fiUu liave doiic yrtat injurj in the cause of corrxci i,itti|jictaiioii, hy carryiiiw iheir notions of d iciiinal sni jeeis to the; • .\|):ao:ili .11 of woids nnd ph.ras 8 in the Old 'rcbt.iintnt. 'I'lny hiivi' usu illv described Adam as endowrd «iih all tlic nfiiieiiicnt, and possessed of all the kiuwltdgc, and adoi 111 d with ail ihc iiuiai hysi;.-nl acuiri' n and t^ubiieiy of a inoilem ihcoloyian. Tiiey iiavc dtemed hiiii qualifi d, in the verj infancy of tlie woild, to uiideisiand aril ui-eu)>b iiue-t.ons winch, under a 1 the ludit of the chiis.- tian leve'aiioii, still i'et| 1 x and cndtarruiiS tlie human niiiid. Aficr tin se atcunis ol lliu endowinei;ts of A.dam, which oc- cupy so hirj^'e a S|.ace in tlie books of thcoloiiy, one is sur- prised, on openiii.i ilie Bible, to lind how unhkc ail ihis is to the simple s atiinein in Genesis. AiiJ the wniivcr eaniiot bo suppressed th t men should describe the obvious iiif^ucy of t'le race as suptrior to its hisihest advimcemeni ; «>r thai the Jirsl man, jusi ere iied, just lo^jkiii!,' upon a worlu ot wonders, uiiai t(u .luted wnh Ltv\, and n-ora! rshMioiis, and the ell et of traiisgiis.ion. should lie represented as endowed with know- leJt^e which four ihuii?find years aiterwanis it requited tho idvent 01 tlie Son of G a1 to coiiunuiiiicite." Ad 111) iri licre repi-eseiiteil it.« Itciii;; ignorant of law .Mul ol" mor.il uldi^aiioi;. Tiii;?, hou'iv tr, it, is BM.I, irf ri m lUer ol' small conci-rii, ior iliouijii il rc- |)resi;iilis our lirsl parent as ol' lull growth, >e'. men- Lilly ignorant, noliiiiifi:, 111 fact, In.l a larjit; inlant, I'ccliiiij lii.< way to tliu Know lud^f. ul" every il.it. «r, ut lea&t 1)1 moral obli^aiioii. Yet ii, is at^keil, whoa Ihuin i.-i there i,i all tins .' Tiie Presb\ icr\ , in li.eir art, ex- plain it ad iiieaiiini? iliai AJaiiHiitl not pos.-ess all ihe Je.irnin;^ wliir.li ilie tlal)! ins ini|meil 10 linii : admit- leil ; l>Lii; here i^i an atiinnat.on tliat he was ignorant ol law ami ol moral leia.ioiii^. I wisli here to ol>setve that no " chariro oflieresy is b" — if lie was a lar^e bat)y, iljrowii into a s^iianae world, without beiiijj tMU. owed liy Ins (."re.itor with kiiow- led-je, be.l in an e.xlreinely limiied ile^ree — n he knew nothimr ;^bout any kind of .liaih, hiil thai ol'llie h'Uly, ami mu^i. .-,0 umlei suiiiil the threatening: — llien c^l course there was no covenaiil iiJ-ide with lim. He no TftlAL OP could know nollun^ ahoiit forms of a covenant — a coveiMiii ol" works, llu;ro could not. |)OPfil»ly In". Tliia is why thia- cliarj^f. i.s ii'iiccd iicre. (i is n link in liiH (•liaiii olcrror— a |.rc|iarau)ry t^\v\) iDadirtci denial olllic covenant. Ami sn I d niitt not it was dcr-i^ned. Totlii.- ilie wriu^r Iiik releienc.e wlien he coiniiiaina ot'rniMi " carr> in;r ilieir no; ions o!" docirinal enhj'cta lo the ex|'l maiion ot" words and i)iMat^et! in the Old Te^tanh;llI." Tiiiy islhe l\;'y lo ihe vvhulc paragraph and explains why ihe wriUT has rollfcled a M-nes of Billy nouoiis. in order to ridicule il e idi a el Adain'd knovvlcdijc in inj^ aikciuaie lo ui dcreiai d li.e i'Uiuro of a covenant and olf-icriuial aid elernal dealii. 'I'o pitow how illcoll^isI( nt ihe extract 1 have (jiiot- ed is vviih the Bi.ile and the ConfcPtriori ol Faitii, I refer you to ihe I'ullouinjj !la.••SH•;e^;: C'lri*. cli. iv. 2. ''After G>id had made all other creatnrps, he made ninn, mule a -l! I'lii-Euh-, v\iili r-.:)'^on.:.t>le ami iNoiKir- tal souls, fndiicil with Li:ow li-Viien Cud h;>.l en and man, he cn:ercd into a covenant of li"j wiih him," &,:. Here merely i?: a reptc poiitaiioii very difleront in- deed from the noe^ition that Adaai wui i;;noraiit of law and wftiiMral rejuiiotis. 1 would direct lloi titit ntion of flic Synod to the manner in whicli Mr. Ij.irnes refers to God's pen- lence upon Ad, mi, ■■du^t thou tirl, anil unto diit-t thalt llioii return." He ealls ihip the tidliclion vf a penally up in A lain. But how Adain learned l".-oni ihi.-i the nilure of natural death, wtiich he did not r.xperience till tiear a thousand vears af,erward!», [ do tint see. W'heii he t-ulf^ red it, in his own lerson, lie knew; hut ihe Dih'e reprcHenl.-^ Ad mi as feeiins; the [) tralvziiii^ eliect of moral death a:* soon a 8 he Kinned. hence he tndiavored to hide liitiiFcif Irom tllB presence of Ilie Aliiii:^lity : which iirifiied a defi- »;i«n«-y of k'M),vleih;e, alititiaiion ol ail'ccii.Mi, .^u^iji- cioti, an I a seiiso uf iuilt a 8usp',!n>iini of lonnn union with hi-' Maker. Yet this b lok would per.-uade us tlut Ailatti kne.»' nolliiiiif of the nature of spiritual de.iih from l!ie threaleniaid, in ri^lneoiisnesK:. knowlnlf^i', and true !..)!aiess. Yet Mr 15 irne- allinnw that he v/aj i^iuraat o)! law, and ol' moral i elaiioiic! ! MR. BARNES. Ill What sTy (he Script uroia? Ocn. I. 27; " G id creuit-tl iiian in bid own image." VVh It H- 1- this iiiiMf^t; ? Col. lii. 10: " Ariii liivo p'!i o 1 the new nun whicli is rr- newed in '■( him ihd! cciiici) hini." Cleiirly tJiuti ihf. inn^-e ol" G'nl, in ^^lli^•,ll Aclatii w;i-> *Te itel, coiiiiisietl i.i Ic inwlfd:^*' ; \vh.\ievcr else it inclu h^il. ihis vviirt ;i UmiIiu^ I'lMtiirt; ol' it. Rom. ii. 15: •' vVijich sliu>v iliu work, of liij Idw written in ihtir hearts.' Wiiiii is it thn.t Bhews? Why. the law of natur'* ?• conir.iiii3iiii,'iiiiurul aa it is uubeoaiiti^ the wisest ui" his sons. Ch'ir^e III. M/ third charge is, that Mr. Barnes teaches: "That nnregenerate men nre ab'e to ket-p the command- ments and c^niveri Iheiiiseivts to Gid." P.o )f 1, ICi " Th'. cirna' ni'iid. TWm h the same ex- pression as oieurs in virse 6, ( o plnoiieniii ues saikos.) It does not (luan the luind iisf it, liie iniciltct, cr ihew.ll; it does not siipijnse that ihe mind or the .^oul is phu^ically di- pr.ivt'd, or opposed to God ; but it ine.Tn.=; that Uic ininaing of the thing-! of Ihef.sh. pivifii; to thorn Siipreine aileniion, u hosii'iiy 10 Gi.)d." '■ For !^ "—The word (ii) here refers loihe niinli'iif of tiie ihinns of ilie fljsli. It doi;s not nhMii that the Boul itistlf is not siil j;ct icj lus law, Inn tliat the minding of those ihiiigs is hostdc to Ins law. 'I'lie .Ap.isile di-es not ex- pre^9 any opinion aboai the iru-inphysical ability of man, or di.scu^s il.fii q icsiion ,it a'!, 'flu: rnioiiiit coiii'ilube. i;ut t!ie uiiiiDiiima (liit's iii>l mean liwi iIik heart of Ihe ^inll<■r mii»hi lilt b(! S'liljeci loGod : or thai lii- sou/ is so piivsxiilly d»t''-ivtil lliat lie cuiinol ohyy, or ilial he iiii<;ht not obey the law. I'j;). 8. So lhcn—\t fullo.-.-s. it IcaJs It '.his coiic!u«ioH. 'I'tieij thai ai-L in ihtjic>h. They who .'.rc imiiMiiwrd sin- ner-', \ri»o an- fc'liowiiifi siipieirt'ly ilie (Jtsiu ? of tiie fl sh. Chap. v'.i. 13 Tiuise are iiieaiil Ii;to who lollow fljsli'y iiijpc- tiles, ar.d diislres. and who are iioi led l)y tlie Spini of G .d. L'nnnot pi ttse G-jd. — 1 liai is, svhile tlu-y are thus in iha fljbli, wliiii" ilioy ihiis puisne llu' desires of a coiriipi iiaiuro, they euiiioi please G id. liji i'in nfurois ii'iilim^ respect- iiii; liioir ability lo turn fro n tins eouis •, and ptusro a eif- ferent inodeol I fe. That is a difioreiit qiii-stion. A child may he olistinaie. proud, and dieobcditi". ; and ichile in this state, it may be .-itlirmed ;>f bi'ii, iliat he eaiiiiot ple.i.-c iiii^ paiefil, i?iit wiieili-ji lie iiii;j;ht hoc c- tiiem careiully over, without imbibing tin- conv'ition, iroru the niiral evidence in iheni, ihat th' ir writer was an advuc.aie of human ability. And yet, 2. This is the only cli irj?-e in which [ have felt any hesitancy, as to tiie adeijuacy ol ih^ prool^ — not of course, as lothe reality and verily ol'ti e ciise, (fjr I have u) d )idit Br. B. holds thi; comuion do( irme of hu n m ability as (bund in the EasiJ but as lo thepos- a'jiliiy of irivin:r it. t.m^ihle form. 3. Nothing is set furih in tins chsrire but (he dnc- trlue I hat men are aide fo tn.ike (hem new hearts and (o live accordingly. It is as.sunicd ;is an obvious truth, that il m:.'n are able to come ni.to CuJ, iii the first m.srance, they are able to live in him. Now on the con)men: itself, (l) Mr. B. inlmitp that the phrase, '" they that are la ihe tlesb," iDeana "They who arc umone.ved sinners" — unregentrato men. , ... (2) Headmi's, (hit, "irh^le (hey are m ihisptate, they cmnfii please G"d," "But"— what? Miey can change their state — if ! !iey choose, they ran come out ot it~" i3nt (his a!lirm.=' nothing respfciiin-- ibeir ability to turn frence a jubilee in the realms orieboilioa, and tiieir ranks ina> very soon bo filled up; lor rebeiiion is then thi surest and the shortest riiad to independeiue. 1 5. But I observe asaiiijii' natural inability cancels moral oMii^anon, miidi more, moral inabiliiy cancels moral obliijation. Your rts|.ecil"ul and special atten- tion is invited to this point. It is an u>stacle" as Eduards says, '" in the faculty of understaniling;" that tliis far id ty in our pret^ent de- praved stale is unable to ditcern spiritual ihinge. This is called by many a nnlural inability ; and ine axiom of our brelhren is, that this uutur.ul inubilitif desfjys moral obligation. Now liroiher Barnes n>aintains that man has wiinrul ability, but he lacks moral ability ; he labors under a moral defect or ob- stacle, a defect, or obslacb', or inability, utterly un- removable, but by the power of God. Nothing but divine grace can reinov« it ; an inability in that very faculty which gives moral character to himself and ftll his nctions; an inability of will, Kcmovable only by the Spirit of God. Now, I repi;at it, if natuhal XNABILIIV DESTROYS MOKAL OBLIGATION, races it. It is a principle inliahiting the soul. Christians in this respect experience a growth in grace. The principle ofi'aiih is sfrengtiifned — its increase showa It to be a principle. The a'llhor speaks of strong acta offairh; but the phrase involves an inconsistency — a strou'^ act of tlie mind ! How can he speak ol "'acts of faith" holding such a position as he does on tho eubjecl ? In fact, it. is not easy for such persons to use the language of Christians and the Bible. If faith is un act, of the mind, and nothing more, it is as much obedience of the law as any other act of obedience: and then a man is justified by the works, or by one work ot the law. The author saw this. If faith ia only an act of tiie mind, wlien that act is o'^er the man ie no longer a believer. II laiih is not perma- nent witiiin liim, he cannot, sustain the character of a believer. He is in iVu i no belif.vcr. Ileiu^e tlie infe- rence is not easily to be avoided that a man is justi- fied by his works — by iiis action. We are indeed told that it is not a meritorious ground of justificationj hut how can this be if ii is his own act ? I'liis author says that faith was not demanded by the law. But the mere denial that faith is a work is nothing but the setting up of one assertion against another. He Bays it is an act, but denies the necessary conse- quence. But he can never show that such conse- quence does not follow — for faith, if it is a man's own act, is a work of i_he law. The next proof is, p. 23. The phrase riahlcousncss of God is equivalent to GodS- plan of justifying men j his scheme of declaring them Just in the sight of the law ; or of acq'iiiting them from pnii- ishincnt, and admittins iheni to favor. In this sense it standa opposed to man's plan ol jjsiification, i. e. by his own works. God's plan is by faiih. 'I'he way in which that is done is revealed in the gospel. The object contemplated to be dono is to treat men as if liiey were ng'ueous. Man attempted to Rccomulisn this by obedience to the law. The plan of God was to arrive at it by faith. Here the two schemes ddfer ; &c. Here he denies thai faith is required by the law. Into this difficulty lie is thrown by his attempt to shoiv that it is riot a work of the law. Having taken Buch a position, he is oUliged to eliow that it is not required by the law, p. 30. This eyprcssion, (Thcius^t shall hve by faiib,) there- fore, does not iiie;in. as it is Fonieiimcs supposed, the justiS- fd by faith shall live, but it is ex-i-essive of a general (jrinci- f\e 111 rclaiioi; to irtun, that ihey ah^A be delended, pi^^^rvtd, 1'22 TRIAL OF made hsppy, not by their own merits er strength, but by con- fidence ill God. Faith, it seems, is confidence in Goil, and yet it is not required by the law ! I merely refer to this to show that there is an iiisurmoiinlable dilFiculty ia the way of all who hold such sentiments. In opj)Osition to the charge it is alleajed that the phrase "a principle ol' lUith" is wiihonl meaninj?, that it plunges us at once inio tiie dejjlhs of meta- physical disquisition and distraction. But the same objection may be raised in regard to any other phrase of a similar kind. We may be asked, what do yon mean by a " jjrincipic of tforrow?" or " a princij)le ot love?" I mean by it a fi.xed disposition of the mind ; you may call it a habit, or by any other synonymous term you please. A princ.iiile ol" love is a disposition of the mind vvhich disposes it to extend love, readily, to a lovely object. Just so the principle of faith is a disposition of the mind to believe on mmpetent tes- timony. This book denies the existence of such a prir\ciple. It says that jciy is nut a jjiiiiciple, l)ut that there is something in the mind from which this Howe. And so of f lith. F^ith is not a feeling: but an opera- lion of the mind. They say there is nothing which lies aback of faith. It is a simple insubited act of the mind — a stream without a ibuntnin. There may be, it seems, ten thousand act.s of iaiih in the same indi- viduaj tfirouo-iiout hi? life, and yet no principle of laith from which they flow. I coniend a^a nst this view of thinjrs, and I shall ehow that the Confession ofFaitli and the Bible alike rojcct it. And on this subject I refer the Synod to a definition Riven by Dr. .Taruc-s P. Wilson, in a note, in the third volume of Ridgley's of Divinity, p. 129. Faidi, according lo the beloved disciple John, and the great St. Paul, is the belief of the tvulh; the beHevin^ that Jesus is the Christ ; or a giving credit lo the ncord that God gave of his Son. These defimtionj are all of the same import, and arc all divine. Beniij diclated by ihc Spirit of God, they cannot be contradicted by any, although some have glossed upon ihc'iii, till lluy have brought i:i a sense diverse from the inspired wtiicrs. This futli, when it is real, as disiinguished from dial uninlluential assent lo the gospel, which crowds, who hear ii, proless lo have, is an cfl..ct of the divine influ- ense ill us; hence it is s.aid to be of the operation of God; and ihal ii is wiih ihe heart man believeih unto righteous- ness. As th ■ righteousness by wliidi the sinner is jusiified, is the sole work otChrisi for him, so ihis is ihe work of the Holy Gaosi in lain, and no less necessary in its proper place; it being thai, without which a sinner cannot compre- hend, receive, and rest u[)on Clirist for eternal life. By faith, as Lefore observed, he becomes acquainted with the fjlories of the character of Jesus, the fulness of grace in him, aad MR. BARNES. 123 the suitableness and perfection of Iiia riglilcousncss; in con- sequence of this faith, headiiiiras the Suvior's pi^rsonnl excel- lencies, fli( s to him, ventures all upon him, and rejoices in him. These, to speak plainly, are all so many effects of faith. The sinner must have a view of the fcJavior's excel- lency, before he will admire it. He must be persuaded, that Christ is the only safe refuge, before he will fly to him. He must know that there is in Christ sufficient matter of conso- lation, before he will rejoice in him. Of all these he is entirely satisfied by faith in the tesiitnony of God : siibscqienl to which is hia coining or tlyiiig to him, trusting in or vcriturinsj all upon him, njoicing in him, &c. e. g. Joscfih's brethien heard that there was corn enough in Kgypt ; they believed the report: this was faith ; upon this they went down for a supply. Doubtless this was an effect of their faith ; forbad they not believed the tidings, they would never have gone. So a sinner must believe that Christ is a full and complete Sa- vior, before he will run or fly to him. Sense of misery, and faith in his sufiieiency, are the main stimulus. Or, I am sick, I hear of an able physician, I believe him to be so, upon which I apply to him; my application to him, and my belief of his character, are as distinct as any two things can be: my trusting my life in his hands, is an etiect of my believing him to be an able physician. This distinction is obvious ia the sacred writings, as well as in ths nature of things. He that Cometh to God, must believe that he is. Here is a manifest distinction between coiiiing and belicvi."^- The Confession of Faith declares in chap. 14 : The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word ; by which, also, and by the administration of the sacraments and prayer, it is increased and sirengthtned. By this faith, a christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God himself speak- ing therein; and acteth difTercntly, upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to thecomtnauds, 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 reptinaupon Christ alone, for justifica*ion, sapclilication, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. This faith is diiferent in d'^grees, wetk or strong ; may be often and many ways assailed and v.'cakened, but gets the victory ; growing up in many to the attainment of a full as- surance ilirough Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith. Surely I need go no farther. How a man can use this hingaage who holds faith to be an act only, I do not uiiderstand. Are there two faiths? or a thou- sand faiths? or is it an abiding principle, something in the soul which grows, like a tree, which incresBes, ae our muscles do, by its own exercise ? Hear the Confession again, ch. 11, sec. I. Those whom God efTectually calleth he also freely justifi- ethi not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardon- 124 TRIAL O* ing llicir sin?, and by arcounting and accepting their pefsorii as risliieoiis : not lor any thing wrouylu in iii> ni, or done by tiieiii, but lor Clirisi's s.ike iilone : not by iinpiiiinj; lailh it- self, ihe act of liclieviiii.', or any oilier evui:gtlical obedience to thcMi as I lair rii;lu^! eiicli oiluT. It liiiili is 'lie and les'cih njton Christ and his hgli:eoiisiiess, ihertiii held Torih, for pnidoii of sin, and for the aecep'iiig and ucfonniii.g of his peison ri^ihitous in the eight of God f;r salvation Faiih jiisiifits a sinner in the sight of God, not because of these oiiiLT graces which do alwasa aceompany il, or, of good works that ;ire ilie frriiis ol ir, nor as it the griice of laith, or any .-ict iherio', were iinpuitd to him for Ins jusiifi- catioii; but fMily as it is an instruiiunt by which he icccivtth and appiii ih Ciiri?t and his riglueousnesj. ijlJThf; book ol Mr. B irnes say.--, lluit Cailli n nn act of the iiiiiid, iiiid tii.tl. iliis act in impuitd l — IVoiii bis babiiiial couree of action : tiiuf jiitit so a man is called a believer. For Jst-riplure auliioriiies I refer to, E)>h. iii, 8. For by grace are ye saved, through faith ; and ihai n.>t of joiirsclv. s-. u is the gi.l of God. Here, as >ve all know, the ainetedent may be either "salvali-Jti" or '■r.tilli," both wliieli word.-- jirecede it in liie senleriee ; and the et!'ei-.i will be the same in enb-^tani e, eilber way. ile iiiliidi s, unquestionably, to r.iilh a.s u principle in the souls' ol believers?. The laniru life i^ never i'llcrjjretrd as rel'i rrinjj lo an in- sulate i aet ol the kind, but to a princijile. Uy that iaiih, abitlinir in the iniiul. we inkt: ilie bread vt' lile; we lake Christ lor ourselves for jusiiilcalion and life eternal. Ai^ain, il Cor. iv, VI. We havirr? the sime spirit of faiJii, accord- ing as n is written, I bt!i( vtd, and lberelo;e iiave I .«pokeB } we also btiieve and ihertfore sjjeak. Here p^ain faith is the principle in the heart, and therefore it is an act in the man. MR. BAFvNES. 125 Luke xvii, 5. And the apostles said unto llie Lord, Increase our iaith. A priii.'iple may be etrenKthened : but how an act of the iniiiii can be, 1 cannot conceive. Rom. i, 16, 17. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ : tor it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth ; to the Jew first and also to ilie Greek. For therein is the riijliteousiiess of God revealed from faith to faith : as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Here we find ai^uin the same doctrine. God by hia renevvin,^ Spirit produces in the rej^eneralionof the man a disposition which, before, was not there, to ferforni an act lor wliich, bolbre, he Jtad no ability. t i.s not until after his conversion that he has both the ability and the disposition. James ii, 17. Even so faith, if it kath not works, is dead, being alone. You profess to be a believer: if you have faith in you, it will show iiseU by ac.ion. It is a livinsj princi- ple; a principle that works. Docs ne eay an act of the mind is dead ? no: but a principle which ought to be alive, it is like the living^ principle in a tree. Faith will show itself by works. I cannot see how it can be an act merely : lor when an act is done, it is gone. And how will the language of this text apply to such a theory ? James ii, 26. For as the boJy without the spirit is dead so faith without works is dead also. We all know what is meant by a dead faith. There is the principle of failh in the mind before conver- sion: but when a man is converted, lie has anew principle of action, a principle of lioly action. Galatiano V; 6. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availoth anything nor uncircamcision ; but failh which work- eth by love. I cannot understand this passage, if faith is merely an act of the mind. Here is a principle "back of" the act — a principle which grasps the tcfjtimony of God. It worketh. It i^ a principle which has its work, its task to be perlormed. The Bible doctrine clearly is that faith is a principle in the mind, just as love is. And now I think we have come to a place wliere we are called to put oH'our shoes from our feet. Thus far we have been but as in the outskirts of the great system of revealed truth. We now approximate the citadel. Let us pass in and see what we shall find there. Shall we see brother Barnes there ? Shall we find him on the alert and at his post, with his gun on his shoulder and his match in his hand ? Hold, if you touch that you will blow up the whole Ibrtress! your piece is painted at the magazine ! Such is the 11 1*26 TRIAL OJf doctrine \vc are now about to examine ; if tliis is d under the second charge, which see. I rel'f r in this charge to all that portion of thf* book which attempts lo prove that Adam was igno- rant of mor.il relations ; and here, in consistency wiih m ti idea ]\Ir. Barnes denies that Adam under- stood there was any covenant made with him at all. MR. BARN IS. 127 My fourl,h proof is from pp. 120 and 121, Pp. 120, 121. "A comparisori is also instituted between Adam nud (Jhnst in 1 Cor. xv, ■*2— 25. The rt^ason is, not that Adam was the r-presenla pdf.a .head of the hu- nicn race, ahoiit vvhioli the apostle says nolliing, iiiid which ia not even ijnplicd, but that he was the firsi of the race; he was tlie fountain, the iicad, tlie father; and the constijucnceB of that first act introducing sin into the world, could be seen every where. The words rf.prcscnlalivc dinAfcd ra' head are never applied to Adam in the l>ible. The reason is, that the word rcpresmlativi'. implies an idea which could not haveex- iflted in the c.isc — Ihe consent of those icho are r presented. Besides the Bible do. s not le.ich that tiicy acted m him, or by him ; or ihit lie acted for tliem. No passage has ever yet been found that stated this doctrine." Mr. Bariies, in lii.s address to S.vnod, pul his liand on the prool'coi)/ era nevvc(iilionoi'hi.s bouiv in wliich he said some oi (iic cxoeptioriable pass;i^es had been taken away. I do not. tliiiik I atii called lo iioiice any eucli dill'erences, i'ur ihe point, and Uicoidy point, be- fore this Synod is; thit;: does the te.^liinoiiy adduced before ihe Presbytery support the char.ire tuivanced before that body? I have to show that heitJL-cts the covenant of works ; and in doiuir so, I ani not called to notice his emendations; e.-^pecially as he declared in your presence iliat he had nuide no cliange ia the doctrines ol' the book. He holds the same opinion still. As the grand leading; truths^ remain the same, mere verbal alterations can be of no con- eequcnce to me or to the S>tiod. 1 need not comtnent on what I have quoted above. He does reject the representative relation between Adam and his posterity. 1 know it will be said that Jie does not deny this, but o: ly denies that it is tausht here. i>ut to this I h ive only to rci)eat what 1 said before about the possibility ol thus denying- in detail, until a doctrine is tlcnied clean out ot the Bible. Ana yet the m;in liolds no error ! Oh no I But 1 direct the titlenlion oi'the court to the lact that this is one of the passaires relied on by the church to piove the covenant relation of the two covenant heads, Adam and Christ, to their respective bodies; and no man has a ri'^ht thug to take au ay tiie pillars ol our liope. A doctrisie stands on seven pillars ; the destroyer comes to one and says: " This does not support the house," and lie hews that liovvn. He then goes to the next, and says: " Tiiie does not support the house," and he hews ihat down. And so one year he takes one away, and the next year anotlier, until at length the building falls to the fi:round. There is no man who possesses an ingenuous mind but will ad- mit that he n siniitil. and that this made it certain that all his posterity would be sinners. Beyond thisr the language of the apostle docs not go; and ;ill else that has been said of this is the result of mere philosophical specula- tion. (4) This fad is one that is apparent ; andth.it accords with all ihe analogy in the moral government of God. The drunkard secures commonly as a result that hisfiiuily will bo reduced to beggaty, want, and wo. His sin is commonly the certain occasion of their being sinners; and the immedi- ate cause of their loss of properly and comfort, and of their being overwhelmed in wretehedntss and grief. A murderer will entail disgrace and shame on his family." Her,e is the principle, tliat it is in respect to the phy- sical constitiuion ol man, that Adam is the liead oi" the race, and not in rej^arc! to any moral constiiulion. He asks wJiether the nature ol a drunkard runs down to his children, tiUailinj? ealamily on tlie prin- ciple of representation ? I apprehend it does ; in the mana.i^emcnt of the family properly their Ifilher re- presents iliem, and ihey are thrown destitute on the world. But cannot you point to the sons of a man who was a drunkard, but who nevertheless take a high and glorious stand in the church? It does not follow that because the father was iutennperate, the children must be rained. Some oi" tho greatest and best men on this continent liad such for their parents. So far indeed as his parent is hi.i representative he is ad'ected by it. If he leaves a debt unpaid he robs his son. It IS not necessary after baEing my argu- ment on tliis passage lo press the nuint that thie cove- nant of works is denied. Ko man can read the book and not j)erceive that the writer does intend not only to deny but to scout tlie tloctrine. Charge VI. I will now pass over that branch of the charges which relates to the covenants, and take up those which follow. There arc five of these, all intimate- ly connected, and 1 v/iil take them up together. My sixth charge is, that Mr. Barnes denies " that the first Bin of Adaiii is imputed to his posterity. " My seventh charge is, that Mr. B. denies " that mankind are guilty, i. e. liable to punishmrnt on account of the sin of Adam." My eighth charge is that Mr. B. denies " that Christ suffer- ed the proper penalty of the law, as the vicarious substitute «f his people, and thus took away legally their sins and pur- chased pardo;:." My ninth charge is that Mr, B. denies '■ thnt the righteous- ness, i. e. the active obedience of Christ to the law, is imputed :to his people for their jusliQcation ; so that they are righteous n the eye of the law, and therefore justified." From the intimate connexion between \\\^s^. ItiH. BARNES. 129 chargef? the synod will perceive the difilculty of eeparaiin;^ tiie remiirks on eacli. Mr. B.iriit'ri diMiic:^ (.li.il llie first, pin of Adam was iinjjutcd to lii.s ]jii.sit'rii,y. Injjci^e 10 he hiiys p. 11). "A niel;inc'i.)ly instance of tins [bubstiiutine; theory fjr facil wo have in tlie account vvliicli the nposile t;ivc.s (ch, V.) ahoul th« tfilct of the sin of Adam. The sini()lc./^/c< is stated that that t:iii was fiilJDVvcd hy the sin and nun of all his posleiitv- Vtt he ufi' rs nii cxplan tion of ihc p.c. Ho Icuvcs it a> n'du!>it!d)^:; ;ind as not denrindins un c.splana- tion iti lii3 nr^;i!m';ni, perii.ipa as not adinitrmg it. I'his ia the wliole of liisdocirine on ttiat snlj^ct. Ytt nmii have not betn sansliod with iIku. They have sonyht fur a ilieory to riccouiU for it. And many sui-post; they liavc lound it in the d.iuirini; thai the siii of Adam is impuicr/, or set over by nn iirUiirary anangojneni to tic!nt;s otlierwiae innocrin, and thai they ;ire h^ld to be responsible for a dted conii/iitied by a mua thousand!! of yi-ars before they were bovn. Tiii.i is the theory, and aieii insensibly foig.t that it is mere theory." I prcsiiaic this was writUMi after the rest of the booit, uinl theretbrti after the most mature- considera- tion, now if this pis-Srtfrc docs iimt poi^itiveiy reject Uie (ioctriiie of a css)veiutiit wiili Adam, and rlit con- ecq'.i.'tit imiJiitalioii of Ins !^■ill to his posicriiy I am prisatly miiiuki'^i. He tala's up i he very l;ii).;,'ua.;?o of your (•onfcs.?ion tirid denies ils iruiii. lit; pro- nniiiices it " mere theory," and maitiiains that we cannot he personally accoanlalde lor (he deed of a man c-jniuiii.led thotisands oi years before we were born. Ia pii^^e 117 he Sa3s p. 117. (i ) " It. coMiports with tlie apostle's argi'm-nt to state a cause tc/ii/ all died, and not to state thai nun sinned in Ailai:n. It wonld req urc an additional statement ut see how //iai could lie a cause. (4.) The expression, 'in whom ail have siuaed,' oaveys no intelligible idea. As men had not an e.visrence ih. ii in any sense, they could UMt then sin. What idea is conveyed to intn of comtnon undtrsinnding, b J the expression, ' they sitiiitd in hiin'i' Tne meaning of the expression, therefore, clearly, is, because all have sinned all die." , " I understand it therefore, as refening to the fact, that men Bin, sin in their own person:^ — kin themselves — as indetd, how can they sin in any othtr v\ ay 7— and that thtrcfon they die." Here the author quotes the very lan^ua^e of the Confcsssion of Faith and then sneers it oui , that infants- were personally gnilty 01 AJain'y sin; that tiiey had ".«in- ited in hitn;' iliac then was a personal identity c instituted between ihcin and Adani, (see L'd wards on orii^inal sin) ; and that tiiereliro his sm was itieirs as reahy and ti ily as if ccim- miited by thijmSLiVes. Yei hero the apjs'i-j says thnt those of wh.'in liz was Sficnkir.y had no/* sniH(E 1 'after 'he sim- ilitude 01 Aduin's tr:uis>i!rcfaSion. Bu. if tiie doctrine of im- pulatiun be trae, it is cert;iin that they not only /wg' sinned after tlie similitude of his transgression, but !iad sinned the Vtry identical sin. It was precisely tika }inn ; it was the very thing itseif; and they were ani?vver;ible for that very sia cs their own. This doclrincj lheref;rc, cannot bo intended here." / If the aurhoivdji not set up to reject the doctrine of tho iinputatioa of Adam's sin, this language is very On pas^e 121 ; p. I'il. " J\oi have we a right to assume that this [ver. IB] teachf s the doctrine of tha imputation ot the sin of Adam to his posterity. For (1) the apostle .■'nys nothing of it. (2) *rhai docirine is nt'thing but an edorl to explain I'le manner of an event which the apostle Paul did 'lot ihiiik it proper to attemj)l to e.\plai;i. {'i) That doctrine is in fact no cxplana- lion. It i'j int'oducing an acldiiional diffirul'v. For to say that 1 am guilty of the sin-of another in winch I had no. ugeiicy, is no expldhdiion, but is involving me in additional difficalty still more perplexing, to ascrtaiu how such a doc- trine can possibly be just." The very old Armitiianarframent — " How'can it be Jast?" tlie same irtrument ueeJ by Pelngius; and which has been battered down ten thou-^and times hy the hosts of I'.-e Lord. On paj^e 127 he sayj : p. 127. " The word is in no instance used to cxprifss th»- idca of imputing that to one which belongs to another. It Mil. BARNES. ISI here either means, that this was by a consHlulion of divine appointmerd that they in fact, became sinners, or simply de- clares they vjare so in fact. There is not the slightest inii- Diation that it was by imputation." On pago 128 he says: p. 128. As quoted under Ciiarge 5th. 1 cannot liei?itate a nioiuetit to believe that anj man vvlio redds this will say lliat the dcsijrn ol" the writer was to reject tlie doctrine of imputation. He does clearly reject it, in many paesafres of his book. If his |)lea was now belbre you, you would soon per- ceive tliat he does ditl'er in senliment from the Con- fession ol Faith. One couiplaitit iiL^ain.^t your pro- ceeding- is that Mr. J3araes is not allowed to reply to each individual cliari^e separately. To this charge I am sure he would liave pleaded guilty, but would thei^ liave put in a jus-tification on the ground of non- relevancy, which atnounts to a defence of the thiufj charged. i now refer you to the standards ofour church: Confession of Failh, chap. vi. sections 3d and 'lih. 3. They being die root of ail mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death iii sin and corrupted nature conveyoii lo ail their posterity, descending from them by or- dinary generation. «« 4. From :hi^, prigliVal corruption whereby we are utterly in- disposed, disabled, and made opposite to al! good, and wholly incliitdd to a'J evi', do proceed all actual trangressioiis. Larg. Cat. 22. The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, bat for his posterity, all iuankiiid descending from iiirn by ordinary generation, sin- ned in him, and fi>ll with him in that first transgression. 25. The sinfulness of that esiiUe whereinto man f-ll, con- eistcth in the guilt of Adam's fiist sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby ho is utieily indisposed, disabkd, and made opposite unto all that is t-piritually good, and wholly inclined to all evd, and that continually ; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions. Short. Cat. 18. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in tlie gudt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and tlia corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called ori'Uial sin ; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from ii. Charge VII. The seventh charge is in these terms: Mr. B. denies " that mankind are guilty, L e. liable to pun- ishment on account of the sm of Adam." And my first proof is, p. 123. "There is no reason to believe that they are con- demned to eternal death, or held to be guilty of his sin, with- out participation of their own, or without personal sin, any more than there is that they are approved by the work of 132 TRIAl OF Christ, or lield to be personally deserving, without embrac- ing hi^ olFcr, and rcctiving him as a Saviur." And my sccoruijproof, Page 127. 'i'lie Wind is in. vo inalance used to express the idea of imputing thai to one ulich belongs to ano'htr. I( hero eillier meiiiis iliai itiis wusbt/ a cumlitution 0/ divijic aipoint- ment ihat tiiey in fact became sinners', or dimply dtclarc» that tlity tcire so in fact. T liere is noi the shi;lucst intima- tion tliut It was by iinpuiaiion. The whcile scope t)f the argument i-*, inoreover, uyaiiist this; fir ihe oljcct of the apos'io IS to show not that lin y were charged wiih tlie sin of anoihor, but tliat they were iji laci !>in:iers tlicinselves. If it means that thty wire condjniiied for /lis act, without any concurrence of iheir own will, ilien the correspoiidcnt part will be true, tiiai all are tonsiiiuted rij,'hlcous in tiie same way; and ihns ihe doctrine 0; uiiivcrial saivation will be inev.ia le. Uui as 1 one nru consiiiuttd riylittous who do not vol. latarily avail theins.lves of the prov.sions of mercy, $0 it follows lint those wh j art; Cijndi.nincJ, are not con- deiiined for tlic sin of another wuhout their own cjiicurrcHCc, nor u.i (ss thty pertfoivally deserve if. Si-nurs. — li'disgressois; iliosc who deserve to be punish rd It dots not naun ihose wlioaie condiinccd lor tl-e sin of ano iu-r; but tlu so who are violators of the law ol God. All who are cjiidenined inn sinners, 'i'hey are not inncccriL per- eons coiidenintd for the ciiine of anoil^ r. Men may Ke in- volv- .1 ID the consequences of ths gins of others wihont being 10 bl. line, the co!.sni leiices of the cii;nts of a iiuuderor, a drui.kan!, a |)iiate, inay pass over from ihim, ; nd oflcct thoisuid.o, and whelm them in iu:n. iSul this docs nut jTOve that ihey are blame worthy." Here is an explicit. po?iiion, and well froardod, in- teiid'td K) shut uut the idoti ol' ai:y one rniiii'.s bt-in^ puiii.-5ltt(i lor lite sin of nnoLher. He s:i>s iiicii may euli'cr in roiist q:ience of aiiolher's pin, t-ut not b© f)u,ii-.!iedfi)r ii. I'hu writer places till the evil? which lave lUlleii upon our race in cunsitiiiGnce of Adanri'a sin Oil the suiiie i'ouu.tix as those vvliicli I'all 011 chil- dren i,i f.ons- (pienec oi' the vices ol tlitir imnttediafe j).ir< iil.'S ; jiiid all his posteriiy had co-existed, and that bis positnty had been, through a law cf nature established by the Creator, united to him, something as the branches of a tree are uarsd to iha root, or the members of the body to the head, so as to eoa- 136 TaiAL of ■ titutc as it were on; complex pers3n, or one moral w!iob i So thai by ilie faw of uiii >n there s-liouUi have been a com- munion and co-existence in acta and alTcctions; all jointly participating, and all concurring, as one whole, in the dispo- sition of the liead : as we see in the body natural, the whole body is alleclcd as the head is alFectcd ; and the whole body concurs when the head acts. Now in this case all tho branches ot" mankind, by the consiitulion of nature and law of union, would have been affected just as Adam, their common root, was ali'ected. When the Heart of the root, by a full disposition, committed the first sin, the hearts of all the branches would have concurred ; and when the root, in con- sequence of tins, became guilty, so would all the branches; and when the root, as a punishment of the sin conmiitted, was forsaken of God, in like manner would it have fared with all the branches ; and when the root, in consequence of this, was confirmed in permanent depravity, the case would have been the same witii all the branches; and as new guilt on the soul of Adam would have been consequent ca this, so also would ii have been with hi.^ moral branches. And thus (ill tilings, with relation lo evil disposition, guilt, pollution and depravity, would exist, in the same order and depeadenco, in eacli branch, as in the root. Now, difference of the time of existence does not at all hinder things succeeding in the same order, any more than d.rterence of place in a co^exist- ence of time. Here may be obsorved, as in several respects to the present purpose, some things that are said by Siapferus, an eminent divine oi Zurich, in Switzerland, in his Theologia Polemica, pu'jlished about fourteen years ago;— in English as follows: "Seeing all Adam's posterity are derived from tlieir first parent, as their root, the whole of the human kind, wi'h its root, may be considered as constituting but one whole, or one mass; so as not to be properly distinct from its root; tho posterity not differing from it, iiny otherwise than the branch- es from the tree. From wh-ch it easily appears, how that when the root sinned, all that which is derived from it, and with it constitutes but one whole, may be looked upon as also sinning; seeing it is not distinct from the root, but one with it." — Tom. i. Cap. 3. § 856. 57. " It is objected against the imputation of A'iam's sin, that we never committed the same sin with Adam, neither in number nor in kind. I answer, we should disiinguisli here betvjeen the physical act itself which Adam committed, and the morali'y of the action and consetit to it. If we have re- spect only to the external act, to be sure it must be confessed that Adam's posterity did not put forth their hands to the forbidden fruit : In which sense, that act of transgression and that fall of Adam cannot be phyoically one with the sin of his posterity. But if we consider the morality of the ac- tion, and what consent there is to it, it is altogether to be maintained, that hii posterity committed the same f-in, both in number and in kind, inasmuch as they are to be looked upon as consenting to it. For where there is consent to a sin, there the same sin is committed. Seeing therefore that Adam with all his posterity constitute but one moral person, and arc united in the same covenant, and arc transgressora MR. BXHNES. I3Y dfthe same law, they are also to be| looked upon as having, in a moral cstimaiion, coinmitted tlie same tratisgri'ssion of the law, bolh in number and ia k nd. Tiicrefore ihi) reason- ing avails nothinn; against tlie righluou'' impulalion of llie sm of Adam to all mankind, or to ihe whole moral person that is consentinc; to it. And for tlie reason nicnlioncd, we may rather argue thus. The sin of the posleriiy, on account of their conseat, and tlie moral view m which they are to be taken, is l!.e same v, th ibn sin of Adam, not only in kind, but in number; therefore the sin of Adam n rirhiiy imputed to his posterity.'' — Id. Tom. i\, cap. 16 § GO, Gl. He say!=, they constituted but one moral person: yet this b'^ok cliargcs hiin with rnairituininj? ihut there was a physical uni(y of person. Stapler says the union is moral — a covenant or constituted union, and then qnoies the subjcrt G." identity. lamnotsinpu- Jnr in '.xliinjr tnis position in delLnct; ofEdvvard.s. Dr. Janeway, Wiiting in ihe Christian Ailvocate, main- tains the same. He there asserts that Edwards never ta i^ht the doctrine of pergonal identity. The thing is i;t an e\ il savor. What Edwards does teach is not a persona!, but a covenani union, a uniiy for moral uii posts. Am menibers o( this great moral body v^e are all one in our ccvenant head. There war no personal identity betv, een Adam and his wife. The thins is absurd in itself— it is an ineffable ab- sm*d:ty : and I rejeti: the im'Hitaiion ol'ii to me with some indif^pation. Ii, is like tiie cry of mad dog. They first ( inrgc; thi? absurd notion upon Edwards, and then make" this the ground of rejecting other doctrines by association. When this cafe was before the Presbytery, I quot- ed Turretin, Oiven, and others : but to save the time of the Synod, i shall net cite those quotations here. J wdl now show, liowever, that Pelagius, the arch-heretic of another age, field the same view with Mr. Burnc-;. And sure I am that if my brother saw tlaat he wa/! on die self-same eronnd with such a mnn, he wf iikl p.tuse. I quote the Biblical Reperto- ry, biH net as en authority in our ciiurch, Pelagirs, in iiis hook De natura, as quoted by Augustine, sayf- : " When i' is decbrcd that all have sinned in Adam, it should not be understood of any original sin contracted by tl.eii bir;'i, bu: of imitation." Vgair . "Haw can a man be considered guil y I^y G.>d of tha; sin which he knows not to be his own 'l for ii it i? necessary, it is not his own ; but if it is his own, it is voluntary ; and i: volunnry, it can be avoid- ed." It is the very doctrine of Pelagius. Yet I am far from charging broii;er Barnes with being a Pelagian, He holds a portion of ids doctrine, undoubtedly: and if he iollow'e oui. that portion, !i^ must embrace the rest. It he proceeds as he has begun, I warn him, now, in time, that he will end with being a Pelagian, 1^ 138 TRIAL OF There did exist a covenant with Adam as the federal head of the race. But we are preseed with the diffi- culty, ' How can it be?' My reply is, I don't know. How can the Trinity be? How can iliree be one? There are ultimate truths in morals as in all other matters of science. Put three men into a company in bus^iness, and t'lcy become a moral unity. How is this? If anv man will explain to mc the doctrine of agency, I will explain lo iiirn the covenant of works. But because it is an element in morals, beyond which a man can't go, must we therelbre reject it? A man may ask me to ex|)lain an axiom in ireomeiry : and because 1 can't do it, are we to reject the science? There are orio^inal elements in every science. I af- firm that the principle of representation is an origirial element in morals— vet wc cannot exist in a social «tate without it. It is indispensable to human socie- ty. Tliat one man shall stand in the moral relalions of another, is a fact without wliich society could not exist lor a day : and I never will consent to cast it off,because it cannot be explained. Now if men were all represented in Adam, and a covenant \yith him did exist, it Ibllows that all the members ol' the hu- man family are identilied with their head, and follow his destiny. And that is the doctrine of the Bible, and of tlie Confession of Faith. It is here necessary to define one or two terms. In the court below, Web- ster was quoted and certain law authorities : but such authority has not much weight with me in these mat- ters. Let us hear the Confession : Confession, 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 corrupied nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordmary generauon. 4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite lo all good, and wholly incUned to all evil, do proceed all actual transgres- flions. 5. This corruption of nature, during this life doth remain in those that are regenerated : and alihuugh it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself and all the motions thereof, are tiuly and properly sin. 6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law ot God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he ia bound over to the wrath of God, and curss of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries, spiritual, tempo- ral, and eternal. What is here meant by " ffuilt?" moral turpitude? corruption of heart? I ask any legal gentleman here pre&ent to say whether that is the meaning? Guilt 18 that whereby an offender is bound over to wrath. Mil. BARNES. 139 Here is a constitutional definition of ihe term. Guilt is liability to punishment. This is a true and a sound definition. Now keeping this definition in mind, let us conjpare the larger catechism, question 27, with what is here atTirmed. Larg. Cat., 27. Tiie fall brought upon mankind th*: loss of communion wiih God, ins displeasure and curse ; so as wo are by nature cliildren of wrath, bond slaves to Satan, and justly liable to all punishnicnis in this world, and that which is to come. "Justly lial)lc to all punishmcnis," &c. He ia guilty who is liable to jiunishment. A man charged with crime is by all courts oi" justice treated as iimo- cent until the verdict of guilty is actually given in. But when the court has decided that he has done the deed which exposes him to punishment, from that moment he is guilty in tlie eye of the law. Judgment compares Iv/o things and sees if they agree or not. The jud^e first lavs down the law and then the con- duct of tlie accused, and decides whether they agree or diH'er. 1( they agree, he pronounces a sentence of justification: if they dilfer, a sentence of condemna- tion. But, before this award, the man is not to be t-ent to the pt-nitenliary or to the gallows. He is not guilty. Guilt results from a i.udicial sentence. Men are liable before God for crimes they have done, whether condemned by men or not : but they are lia- ble before man only when they have been sentenced. There is an attempt to evade this doctrine by a criti- cism on the term " punishment." Punishment means any sullering inflicted as a just consequence of trans- gression. It will be attempted to be shown that punishment applies only lo individual and personal transgression. We say that punishment is any suf- fering which the law declares ought to be endjred as the h^gil remuneration foi; sin: but it is affirmed on the other side, that an evil inflicted is denominated punishment, only when it is for the personal acts of the individual himself who endures it. Under this nice distinction an attempt will be made to evade the charge. It is for the court to say whetlier they only are bound over to punishment who are personally ffuilty. The confession of faith says we areliable for all sin, both original and actual, and must endure ita penalty, and penalty is the just retribution of the law for the vi'ilation ol' the law. I must here remark on the doctrine of Imputation. Mr. Barnes's book says that it means the charging upon a man his own personal acts alone, or the act of another for which he is justly responsible. The Scripture does use the term m reference to the charging upon a man his own sins. But that is not all. Thie subject is clearly illustrated in the BibliciU 140 TRIAL or Repertory. It does, undoubtedly, include ihe charging on an individual his own doings ; but it in- cludes also the charging on him the acts of another wiio vvas his representative. Tiiis is clearly exem- plified in the case ofPiiilemon. Paul says to him, if Onesimus has wronj?ed ihee or owes thee aught, put that on my account. It was to bo charged on Paul, though it was not Paul's own act. The allegation is that God impules tilings as they are, not as ikey are not. But the direct languajre of the Scripture de- clares the contrary. It considers the first i'ruits as though they were the harvest — yet a handlul of f rain is not the harvest; it represents the harvest, n the passage to Philemon, the word rendered " set to my account," is the same word in the Greek, as that which is rendered " inipule." Tiie meaning is exceedingly plain, and is in positive contradiction to Mr. Barnes's position. Pliilemon has a debt in hia leger against Onosimus: Paul did not owe that debt personally — yet he says, " impute"' it to me. I will pay it. All men know that mutual consent, does cre- ate a moral union, and tiiey act on the principle ev- ery day. Paul here did consent, and I presume that he paid the debt. There is no clifTiculty in the mat- ter ; only keep metaphysii-s oil". Adam represented his race in the covenant ol' works, just as Paul re- presented Onesimus in the transaction with Phile- mon, The only question is as to tiae fact of the union,, how he became their representative. In Paul's case, it vvas by Paul's voluntary consent; in the case of Adam, it was by God's constitiuion. Then comes the question, did God constitute such a union. II he did, tlien all ihe consequences ol such union follow, of course. And it is in consequence ol such union, that his whole puiiterily fell in him and with liiiu. Bat it is said in this book, that we must not ask how Adam's posterity come to be atl'ected by his fall. The fact is so, but there we must stop and inquire no fartber. I am not willing that the book shall escape on this ground. A Socinian may escape on the siune princij^le. I can find men who are lar more /i6era/ than Mr. Barnes, who will admit the same tiling. Indeed, wbo is there tl'.at denies it? who denies the lac! tbat mankind aresinl'ul and liable to death? All admit this; the most wicked men in the world will go thus ("ar. It does not follow that Ave became sinners by Adam's fall, merely because all men have sinned and do die : it is only in conse- quence of a covenant with Adam, of v.'hich covenant death was to be the penalty. This book declares that Adam's sin is never charged upon any man un--. til he has sinned himself and thus assented to the relationsbip between him and tlie father of the race: but tlie doctrine of- the Bible is, that men are dcac} MR. BARNES. 141 " by nature" — that " by the oflence of one judgment came upon all men to condenination." But euch w uot the lan;?uage ofthis book. P. 127. But as none are constituted righteous who do notX Tolunlarily avail themselves of the provisions of mercy, so i? .' follows that those who are condemned, are not condemned for the sill of another without their own concurrence, nor un- less thev personally deserve it. P. 128. How can it be right to charge ihesinsof theguihy on those who had no partieipalion in them'.' How could millions be responsible for ihe sins of one who acted long be- fore Uioy had an existence, and of whose act they had no consciousness, and in which they had no participation? Men, ii seems, are not children oC wrath by nature, and condemned by the oflence ofone, but when they arrive at consciousness and voluntary action, and begin to sin in their own persons, then jud<^"nient comes upon ihcm. It is clear that the author denies that inlanis are justly liable to death, until by theif own voluntary action ihey have sealed the covenant ori their ovvit Dehalf. This, I re| eai, is not the doc- trine ol our confession, nor of the Bible. Paul teach- es that by one man's di.-obcdience many were mad© einners — ''as by the otiience oi' one judgment came upon all men to coiidemnaLion, even so by the ri.?;hi- cousness ol' one the free gift came upon all nieii to justification." The exposition teaches that as con- demnation w^ould come upon all men by Adam's sin, on certain conditions, so a door was o|iened for the free gift to come upon all men on certain conditions. The doctrine of the Bible is, that judgment came upon all men by Adam's sin: the doctrine of the ex- positor is, that condemnation would come on all men when they should themselves voluntarily sin. The Bible says it came upon them before they acted at all: the book denies this. Here is the ditierence be- tween them. And now I want to show what were the opinions ofa great and learned man — one of the most pious men ol his day — a man who travelled through all the convents of Europe purposely to i)rotnote the growth of religion in those establishments — a man of uncom- mon sanctity and of the mo.st splendid talents. You will find my authority in Milner's Churcii Ilistorf, voL 2d, p. 370: " If Adam's sin hurt those who are not guilty, the righte- ousness of Christ profits those who believe riot." Here PeJagius declares that if Adam's sin hurt those who were not themselves personally guilty, then the righteousness of Christ tnusi help those who believe not. The very doctrine of Mr. Barnes. And I hold up this passage from the famous heresi- arch as a beacon ot warning to our brother. Aod I 142 TRIAL OF now hold with him the same argument whicli was held with Pela^ius, and which pressed so hardly up- on him. It is this : How dare you baptize iiirant?, if they hnve no sin? A report had Kone abroad, that Pelagius rejected infant baptism. Peiagius denied it; but wiien pressed wiih this arfciiment, never coula exphiin how or why lie did it. Tlio same arjcument has been pressed upon all who hold the doctrine of human ability. It was pressed on the apiiellee, and with such importuiiity, that I was really almost ashamed of repealinfr it: yet it never was met; and 1 venture to |)rtdict that it never will be met. Il'inf ints are not liable to puni.-?hment, how can those who die in infancy be pardoned ? What is par- don ? It is the remission ol a sentence of condemn- ation. It is the taking away ol' tlie legal consequen' ces of transgression. BuL how can those be pardon- ed who have no sin? How can liability to punishment be taken away Iro^n those who never were liable'^ A prisoner, accused of a crime, pleads not guilty. He is offered a pardon: but will he accept it? No:. he scorns it. He replies: I am innocent;*! need no pardon, and will accept none. An inl'ant never can DC pardoned unless he is guilty ; and it not guilty of Bin in his own person, he must be pardoned tlie guilt of his first father. Surely thi' is very plain. My Christian brethren, some of you are fathers, and are able to appreciate the value of this doctrine. For my own part, I have believed it from my earliest years. I do most fully believe that infants are in- debted to Christ lor pardon. But never did 1 feel the worth of this truth, as I felt it, when 1 held my own dying inlant upon my knees, ttnd beheld it endurir^g agonies equalled only by those which the Savior him- self endured, when hanging on the .-iccurscd tree he exclaimed — "My Cod, my God, why hast thou Ibr- eaken me !" Then it was that 1 said to myself, they may speculate as they please, but if this child is not held liable to i)unishment for Adam's sin, then what kind oi a God have we got? Would he inllirt such things on a being chargeable with no fault? Pa- rents, is it not a sladdening thought, that you shall meet your lost p.hild in the world of spirits ? that your eyes shall behold its beloved face again m the realms on high ? Oh, how grand a thought ! how condoling ! how precious! Bat this hook says, nay: according to this author, there must be one heaven for infants, and another for parents. Your lost babe can never take its harp of gold and sing the praises of redeem- ing love. VVliy? Because it never was pardoned. What does it owe to Christ or his blood ? Ah no; it never can join that melody which rivets the atten- tion of angels, but in which they have no share. It never can say, " thou hast redeemed us to God by MR. BARNES. 14 thy blood," for it never was redeemed: it cannot praise the Lamb lor pardoning mercy, lor it never was pardoned. You whoiiave lost infants, can appre- ciate this. lithe position is true, we and our inlants must part. I j)ressed this on Mr. Barnes helorc the Presbytery, and urged him for a reply; hut there was no reply. All thai was attemi>led, was a cold remark, ihat vvc knew iitlle about the state ofin- fants, and he was not vviNiii^ to harrow up ttie leei- ings of parents by discussnig it. I jiredicl that there will be no reply. Here the Synod took a recess. On convening after r.!(;e.s.s. Synod attended to to same other business, and then resumed the trial of the. appeal, and Dr. Junkiii proceeded: Having been urged by not a lew of my friends to abbrevia.ie my remarks still more than 1 have alrea- dy en-leavored to do, I shall waive the reading again oi' the whole of the testimony, and shall only refer with much brevity to some parts ofii; as 1 pascj on. Charge VIII. The 8th charge is as follows : Mr. I5arnes denies " that Christ sutTercd the proper penalty of the law, as the vicarior.s substitute of his people, and thus took away legally their sins and purchase J pardon." We have seen that the author of the Notes on Ro- mans denies the imputation of Adam's sin to his pos- terity. But by contrasting tiie two covenants of grace and of works, we ascertain the fact, and are shut up to believe it, that as Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity, so, in like manner, the pin:« of Christ's people passed over to Christ and were the cause of his anguish and death on the cross. Jesus is called in the Bible the second Adam. With him was made a new covenant, llie first liaving been broken ; new, in respect to the lime of its revelation, but old in fact ; for in reference to this covenant, believers were chosen in Christ before the Ibunciation of tiie world, and the same relation was constituted between them and Christ, the head of the new covenant, as had be- fore been established between Adam, the head of the first covenant, and his positerity. Consequently, their sin pa.9ses over to the second Adam in just the same Avay as the sin of the first Adam passed over upon his seed. The doctrine of this book is a denial that Christ suffered the proper penalty of the law ; and the rea- Bon given is, that his sufferings were not eternal, nof were they mingled with remorse and despair. The Bible clearly shows, however, that his death was penal in its nature — that he bore the wrath of God for sin. There is much in this book which in- cludes what I deem correct phraseology. It admits 144 TRIAL OF (liat Christ was "substituted" for his people, bat it denies that he was their lepal representative. It admits tiiat Christ did t;o suli'er as to show to the universe God's nispieapure at sin; but not that he endured its lej^ai penahy. But you could never un- derstand how hi.s death should display the divine jus- tice, unless he took the lei^al responsibilities oC his people. TJie book says that it showed that God's law could not be broken with impunity : but it doea not show how this was done: tbr imputation is deni- ed. But surely liis deatli was one ol' the stiongest manifestatinns ol" injustice that ever was made, un- less imputation be admiiled. If no sin was imputed to Christ, for what did he sutler? VV^iy was that cup of trembling put to his blessed lips ufitil he had drained its bittere.-^t drej^s ? The following are nijr proofs of the ei^bih charge: Proof 1. All ihe pa99.i£;cs quoted under charges 6 and 7 are refern-d to here. If tlie sin of the first Adam is not im- puted to his seed, and they are not liable to jiuiiisliment on acconni of it ; then ii inevitably follows, that the sin of hia «eed is not iyiputed to the second Adam, and he panislied on account o'it. Proof 2. p. S9, 93. "In the plan ef salvation, therefore, he has showa a regard to the law, by appointing hia Son to b« a substitute in the I'ljce of sinners ; not to endure its precipe Iienaliy, for his suflVriiiva were not eternal, ner v.-ere iliey at- tended with remorse of conscience, or by despair, which are the proper ■penalty of the law ; but he endured so mueh as to nccomplisli the same cndb as if those who sha.l be saved bf him, had lee.i doomed to eternal death. That is, he showed that the law could not be violated without introducing suffer- fngs; and that it could not be broken with impunity. He showed that he had s.) great a regard for it, thai he would not pardon ont sinner witiiout an atonement. And thus he secur- ed the propel honor to his cliaracter as a lover of his law. a hater of sin, and a just God. He has shown tiivl if sinners do not avail themselves ol the cfl'er of pardon by Jesus Christ, Viey must experience in iheir own souls forever, the pains which this substitute for sinners endured, in behalf of men, on the crocs." Thu?, no principle of justice has been abandon- ti\ ; no claim of his law has been let down ; uo disposition ha» been evinced to do injustice to the universe, by suti'.ring the gadty to escape. He is, in all this great transaction, a just moral govi rnor, as just to his law, to himself, to his Son, to the uni\crsc. when i\G pardonSy as he is wisen he sends the incorriiiible 'sinner down m iiell. A Aill compensation, an equivalent has beei. providtd by die sufferings of the Savior in the sinner's siead, and the tinner may be pardoned." How opposite this is to the doctrine of our church, will be seen by referring to the Confession ol Faith and to the Catechisms. Confession, 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 fulhl it; en- dured most grievous torments, immediately in his soul, and MK. BARNES. 145 most painful Bufferings in his body ; was crucified and died ; was buried and remained under llie power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day he arose from the dead, with the same body in which he sufTcred ; witii which also he ascended into heaven, and there sitfcth at the right hand of his Father, making intercession ; and shall return to judge men and nngels nt the end of the world. 5. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he throuijli the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fidly satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting in- heritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those wlium the Father hath given unto him. Chap. xi. 3. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that arc thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to his Father's jus- ticp in their bclialf. 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, thtir justification is only of free grace; that both the e.xact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justifi- cation of sinners. Larger Catechism, 49. Christ humbled himself in his death, in that having been betrayed by Judas, forsaken by his di.'^cipies, scorned and rejected by the world, condemned by Pilate and tormented by his persecutors ; having aleo con- llicted with the terrors of death, and the powers ot darkness, felt and borne the weight of God's wrath, he laid down his life an ofleiing for sin, enduring the painful, shameful, and cursed death of the cross. Shorter Caiechism, 25. Christ e.xecuteth the office of a priest, in his once offering up of himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, and reconcile us to God ; and in making con- tinual intercession for us. These aulhoritics are sufficient to show that the Presbyterian ciiurch hold.s the doctrine that our shis passed over on Christ, and that he nas hcid respon- Bible for them, because he was the surety, represent- ative and moral head of his peo|)le. Charge IX. The 9th charge is the luliovving: Mr. Barnes denies " that the righteousness, i.e. the act- ive obedience of Christ to the law, is imputed to his people for their justification ; so that they are righteous in the eye of the law, and therefore justified." My proofs are as follows: Proof 1. p. 28. (3.) The phrase righteousness of God, is equivalent lo God's plan ofjusiifyivg men ; his scheme of de- claring ihemjust in Ike sight of Ike law; or of acquitting them from punishment, and admitting them to favor. In this sense it stands opposid to man's plan of justification i. e. by his own works. God's plan is by faith." "The word to justifijy dikaio, means properly to be Just, to be innocent, to ba righteous. It then means lo declare, or treat as righteous, as i/J when a man is charged with an offence, and is acquited. If / J the crime alleged is not proved against him, he is declared by 146 TRIAL OF the law to be innocent. It then means to treat as if innocent, to regard as innocent ; that is, to pardon, to forgive, ana consequently to treat as ii' the ollence had not occured. It does not mean that the man did not commit the otlence, or that the law mij^'ht not liavc held him answerable for it; but that the ofl'ence is forgiven j and it is consistent to receive the offender into favor, and to treat him as i/he had not commit- ted it." yu ^-J " In regard to this plan, it may be observed. (1.) That ia ((t not to declare that men are innocent and pure. That would not be true. The truth is just the reverse : aud God docs not esteem men to be different from what they are. (2.) It is not to take part with the sinner, and to miiigate his olloriccs. It admits them to their full extent, and makes him foci them also. (3.) It is not that we become partakers of tlie essentia! righteousness of God. 'I'hat is impossible. (4 ) It is not that his righteousness becomes ours. This is not tiue ; and there is no intelligible sense in which that can be undersloecL Bul it is God's plan (or pardoning sin, and for treating us as if we had not commuted it ; that is, adopting us as his cliild- ren, and admitting us to heaven, on the ground of what the Lord Jesus has dune in our stead. This is God's plan. Men seek to save tlitmselvei-' by their own works. God's plan ia to save them by the merits of Jesus Christ." Prool 2. p. 81, 85. " Even the rigk'eousness of God. The opostic, having stated that the design of the Gospel was to reveal a new plan of becoming just in the sight of God, pro- ceeds here more fully to explain it. The explanation which he oflers, makes it plain that the phrase so oltcn used by liim, ^' rl£hleousness of God," does iiut refer tc) ap attribute of God, but to his plan of making m*n rigl-iteous. litre he says, that it is by faith in Jesus Christ ; but surely an aitribute of God is not produced liy faith ia Jeuws Christ. It means God's mode of regarding men as rightcuus through their bc!ief in Je.«us Ciirist. " God has promised that tl.cy who believe in Christ, shall bo pardoned and saved. This is his plan in distinction from the p^an of ih.iss who seek to be justilied by works." ^^ JJci7ig jus/.ijied.— Being treated as if righteous, that ia, being regarded and treated as if they hjd kept the law. Th« apostle has shown that they could not be so regard. d and treated by any meiit of tluir own, or by personal obedience to the law. He now affirms that if thty were so treated, it must b'! by mere faror, and as a matter, not of light, but of gift. This is the essence of the Gospel. Proofs, p. 94, 95, as quoted under charge IV (7) and p. 96, " God juilges things as they are; and sinners who are justi- fied, he judges not as if they were pure, or as if ihey liad a chiiin : but ho' rrga.ds tlvm as united by fuilk to Ike Lord /'~' Jesus, and in tJiisreiation he judges that tkey ■•■hould he treated as fiisjriends, though lliey have be^n, are, and alisai/s uill be ' personally undeserving. But if the doctrine of the Scriptures was that the entire rigtiteousjiess of Christ was set over to them, was really and truly theirs, and was transferred to them in any sense, With what piopnety could the apostle say, that God justified the ungodly/ If they have all the right- eousness ol'Chiist as their own, as really and truly theirs, as )/■ they had wrought it out themselves, they art not " ungodly." MR. BARN£S. 14? They are eminently pure and holy, nnd have a claim, not of fiacc, but of debt, to the very liiglicst rewards of hpdven." p. 7. Unto whom God irnputcth righUousntss. — Wliom God treats as righteous, or as entitled to his favor in a way dif- ferent from his conformity to the law. This is found in Psalms xxxii. And the wiujie scope and design of ihc Psalm is to show the blessedness of the man who ]sJ'orgivir)g, and whoso sins are not charged on him, but who is freed from tha punishment due to his sms. Being thus paidoned, he is treat- ed ns a righteous man." Proof 4. p. 127. lii/lhcobcdlenceof one— 01 CUrisl. Thin stands opposed to the dinvbcdicnce of Adam, and eviJenlly ineludes the en I ire worii o: t'le Redeemer whicii has a bearing on tlie salvation of men. Phil. ii. 8. "lie ■••• became obedient unto deaih." P. 21. '" Of God's righteousness. Not of the personal holiness of God, but of God's plan of juslijying mi:n. or of declaring ihem lighteous by faitli in his Son. Here God's plan stands opposed lo their efForts to make themselves righteous by th> ir own works." The book deni js that the active obedieiice of Christ is inipated to bi-lievers lor their rio'httousness. If imputation is net true, and the doinss ol'one man aa to their legal consequences do not pass over to ano- ther, then undoublec'jy Christ's active com;)h"ance witli the detuanJs ol' the law cannot be imputed for righteousniss. The |)hraseis used of" treating men as if they wera righteous," but theie is a careful avoiding of the assertion that the active obedience of the Savior is counted to them in kav as, theirs. In pages 94, 95, he says. [Sea the quotation under Charga IV.] The doctrine of our Confession, and of the Bible, is here expressly denied. That the believer is justi- fied by Christ's obedience, that he has on the wedding garment of Chpist's righteousness, is the doctrine of our Church in her Confession: but, according to this book, there is no transfer of legal responsibilities— that goes down with tlie doctrine of imputation. I rcler the Synod to our Confession: Confession of Faith, xi. 1. Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely jusiifieth ; not by infusing righteous- ness into them, but by pardoning their sms, anTT^y account- ing and accepting their persons as righteous: not for any thmg wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ'* Bake alone: not by imputing fa th itself, the act of lelieving, or any other evangelical obedience, to them as their righte- ousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto thei.i, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith : which faith they have not of them* selves ; it is the gift of God. 2. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justificatijn ; yet ia it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and ia no dead faith, but workelii by love. 148 TRIAL OF 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 satisf5c;tion to his Father's justice in their behalf Yet, in as much as he was given by the Father for ihcm, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their justi- fication is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners. Larger Catechism, 70. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth ail their sins, ac- cepteiii and accounteth their persjns rigiilcous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but on- ly for the perfect obedience and full satislaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faiih alone. 71. Althounli Christ, l!e which it contains was previously im- hodied in that sermon. The case has rested in my mind for a series of years. After having read not the ■whole of his book but a considerable part of it, in order that I might take in the course of his reasoning, I then selected some parts, where all, save one, of the points of his system are brought forvvnrd, which are discussed in his book. Before this discussion com- menced, I had drawn out my views on those points, und on their contrariety to ihe standards of our church, and had handed them to the brother who is the appellant in this cauf^e. Since the present dis- cussion has been in progress, I have most atleniively followed every speaker, and listened closely to every word, (as 1 should gladly have listened to the appel- lee, had he chosen lo address us,) and I tliirik the ap- pellant has sustained the charges, v very one of them which he brought in ihe court lulow; and has no less established another charge which is contained in mypapcr which I handed to him, but which he did not bring forward in a distinct form. I will not now mention what it is. I liad however no conversation with the appellant previously to the trial ; none at all. I knjw not what I should say more. 1 have no partir ality in the case, and I riiould highly crimi/iate myself if there were any such feeling in my breast. I was compelled, in the c'ty of Philadelphia, to take a lead- ing part in tlie discussion, and never did 1 do anything BO reluctantly. 1 have formed my opinion after much thought, much consideration, and 1 hope, some hum- MR. BARNES. 155 ble prayer to the ^reat Fountain of Light; and my opinion is that ihie book stand'' in direct antiliiesiH to gome of the fundanientdl doctrines of our Confi'Fsioo of Faith. He denies the whole doctrine of iinputation of Adam's sin to his posterity: and althouj^h he does not deny the imputation of Christ's riiriiteousnees ta his spiritual see I, yet, as he wholly omits it, and as what he does sav on the subject is ajrainst ihe impu- tation of Christ's active obedience, it appears to me that Mr. Barnes does not hold that doctrine which was so truly desisi;nated by Luther as articidus slan- tic. et cadrnlis ecclesius. Tliat we are connected with the iledeemer, and indebted to him, somehow or other, for our salvation, it appears ;iiat he does hold: liut, the imputation of his riiiht( ousness to be- lievers I must conclude he does not hold. Mr. W. Latta. I have endeavoured, during the progress of this trial, to strip myself of all partialiiy, and it is my opinion that tlie charges of the appelinnt have all been sustained. I had ihouglu of speaking at some lengtii in relation to them, but I do not lielii^ve that I could make the matter more clear than it is ; and as we all wish to save the time of the Synod, [ will add no more. I believe the charges have been proved. Mr. PoTTa. I did intend to give a silent vote : but I deem it my duty to express the firm conviction of my mind that the doctrine of this book in reference to the itriputa- tion of Adam's sin to his posterity, is nothing more than an extension of the doctrine advanced in Mr. Barnes' printed sermon, entitled " The Way of Sal- vation." I should have been extremely glad to have lound Mr. Barnes subjecting hiuifrelf to the requisi- tion of Synod, and coming forward to vindicate pub- licly the doctrine he has promulgated. The causes why he has not done so are best known to liimsell and to the Presbytery of which he forms a part. The facts stated, and the illustrations given by the appel- lant, conipel me to vote that the decision of the Pres- bytery is not in accordance with the evidence now placed belbreus; and I shall therefore sustain the appeal. Mr. McCai^la. My opinion is that the charges have been proved, and iha,t the appeal ought to be sustained, Mr. Janvier. 1 have given the utmost aitention to the evidence and the argument submitted to Synod, and have en- deavored to see whether some of the charges could not be dismissed for.want ol proof, but I find they are all BO linked together, that they must all share one 156 TRIAL OF fate. The proton pseiidos, the great fundamental error of the whole scheme, is the denial o( the impu- tation of Adam's sin. Mr. C. Williamson. I believe that the whole of the charges have been •usiaiacd. Mr. Winchester. If I understand the charge, it was, that in Mr. Barnes' book are taught doctrines in contradiction to our Confesfsion of Faith and to the Scriptures. I take it for granted that our cJtandards are according to the Bible, and my conviction is that the doctrines in this book are not taught in our standards, but that just tiif! opposite is tauj^ht. 1 do not think ii, is for us to decide wliether those doctrines are taught in the Scripturcr, or not. 1 know that this is the popular impression ; but I look at our ordination vows. 1 did solemnly say that I believed all the doctrines taught in the Conlcssion and Standards of the Presbyterian church: I made no reservation. 1 cannot believe the doctrines in this^ book are according to those stand- ards, and therefore not according to the Scriptures, My judgment is that the charges are euctaiued. Mr. Parker. I believe the charges have been fully sustained. Mr. J. Grier. According to the scniiments expressed by Dr. Green, 1 believe the charges are sustained. Mr. Harned. From the beginning of this business I have felt pe^ culiar sympathy with the accused. I have known some ol the difficulties anJ temptations he has lallen into ; and all my prepossessions were in his favor : but on hearing ihe charges, and the argument of the appellant, I asked mysell whether any man subscrib- ing the Confession of Faith and taking the ministerial vows, he had taken could, lay his hand upon his heart, and say that this book is in accordance with the Confession lie has solemnly sworn to maintain? I entirely believe, as I shall answer it at the bar of Jesus Christ, that the charges have been fully made out, and that the appeal should be sustained. Mr. Bradforo. If I Gould possibly get rid ol the performance of an imperative duty, my age and inexperience might per- haps excuse me: but my ordination vows compel me to act. I attended the trial belbre the inferior Judi- catory ; and I have with equal care attended lo what has been said here; and my solemn conviction is tliat the appeal ought to be sustained. Mr. Macklin. I think the appeal should be sustained : but I also MR. BARNE9. 157 wiah to exprciss my opinion of the danfferoui' nature of those errors which luive been proved against tho Appellee, I remember tiiat I am one of those who watch for souls as they who must give an account: and however humble, still that I am eat as a watch- man upon Zion's walls, and must give the alarm when an enemy approaclie.?. The enemy has often cre})t into the church of Christ unawares. It has long been my belief that in the last days, the church must go through trials jirecisely of this kind — that men will bring in diimnable heresies, and in such a way too as to deceive, it it were possible, the very elect. The Providence of God has thrown me here: and I am fully convinced, from the evidence of my own eyes, that if these errors shall continue to make progress, the Presbyterian Church, as such, will no longer have an existence in this land. If the doctrines I have taught, be Presbyterian doctrines, and be the truth of God, then must the doctrines in that book be false, and anti-Presbyterian. The one or the other must fall. Knowing from the history of the church how progressive error has ever been from the days of Paul to the days of Arius, and from kis time to those in which we live, and over all the face of the church, in all countries of the old world and the new» and that unless error be corrected, and these innova-- tions be put to a slop to, and we return to the good old way, the result must be endless confusion, I hold it our duty to act with decision on tlic ci^.se belore- us. I believe that the appeal ought to be sustained. Mr. Elliot. A week has scarce elapsed since I was ordained^ and it is consequently hut a short time since I care- fully read over the Confession of Faith in immediate contemplation of the vows I was to take: and mv judgment is that the opinions expressed in this boolc do not accord with those in the Confession. I think the appeal ought to be sustained. Mr. Ramsay (uiissionary to India.) One day, in Bombay, 1 was reading the Testament with my Pundit, and we came across the passa^-e where it is declared iliat " all flesh shall see tlio salvation of God." The Pundit said, " I believe that doctrine. You are a Christisn and I am a Hindoo: but I believe that all men not only, buc all the cowa and horses and dogs in the whole world will be saved." From ihis verse of the Bible he undertook to prove that all the dogs and cats should go to heaven; and insisted that it was declared in our own Scriptures. I told him that that was not the mean- qf ihe words " all flesh" as used here. I adduce thie tact to shew what different interpretations men will sometimes attach to the same text of Scripture. As IS8 TRIAL OW to this case of brother Barnes, I have heard one side, but not the other. As a n)ispionary, unconnected with any party, I muet say that unlil I have heard what brother Barnes has to say, I cannot decide that the charge has been sustained. 1 was present at the Presbytery a lew days during the trial, wlien I heard Dr. Junkiii urge and explain several heads of the charge, and I heard Mr. I3arnes repeatedly say that lie did not believe or maintain what Dr. Junkin charged upon him. I cannot vote, in the lump, or in- deed at all. until I hear from the accused what it ia he does believe and mean to affirm. 1 cannot vote ' sustain' or ' not sustain.' Dr. Mc DowELL. If I could be sati.-;fied that you have the case fully before you, I phould know what opinion to express without hesitation: but there is a difficulty which Blill presses on my mind. If all the evidence waa here which couid be given I should without hesita- tion give my opinion in the case. I believe that the appellant, in his statement as now submitted tons, has proved that Mr. Barnes believes all sin to consist in voluntaiy action: that he denies the covenant of works, the federal Headship of Adam and the impu- tation of Adam's sin to his posterity : and il I could vote on such evidence as has bfcn submitted to us, 1 should vote to sustain the appeal. I believe there are errors in his book on the llomans, important and fit^n^proup errors j hut I do not know whether, if the rebutting testimony were heard, he miglit not be able to bring such counter evidence from other pas- sages of Ilia book as would convince mc that he did not mean to assert these positions. We are not to eettle the question of his consistency as an author; with that we arc not concerned : bat I think we inler some things from his lanj^uage which 1 doubt whether lie holds. I heard it said by the appellant, as he was proceeding in his argument, that some i)oints of hia charge were admitted by Mr. Barnes: while, at the same moment, there were members just behind me who were present at the trial, and who affirmed as confidently that Mr. Barnes did not admit rhem. Which of these authorities am I to believe ? Mr. Barnes is not here to explain: I cannot say but ti-.at lie and his Presbytery have taken constitutional grounds in refusing to ansv/er : be that as it may, however, I am in the dark as to facts; and under such circumstances I dare not vote to sustain the appeal. If Mr. Barnes admitted the evidence to be Buliieient and to be correct, I should then say, sustaiu the charges throughout. Dr, Neill. J have paid a good deal of aiteation to this case for MB,. BARKB8. 159 the last six or eight months : and have carefully read those pans of tlie Notes on Romans which bear on the points attempted to be made out in the cliargea of the appellant: and am free to say, that 1 could not, by any explanations I could conceive of, make them consistent with the avowed doctrines ol' the Presbyterian church. This was my view of the mat- ter before the trial was had. Since then I have ex- tended my reading in the work itself I have careful- ly attended to the charges of Dr. Junkin, and have read a great deal on the subject : and I remain still under the same impression as before. I lo^e brother Barnes; I fully appreciate his worth: but I believe that he is mistaken on these points of doctrine. The impression is strengthened on my mind that there is error, serious, dangerous, I do not say fatal, or radi- cal, contained in this book. 1 believe that there are pious men who hold tlie same views: but that is not the question we have to decide. All we have to de- termine is, whether these views are in accordance with the standards of our church. That is the gist of the question. 1 am free to say this much. I wish to say, in addition, that I have felt with great solem- nity the responsibility urider which 1 act. 1 know my own weakness, and I wish that the other side could have been heard. I leel, and have felt from the be- ginning, that neither the common understanding of mankind, nor the spirit of our institutions, nor the law of Jesus Christ, nor the law of the land, will en- dure that a man should be condemned without a hearing. I know that in the present case it i^eems to be the fault of the man himself, and ol his friends, that he has not been heard. Nor do I mean to cast the slightest reflection upon the Synod. I do not, in- deed, see how we could have done otherwise, thua far. But while there are different opinions as to the suppression of the Presbytery's records, ai.d as to Mr. Barnes' concurrence in such suppression, still it is^laimed to be done on constitutional ground. I will not slop to argue that point with our brethren: I believe, however, that the record ought to have been produced. Yet, under all circumstances, ! do think it will not be for the permanent good of the church for us lo go into a final decision of the case. I am sure that if we decide after having heard but one side of the cause, our proceedings will scarcely pass before the court above. On tins ground 1 know not that 1 shall be able to vote. But, as lar as ! am able to un- derstand the doctrines contained in the Confession of Faith and in this book, and as far as 1 have heard the argument adduced on one side of the question, it . does appear to me that the charges are made out. Some, however, are not of very great consequence ; euch, for instance, as that in reference to the exteat 160 TRIAL OF of A Jam's knowledge: although I admit thai the design of these ptissages would seem to be to show that no covenant was made witli him. As far as wo have light, I think the charges liave substantially been proved: but I doubt whether it is expedient that iliis Synod should come to a vote as to the ex- tent ol"error proved. Mr. BovD. I have no qualms of conscience in respect to the testimony. I must believe that the whole of the testi- mony worth hearing hab been before the court. The uppeulougiit to be sustained. Dr. CUYLER. I was never, in all my lile, placed in circumstances where, but for a sense of incumbent duty, I should be more reluctant to give an opinion. But, stand- ing^, as here 1 do, as a judge of a court of the Lord's house, I leel the in)perious duly which presses upon me. 1 did not hear the trial in the court below : I declined being pretcnt at it: hut 1 have read Mr. Barnes' book, and the charges Ibundod upon it, and so much of the Icsliniony as has been adduced ; and I have also read our Confession of Failh and both the Catechisms, on the points involved in this trial : and have endeavored to compare the charges with the prool ("rom the book and from our standards; and I do deliberately believe, beftre God, that the charges have been made out, and that the appeal is sustaina- ble. As to tlie difficulties which have been felt and expressed by some of the brethren, they would cer- tainly have great force, it, by any act of God in his providence, itie ai)pe!Iee was deprived of the opportu- nity of being present to answeri: but the appi llee has voluntarily waived every advantage he nught have derived from an explanation in reply. 1 never re- gretted the bearing of a trial more deeply: but still I believe that the court was right in proceeding, not- withstanding all objections. I am persuaded it will be for the peace as well as the purity ol the church, that this appeal should be issued, and leave the re- sult, to ourselves, in the hands of One who is perfect truth and laiihfulness, and who is to be the final Judge both of us and the accused. Mr. Belville. I have felt some embarrassment because any judg- ment we may give will be e.v parte ; but I am great- ly relieved from the lact that all the testimony need- ed by the accused is in his own possession, viz. the book itself, and his own argument founded thereon. 1 am compelled to sustain the appeal, not because all the charges have been made out, but because those which are of the most consequence, viz. Mr. Barnes' rejection of the doctrines of representation and impu- tation have been clearly established. MR. BARNES. 161 Mr. Adaik. It appears to me that our citation as judf^e*! com- pels us to go, ill our decision, upon the testimony alone. I shall not proceed, in the vote I may give on this occasion, upon anything I may have pfevious- ly thought upon Mr. Barnes' case, at home. Now, according to my impression of the matter, we have the testimony on one side only ; so that if I am driven to a vote, I must vote e.v paite. If I were driven to that necessity I should certainly say that Mr. Barnes is guilty of a denial of all the leading doctrines in our Confession of Faith; and not only so, hut of all the most important doctrines of ihe Bihle also. But it is a very diliereni thing to decide upon a mere one-sidtd statement ol" the case, and to nave the accused bo- fore us and decide after hearing his explanation and defence. Suppose that any member ot this body were placed before us for judgment, and that the truth of the Confession of Faith, or of the Word of God it- self were to be tested by the resulr, I am sure there is noc one n'.an here who would sufi'er eitlier to be put in jeopardy by the cunning and the argumenta- tive adroitness of an infidel. They would insist upon a rejly. But if the confession and even the Bible it- self might receive injury undel- such circumstances, is it wonderful it this book of brother Barnes' should be in danger of being misrepresented? I confess myself utterly at a loss to form an opinion in the case: but il I am driven, without farther proof, to make up and express an opinion, it would be this, that Mr. Barnes holds opinions I never suspected, and deserves not only deprivation of his office, but to be cast out of the christian church. There have been some things said of this book which require to be noticed. It has been said that the book is full of contradictions. It this is so, then admitting that in ^ome passages it does teach what is contrary to the Confession, brot'ier Barnes might possibly be able from other passages to show, with equal or superior evidence, that it teaches the contrary. It has been truly said that if Mr. Barnes seems at contradiction with himself, the fair mode of interpreting his book would be to take all its parts together and' make out a sense in which they will all agree, as far as may be practicable. I have proof that it has been said the book is very contradictory in its sentiments : while tnat is the case 1 am not at liberty to form an opi- nion from certain passages selected out of it. 1 ad- rait Dr. Junkin has established by positive evidence some of the charges advanced by him, provided there be ne rebutting testimony. The first ^)oini charged is that Mr. Barnes maintains that man is able to keep the commandments of God. Now I hold in my hand a revievv of Mr. Barnes' book contained in the Bibli- 14 162 TRIAL OF cal Repertory, a work published under the sanrlion ol Princeton Seminary. In page 22 of that work, (1 quote from a pamphlet form oi" the review,) "The third doctrine on the subject is presented in our standards in this form : ' Tliat no mere man, since the fail, IS able, in this hfe, perrectly to keep the commandments of God.' It is an inability, which, arisinn; out of the sinful state of the soul, is entirely inexcusable. It is that of which every man, whether saint or sinner, whatever may be his philoso- phy, is conscious. It is that of which Paul speaks when he says 'how to perform thnt which is good I find not.' Horn. vii, 18, and again, ' These are contrary, the one to the other, so that ye cannot do (me poiete) the things that ye would. Even this opinion Mr. Barnes seems torscognize as correct." This shows me that I am unable to form an opi- nion under present circumstances. Here is a writer of no mean standing who declares that Mr. Barnea admits what Dr. Junlun alieen, justify me in holding the opposite opi- nion. Mr. KENNEDY here rose to a point of order. It had occurred to him that if the paper were read on which the Presbytery had proceeded to make up their de- cision it might go I'ar to relieve some minds. MoDERATOH. That paper has been read. Mr. Gibson. I was a spectator ol all that passed in the lower court, and 1 can say tiiat Synod has all the testimony before it whicli was exhibited belbre that court. 1 could indeed have wished that the appellee had ap- peared before us and defended his cause. And I had lioped it would have been so^ when I heard the elo- quent appeal he nude to his own Presbytery, on the cveiiiiig of the day on which thi^y rel'used their re- cords for our use. I heard him then say that if those records were all before you, and the trial should be oruerly conducted, he was persuaded the whole Synod would be convinced tiiai he was guiltless of the mat- ters charged against him. Mr. Barnes then seemed to wish a decision ia his case, and did not appear dcr sirous of talcing any appeal. If this decided opinion ot" Mr. Barnes did not of itself present to his Presby- tery one of the strongest appeals that could be ac- dressed to any body ol men, I am entirely deceiv- ed. And sure I am that if such an appeal as thai then made had been addressed to any other Pres- bytery in our body, if it had been made to the old Presbytery of Pliikuielphia, or to the Synodical Se- cond Presbytery, and had been rejected, the whole community would have lifted up ihcir voice against such a ])roceeding. But as the Assembly's Second Presbytery are all the personal friends of Mr. Barnes, it must be considereil as intended as a measure of fa- vor to him. But certainly his appeal to them was one of the strongest I ever heard. But, apart from all this, — having heard the proceedings in ihe lower court, and having now attentively listened to all thai has been said by the appellant in support of the charges, 1 am compelled to say that, in my judgraeni :hey are 6i46ia,ined, MR. BARNES. 165 Mr. DuRFOR. I am asked to ;2;ive a vote, and I now appeal to my own coriscicnco and to the fcearcher of hearts, while I declare, in respect to the doctrines liere promul- gated by Mr. Barnes in hid book, that ever yince I have known any tiling, and have been able to search the Scriptures for iny8elf, I have been persuaded they are conirary to the doctrines of the liible, and to those contained in our Confession and Catechisms. And 1 do believe they were intended, or at least that they have operated, to break up and destroy the peace, harmony and union of the Presbyterian churt li. I shall vote, therefore, to sustain the appeal. Mr. Andrew Brown. I was first led to pay attention to Mr. Barnes's book, h) reading the sermon he published» entitled " Tlie Way of Saivation." 1 have, siHce then, j)ar- tially examined his Notes on the Romans, and I find therein statements expressly contrary to the stand- ards of our church and to the word of God. I do not think, a^: some of the brethren appear to believe, that this proceeding- and all the evidence are wholly eo; part/'. It is Mr. Drirnes's bo( k that is on trial: and it is the book itsell' which is the evidence: and, from what I have read and what I have heard, I am fully convinced the appeal ought to be sustained. Mr. McMaster. I have been deeply wounded by the course of the accused. My expectations have been wholly disap- pointed. I diJ expect that Mr. Barnes was about to pursue a very magnania^ious course, that he was coming forward like an honest and fearless man, to give a fair exposition of his views, resolved, that if his brethren should find him wrong, they should at least find him honest and honorable. I derived this expectation fiom the deciaraiion of Mr. Barnes, that he was ready for trial. And when 1 found that Pres- bytery withholding from his hands and from ours do- cuments \yhicli they supposed important to the con- ducting of the trial, I began to suspect that there was, on their part, some design to injure a man who was disposed to cast himself fairly and openly on the knowledge and integrity of his brethren. But I am sorry to perceive that he seems exactly to have cal- culated his distance and so to have trimmed his toes, as to stand precisely^ where he could evade his decla- rt lion of readiness for trial hv an explanation. Why his brethren have withheld their records, is not for me to say ; but it would seem that thej had some expectation of taking advantage of the embarrass- ment thus thrown upon the prosecution. It strikes me that you have taken unnecessary pains to pre- serve the rights of the accused, after he and his 14* 166 TRIAL or friends have openly declared that they would, liiaU ihey nie7 should be wrapped up in a book whii;h i rofet-Bec tolur- iiinh anexposiiioii ol llie holy Script urfs for thcyoulh of Sabbafli schools and Sabr)alh echool teacliere, this id most afThclins. For il'lhe opinions declared in that book are true, I am ready to say of it, as one of tiie ablest men of our day did say — If any man will take Iheee doctrines out of the Bible, 1 will willingly give him up all the rest ol the book, and run my chance without either. But that the book contains God's truth, is a conviction which can never reach my un- derstandin:^. I do believe that the charges of the iippellant h.ive been most, fully supiiorted. I do not believe, if a man were as subtle as man ever has been, and as ingenious as the evil one himself can teach him to l)e, he can ever contravene or explain away the evidence which has been laid bcloi e us. The mm who could write such a book, must, it eeems to me, have a most oblique mind. He cannot look directly at ttuth. He seems every where to make hisovvn reason the rule of his beliel, rather than the sacred standard of revealed truth, to which all truly enlightened reason is ready ever to refer its cjnclusions, and to which every renewed heart will ever promptly bow, althouijh what it declares may be ever so contrary to all our previous feelings and conclusions. The man who has not a heart to believe what God teaches, has not the heart to be a Christian. 1 can- not avoid the conclusion that the appeal should be sustained. There is one thing which calls upon you to glvo not indeed a precipitate, but a fearless deci- sion. Consider, if you defer this cause, how long it may hang undiicided. Ever since this man entered our body, there has beea a perpetual discussion re- specting all the points contained in this book. Seeil is sowing ail over the church which may lead to er- rors yet greater and more danzerous; errors, that may prevail among our posterity long after this im- mediate controversy has been laid in the dust. By ending the jnatter now, Synod may be influencing the future fate of millions. Shall we, then, suller the evil still to continue and to spread? I trust not. Mr. James Latta. The times and the seasons in which we live de- mand tlie attention of the Synod. They are such, that a book like this must, if true, do a great deal ot' good, and if untrue, a great amount of evil. We all rejoice in tlie esiablishment of Sabbath schools and Bible classes, and their almost universal extension. That a proper commentary on the Scriptures, in a convenient and portable form, would be extremely useful, all agree. In these latter respects, the bookd oi Mr. Barnes have peculiar advantages, and incon- eequence have obtained a very extensive circulation 168 TRIAL OF Tlie fir.-5t two volumes received the pfoncral efinction of our Subbiiih school iiistniclors, and a third was looked for with anxiety; and were it calculated to benefit t'le rising gcneraMon, its diffusion could not but hrwe tin most salutary e.l'tcis. It becomes u.^, a3 juii^Ts in thi^ cause, and as those whose office makes them guardians of youth and shepherds over ihe lambs of Chrisi.'s flock, to remember that our places must soon be filled by others, and that while we tarry here, it is our duty to provide truth for the youn.s^ anil prolci't. tiiem fi-o.ri err 'jr. But that this nook contains radical errois in doctrine, I am tho- roughly convinced ; and that it is of such a chiiracter that we cannot? ifely recommend it to those who are lookm;j to u-i for instruction. Such bein:? ilie case, it hecomss vis, as a Synod, to bear our testimony again-^t it, and to ifo so speedily. Some of those who would hivii united most readily in such a testimony, hive i^one the way of all tlie e irth : but we who yet remain, shnuld be prompt in performing our duty. No doubt it mi.^ht be very pleasant to us to throw this task on the necks of the Gt-n.-Mul Assembly ; but, in the meanwhile, this book will be makinfr its way into our Sabbath schools and Bible classes, carrying with it its pernicious errors. We are called on to bear witness loudly and immedi.ilely. However unplea- sant may bo the task, and whitcver may be our per- sonal attachment lo the autlior of the book, wfiose manners and deportment are peci-liarly insinuating, we are called on to love Christ i\nd his gospel better than any son or brother, or than even our own lives Admittin:?^ the book to contain Fome truth, it is so interwoven anil mixed up with error that they can- jiot be separated : that it contains errors none can deny : some may think that there is weight of truth enough to bear the errors down ^ bat I apprehend not. That the book contains a regular system of erroneous doctrine, all connected logethcr, is to me as clear ai? any thing can be clear to the human mind: and un- less so.no powi-^r .should entirely destroy my intellect, 1 never ;an believe that tliat system of doctrme is in conibruiity with the standards of our church. I am prepared to bear my testimony against it; and I hope the time is not far distant when I shall liave the op- portunily. Mr. Barr. If I believed that Mr. Barnes holds and teachcR the error.s charged upon him by the Appellant, 1 pliould have no hesitation in sustaining the appeal. That there are errors charged whicii are indirect contradiction to our standard I am fully sati.nds iiiterpo^ed, and he relu:'.canlly co:i' lented to resume his seat. J Mr. Dickey. I am snrry th:it it has not been ia my power to be in the house during the whole of tlie discussion; but as I w.M absent a part of the time, and did not hear all, i cmmt vote either lor or against sustaining the appa li. B'.it had 1 been I'.resi^nt throughout, I s-hould have^^l'olt equally bound to ;;ive no opinion, because Mr. Birns's has had no opportunity to present his virivv-i to the Synod. I have nodispo.-ition, however, to encTurago the Presbytery in the no:iition it has t.a'ten, or th-^ accu.-ed in his reluctance to ap))ear be^ fof.'^ us in his (kd'ence. 11 he hul seen it propei- to do :o, we should have had a trial calmly conducted ; the evere remarks which have be -n made upon the 'resbyt:ry would have been spared, and we should ave h-id a better understanding of what are Mr. Jirnd.^' real sentiments. It may bo thar. one part o( is bjo!c ex['lai IS another. I hope we shall come to MR. DARNE8. 171 no final decision wiiile the irial has been so I'lr froiri complete. Suppose the accused was on trial lor his life, who is tliere here lluit would not deler jiidctnent until after he had heard him speak for himself? Paul, N^ we read, was permitted, bel'ore a heathen tribunal, to speak for himself: and surely a man's character, above all a minister's, is worih more to him than even his life. 1 have been sorry to see the prosecu- tion pushed on so hastily, and to perceive that sonic brethren seem so very anxious, not to say impatient, for a decision. We have no right to impute evil mo- tives to any man ; yet there have been many insinua- tions ajja ins t the orthodoxy, if not the truth of ail who are supposed to tavor what is called the New Divinity. I have a venerated friend who has had .many conversations with brother Barnes on points of doctrine, and who expressed his belief not only that he was a converted man, but that he received ex animo the doctrines of ihe Presbyterian ciiurch, althouEjh he adopted terms which that friend did not approve. He said that brother Barnes held to the depravity of the heart, the necessity ol the Spirit's^ influence in regeneration, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness for the salvation of the soul. Now I feel very reluctant to condemn a man wiioni one I so greatly venerated was unwilling to judge. We ought to remember that we may ourselves be one day on trial for our opinions : none can tell how soon, and none can say how far those who judge us may proceed. It is an inquisitorial spirit * * Here the moderator called to order. Mr. D. Do I make any personal insinuation ? Have I called any man here an inquisitor ? Moderator. I cannot admit such language to be used here. Mr. D. Well sir, those who choose to give cur- rency to injurious insinuations against their nrethren; may do so. Those who are determined to charge all the brethren ot" what is often called theNew School, — because they are willing to hold a man in their afi'ec- tions although he may not receive all the technicali- ties of a particular system — with heterodoxy and with heresy, may do so; but it is not righteous conduct. We are told in the Bible that the spirit of the gospel is LOVE ; that the end of the commandment is chari- ty : I trust we shall all learn this practically : at present, 1 fear, we are very far from exemplifying it. Mr. SiMMs. I feel quite as much reluctance to condemn Mr. Barnes or his book as the last speaker : but he finds one objection in his way that I cannot find in mine : via. that Mr. Barnes has had " no opportunity" to vindicate himself and his book. Such an opportunity has certainly been offered to him : it has not only \1'2 TRIAL Ot been ofTorcd ; it has been urffcd upon him: and he has declined it. 11" tlierelore his not ansvverinij shall work any loss or injury to his cause, we are certain- ly not answerable lor it. The evidence submitted lo us is eullii'ient to confirm me in the belief that his boo!i contains errors utterly inconsistent with the doctrine ol" the Conl'essions and Catechisms ol' our Cluirch : and not too see this is with me impossible, unless black is white. Nothinjj short ol" this will ever prove that the book and the Conlession agree. Mr. Davis. Those portions of Mr. Barnes' book on which the charge ofthe appellant arefoumled 1 have examined for mysell": besides which 1 have heard, intoto, his argument in supj^ort ol" them : and I think it is due lo this Synod (than which perhaps a greater, numeri- cally speaking, has never been assembled since the Synod of Dort, nor on a more important subject,) to eayafevv' words in explanation of my views of this case. Certain it is, '\{' fama clumosa is any evidence of truth, that Mr. Barnes' book, now u.ider trial, con- tains the errcl-s charged on it by Jie appellant, and we ought to consider the eti'ects of this state of things not only on the Presbyterian church, but on all other churches in our land. It is but a lew days since a gentleman said to me "you Presbyterians hold sen- timents you are ashamed to advocate." And are not the other churches looking with eyes of intense in- terest to this Synod, which may be considered as a standard body in respect to matters of doctrine, to learn what its decision will be of the important case now submitted to it. l^fuma clamosa may be trust- ed, thirty thousand copies of this book have already been sent forth into the world, and tliirty thousand more are ready to follow. No\y whether a book thus widely dilTused contains truth is not this Synod able, to judge? It is no excuse whatever to say that in voting on this appeal 1 am not passingjudgment upon the appellee in propria persona, but upon the book. If Mr. Barnes has not answered the allegations of his accuser, whose lault, pray, is that? We surely are not to answer for that. Did not his Presbytery refuse us these records? and if we are left to proceed without them whose is the wrong? Is it not theirs? and what may not be tlie consequence, if we procras- tinate a decision until after the meeting of the As- sembly? Here are thirty thousand copies of the book just ready lo go into circulation. Every error it may contain will be widely spread, and those which it is the most difficult to eradicate may thus be im- planted in the minds of thousands of our children. Here certainly is a most serious evil. It is due not merely to the cause of truth and useful knowledge, but to Mr. Barnes himself, that there should be a MR. BARNES. 173 decision ofliis case. For myBcIf I have no hesitation in condcmiiiiig tiie book. No hook ought to be sent abroad into tlie world vvliich rccjuires its author to R'o alon^ with it to prevent iiH beiii^ misunderstood. I believe tbere is not a man here wlio with his hand upon his heart ciin say that the book does not contain vital, radical error. 1 am ready to sustain the ap- peal — 1 am fully prepared now at once to give a final and decided vote. Mr. Davies. I feel that I am in peculiar circumstances, and so are my iiretJiren of the iSynod. 1 certainly would ra- ther have heard the views of brethren on the otlier side, and the defence ol the accused; but il Mr. Barnes chooses to let his cause go by default, it is surely no fault of this Synod- I cannot relieve my mind Iroin the impression that the party accused not only enjoyed an opportunity, but a most abundant, unobstructed opportunity to ar°^ue his own cause; which he did not choose to embrace. I think that his declining to exi)re£s his views has nothing to do witii the final judgment in the case. T look at it in view of the testimony, and of that alone; and I feel pre- pared to say that, Aviih one exception, (1 refer to the 4th charge,) the charges have been maintained. There seems some indistinctness as to the applica- tion of the v'ord principle. I cannot believe that when the mind has acted, faith, all faith, is then gone with the action. 1 believe that having once acted, it will be ready and disposed to act again — and this dis|)osition remaining in the mind I understand to mean the principle of faith. In this sense, certainly faith is a principle — yet there are acts of faith. On the whole, I feel clear in saying that the charges have been established. Mr. J. Patterson, (an Elder.) I cannot helf) remarking that I have been much astonisiied at the apologies we have heard in most instances for coming to a conclusion without farther testimony. It must be evident that we have sufficient testimony to prove the facts alleged by the appellant. Of this I think no man w4io calls himself a Presbyte- rian ought to feel a doubt upon his mind. I certainly have none, whether this man does or does not hold the faith and doctrine of our church and of the word of God. And I think it is time our people were awa- kened to their danger. I have been astonished to Iiear reverend clergymen on this floormake a light and indifferent matter ©f the doctrines tauoht to the youth of the church. The tact that 30,000 copies of this book are ready to be sent forth to poison the pub- lic mind, shows it to be high time that the church knew where she is, and what is threatening her. A 15 174 TRIAL OP reverend father [Mr. Perkins] has told us that he has Ions heard these same sentiments maintained by worthy men and eminent ministers, and tlmt ihere is no great ditlerence between the two systems. Tliis Bounded strangely to me. It seemed very much like scattering fire-brands, arrows and death, and then turning about and asking, " Am I not in sport?" " I mean no harm." It is time we. went forward to ar- rest these streams of poison before they shall have done irreparable injury ; and I hold it to be our en- cumbent duty to do so. I am ready to sustain the ap- peal. Mr. KiRKPATRICK. I have heard nothing of this book of Mr. Barnes' but what I have heard since I came into this house. It ssems to me to contain errors which ought to be suppressed: but as I have not read the book, lam not prepared to pronounce upon it. I am not there- fore ready to vote one way or the other. Mr. Penny. I think the charges have been fully and honorably sustained. Dr, J. Breckinridge. I have endeavored in the spirit of candor and of justice, and, as I hope, in something ol" the spirit of prayer, to look at this proceeding in all its successive stages : and you are aware that from the beginning I have been (save on questions of mere order) for the most part, a silent spectator. I feel that it is a solemn and most impressive occasion. 1 have been desirous that those older and wiser than myself should take the lead in bringing it to its appropriate issue. It is a discussion unavoidably connected with many evils, and one whose results cannot fail to atl'ect, to a very serious extent, not only our own religious connection, but the cause of truth and godliness throughout our whole country. We are approaching an issue of great solemnity, and while I look upon the difficulties and dangers which surround our path on either hand, I conless that my own mind feels exceedingly em- barrassed. In such circumstances it becomes me to speak to you my heart with great freedom. How- ever I may be conscious of the difficulties of our situ- ation, still 1 am for the Synod's doin^j its duly, what- ever that shall be adjudged to be, with decision and firmness, reraenibering that the eye ol the nation, of the whole church, and of the church's Head, are fixed upon us. Let us first do rigiit : and then let us aim to do it wisely and well. As I said, I feel bound, on this occasion, to use some freedom in the train of my remarks; I shall endeavor to be brief, but very frank and undisguised in what I have to say. The first point which presents itself is the way in MR. BARNES. 175 which wc have been broiii^ht into our present posi- tion. Tiie drafter of that resolution of the General Assembly which unitey the two Synods into one, was together witli myself a member of tliat body when it last met at Pittsburgh. The Assembly, on that oc- casion, was, as we must all remember, in the full tide of Old School principles and inHuences (be they right or wrong) and one of the measures which grew out of these was expected to have a direct and im- portant bearing on the Assembly's Second Presby- tery of Philadelphia. As soon as it became known that the advocates of Old School views had a rna- jority of two thirds in that body, and were therefore able to do just what we pleased with regard to that Presbytery, Dr. Ely, a leading member of it, came forward with an overture of peace. Those who were present on that occasion will not soon forget the emotion of general joy wi'.h which the proposal was received by the Assembly. Smiles of mutual con- gratulation were to be seen on every face, and many tears evinced the depth of feeling which was called up by the prospect of having the breaches of our Zion healed. The Assembly had just settled some of the fundamental principles in our system of faith and order, and had re-enacted others before decided on, when this overture from the skilful pen of the brother I referred to made its appearance. Dr. Miller, act- ing on behalf of the majority, signified their willing- ness to accept of the proposed arrangement, with a single word of qualification, to which no objection was made. The resolution was re ceived on the vui- derstanding, bona fide, that to this Synod, constitu- ted as proposed, was to be remanded the adjustment of all existing difficulties in and about the citv of Philadelphia. I presume there wns not a man then in the House, who had not this impression as to its design and expected consequences. It was launched upon us unanimously, almost by acclamation: and every man rejoiced that when this Synod should meet, it was to make a final settlement of all these long disputed matters. This was taken for granted. The brethren of that Presbytery knew it. Heaven knew it. It was not a mere technical order but an understood thing in which all acquiesced, and the arrangement was a measure which added honor to the name of a Judicatory representing one of the greatest religious bodies at this day upon earth. And it is be- cause I am persuaded that such was the view taken of this resolution, at the time, that I now believe the course adopted by the Second Presbytery will stamp upon it the indellible stain of departure from a bond of honor mutually pledged on that illustrious and memorable occasion. Yet in looking at the terms of the resolution by which the two Synods were to be 176 TRIAL OF mailc one, it appears that there is a (-haeni, an ab- scess, in its provisions, occa.<;ioned by tiie introduc- tion oftiie little word "at." And, as it pcenis, we are to be deleatcd and exposed to public censure in con- eoquencc ot" tiiis hip.sus in the leciuiicaid ol' legisla- tion. As we are to have ail the world condemn us on account of a mutter ihat turns upon the pivot ol one little word, it is proper that 1 should explain. When this Synod met, it was the soiieral iniprre- sion thai the Presbytery I'rom whose sentence Dr. Junlun had appealed, wa? desirous that Synod should lake up I he ai)poal and try brother Barnes. Thai. 1 know, was the distimt understanding ol' some ol" our old school brethren when they came here. For my- self, I w\as unwilling that this body should touch the case. I thouj^ht the genera! impression abroad would be, that we were noi suMicienlly iiiiiiartial to give an unbiassed sentence ; and I wished the whole matter referred to the Assembly: but Synod determined otherwise, ami 1 bowed to its will. TJie members of thy 2d Presbytery, however, finding that this Synod was determined ui)on dissolving their ecclesiastical ex- istence as a Presl)ytery, resolved to refuse our juris- diction over the case. 1 believe myself, and 1 jtrcsume the fact is susceptible of proof, tliat that resolution was here taken for the JirsL time. Mr. Barnes, it* seems, was ready to go to trial; but as soon as the Presbytery discovered its danger, tlien, and not till then, was this abscess, this chasm, this omission in the act o{' the Assembly discovered ! and in conse- quence of so notable a discovery, the records of the Presbytery were withheld from our supervision. Such is tiie state of facts: and all these circumstan- ces certainly condiine to render the case very peculiar in its character, as well as a ease of great moment to the church. I aj)i)rehend that men of the world, and even very many members of thecliurch also, can never be per-r suaded but that there has been, throughout this Avhole proceeding, a species ol trick and management utterly unworthy of the parties concerned. The stroke of policy intended seems to be to obtain a set- oil' against the loss of influence on the part ol the Presbytery, by Qccaj'ioniiig a real or supposed irregu- larity on the part of those who were disposed to press the trial. Having arrived at this point in our pro- ceedings, the sentiment pressed itself with weight upon my heart, that something was due to the cir- cumstances in which we (ind ourselves : engaged as we are in the trial of such a man as this, with all these embarrassment-s in our way ; and I felt afraid to advance lest we might take some false step, on account of which the whole case might be remanded b/ the Assembly, and another year of temjxcsi ^n<\ t' MR. BARNES. 177 commotion mi^ht thus be thrown upon our church. Under this impression I thouf^ht it best, still, to refer the case: my promptings were all in that directioH : but on pressing the measure, I found the majority here not disposed to pursue that course. We have therefore to issue the case. The book of brother Barnes is pledged by the ap- pellant as the sole basis of the trial. The erasures and emendations which the author, by his own shew- ing, has made in the last edition of his works, amount to a confession that it did contain some errors, and that the discussion it has excited lias done it good. We have this book before us: but the party in de- fence is absent by his own choice. Under these cir- cumstances, our clear course, in my judgment, would be, to punish for contumacy those who withhold from us the Presbyterial records as well as him also who has refused to appear and answer. Here, however, is the book: and its author is one of the most con- spicuous ministers in the church, not only made so by the circumstances of this trial, and by the metro- politan station of his church, but so intrinsically, from lis talents and the loveliness of his personal charac- ter. The book and (he man are both conspicuous. Ifthe work is g'ood, its influence cannot but be high- ly valuable: il evil, it is as important that the evil should be known, and as far as possible arrested. Its author is a man of sense, and the views he has adopt- ed are by far too vital in their nature, to render it probable that there have been any essential changes in his statements; indeed, lie has avowed the fact, that he has made no alteration in his book, as to the doctrine, but merely as to the words in which it is conveyed. Now, while "the end of the command- ment IS charity," it is also written that " charity re- joiceth in the truth." While we regard the one principle, we may not forget the other. A brother, (Mr. Adair,) in delivering his opinion on the case, took occasion to quote a nook which is justly eminent in the church, li-oin which he read us several extracts ; but it did amaze me to hear such a book used for such a purpose as that by which the brother applied it. He quoted it as exhibiting the views of the theological proles?ors at Princeton. I will take the liberty of reading from the same wprk, that I may show what Princeton really thinks of the book before us. She has deservedly great influence here, and it ought not to be perverted. The writer in the Repertory has erected a pillar of light that streamsf its rays upon the darkness and confusion, the errors and contradictions that prevail throughout this work. The very section from which the brother quoted, is entitled "The contradictions" of Mr. Barnes' book. 15* 179 TRIAL OF Now when a writer palpably contradicts liimself, arr> we to pay tlmt all liie erroneous pans ol' his book eliali be overlooked, and ihose alone wlii<',h are olher- ivise insisted on? But let us hear this authority on whidi the brother relies. There is anoiher vimv of this matter in which it assumes a graver aspect. Mr. 15. has publicly and solemnly assented lo the truth of an existinij " system of doctrine." It must, therefore, be to mnny an offi;nsivc declaration, that lie docs not caie whether what he teaches falls within or wiihout the pale of that system. They understand it as meaning, that he does not care whether he really believes what he has so- lemnly professed to believe. Tiiis wo do not suppose to be the sense in which he makes the declaration ; and yet thi^\ without perversion, is a sense which his words may well convey. But our standards say, " the ^uilt of Adam's first sin," i. e. exposure to punishment on that account has come on all men ; and it is customary also to say that the blessed Sa- vior took upon him the gudt of our sins. These are points which j\lr. B. denies; and he makes the first to teach absur- dity, and the second blasphemy, by making the word guill to involve the idea of pergonal dement. He does not speak merely of what c tight in his judgment to be the meaning of the word, or that it is an infelicity or inaccuracy to use it as it is done in the catechism of the church, but ho maintains such is its meaning, it aliccnjs is si used and jurer expresses mere exposure to puni.'hiiiLiit witiiout tiip idi a of personal ill-desert. And accordingly he asserts that " the doctrine of imputation has been that infants are personally guilty of Adatn's sin." And if this doctrine is true, he says, " then they sinned the very idcniical sin" tliat Adam did. This is in a book di&igncd fi^r passive recipients of knowledge; to circulate among Bible clashes and Sunday schools; to make every huninn being who bLdicvos iis statements, regard the standa'ds of the church, and all the v,rviiin<;s of the reformers as teaching unheard of folly and wicked blasphemy ! This is all very good, but he immediately turns the whole matter round, when he proceeds, "It expresses a state of mind which is demonstrative of love to God; of all'cctioii for his cause and character; of rtconciliation and Iritndship ; and is THERi^FOnE that state to which he has been gr.'icionsly pleased to pioinisw pardon and a ceptance." This gives a sadly erroneous view of the relation of faith to jusiificaiion. This unfortunate and crronceus view of the subject, Mr. B. repeatedly presents. ' We are sorry to have to remaik on the low view wliich Mr. B. takes of the iil)ject of Atiiaham's faith. P. 103. He thus tnakes the main point of the prrmjse to Abraham to be, that his postLtiiy should be very numerous. It is, however, to be remeinhen d, that it was txprtssly de- clared to the patriarch, thai in liirn, or in his seed, nil the na- tions of the earth should be blessed. This declaration wc MR. HAUNES. 179 know from Paul's own explicit aiatenie'it, iiic'ulecl the pro- mise of Christ; he was the sceJ in whom all uaiioiis were to be blessed. Mr. B. insists that Adam was not the repirsentalive and federal head of his race. " The words rcprcscalalive and federal licad arc never applied to Adam in the Bihle. The reason is, that llio word reprcsenlative implies an idea which could not exist in the case — the consent 0/ Ikus^ who arc rqirc- n^nled.'' p. 121. This is new to us. The grand qtiesiion was whether men are justified by inhe- rent, or by imputed ri.qhtcousness. This is tlie doctrine which even Fuller, as (jjioted by Dr. Wilson, says. if he rejected, ho " should be at a loss for ground on which to rest Ins salva- tion." Vet this is jhe doctrine which Mr. B. in words expli- citly rejects. We say in words, because he hiuisi If teaches it in the passages just cjuoted, and in many others in the course of his book. Ho olten says, that works or personal obedi- ence is not the ground of our a-icepiance ; th it faith is not, it is only the iiisirumental cause, ch. iii. 3J. "Jhal it is by the obedience of Christ that we become, or are coiuidercd right- eous, &,c. As the book now stands, it must give great andimnecis- savy offence, because it abounds with the most coi:fident :.s- seriions at vsriance with the standards of the church, on ail ■ the vitally important subjects mentioned above. In the conclusion of this article we Leg our readers to bear in mind, tliai our reviuw is not of ati aggressive character. The Ipook which we have been examining, coniains a violent, and, as w« must think, gratuitous utlack upon some of the most imporiaiu doctrines of the church. If there be there- fore, an offensive and defenrive altitude, in relation to ihis subject, we certainly are in the latter. * ♦ * Instead of simply stating and defending hi? own viev,'=, he frequently and at length attacks those of the Confession of Faiih. Ho goes out of his way repeatedly for this very purpose ; intro- ducing the topics vvhcre the passage on wliich he comments gives not even a itlausible pretext for so doinj{. That ihos-e who love and revere these doctrm-s as. the sacred tiuth of God, ai;d as intimately associated with the spiritual and eiei- nal interests of thenibelves and their fellow men, should ftei anxious to show that the interpretations on which his (jbjec- lions rest are incorrect; that the doctrines themselves, being misapprehended by the author, are misrepresented, caa be to no man a matter of surprise. Now, sir, is it post^ihte that any man in liis senses can believe that tlie Repertory is in any sense the advoo.ilc or apologii^t of Air. Uarnes' errors ? Tnesj are a l".'iv of the illu.-trations given by tlie writer in the lltportory, and ihsy will serve to show what a 1 extruonlinary use has been inade o{ that work by the brother wlio introductd ii litre. But I return. The book upon the Runians is iiseii'lhe evi- dence on which we are to proceed. But the appellee jBO TRIAL OF is absent : and in view of the contumacy which ha« deprived us ofthe Preshytenul records, and has occa- sioned the absence ol the accused, I tliiidt, il we could in any stage of (he jiroceedine: have rel'erred the case lo the Assembly, it would have been the wisir course. Tlic book, lo'^eiher with much tliat is valu- able and intereslinjf, contains, in my apprehension, iaiolded wiUi this, many dangerous and destructive errors. At tiie same time I beUeve the author to be a man of God : but tiiere are many wlio may adopt liis errors without Jiis i)ersjnal |)iety, and may perish in them. Yet, as the man is not pre- sent, and has not been heard, I do feel an extreme reluctance as^ainst the inliiciion of any penal stu- tence. Now brethren, I have told you all my heart. 1 agree with those who are against the book; but while I concur in liieir views of its dangerous ten- dency, I am in favor of a second step, and desire that the case should now be sent up to the Assembly. 1 may, jierhajjs, with a lew others here, be charged with making a speech on both sides ol the question : but that 1 disregard. 1 am prepared to say that the evidence before us is sufficient to convict the author of ihis bojk ol i>romulgating deeply dangerous senii- inents. 1 agree, however, with some who have ob- served, that there is more want of logic than want of truth in the distinctions he has taken on the subject of fiith. In a v/ord, 1 thmk that we have the facts of the case, hut that the form is wanting: for thougii the paper which has been read v.ere authenticated by an angel Irom heaven, still it is not that otiicial ]>roof which tlie constitutition rctpiires: and the re- ception of it has been eHectually guarded against, by the appeal of the accused lo the highest judicatory of the church. Mr. R. Breckinridge. I do not intend to do more than give the heads o( some of those reasons which will influence my con- duct in the case before us. Out of the multilarious oH'ences committed in the world against the laws of society, 1 do not i-uppo.'-e that one in a thousand is ever so much as atienipted lo be brought to trial or punishment. C'ertainly there arc many thousands vl' delinquencies pcrjutrattd, v/liose authors never are tried for thtm. In the next i>lace, out of those who are tried, not one in a ,-,rcat proportion is ever found guilty. Eeyund all question there are ninety- nine guiliy persons who escape for one innocent per- son who is punished. For my own part, 1 never saw but one person sullcr more than, from the testimony in his trial, I was convinced he deserved. In ninety- nine cases out of a hundred the decisions in all our courts lean to the side of mercy. This being so, in general, under the laws of civil society, where men MK. BARNES. ISl 3\re under restraints which tlicy do not like, and con- trolled hy principles they do not iipprove, and are bound, in some decree, to sul)niit to laws to which they never yielded their assent, how infinitely remov- ed li'om every thin;? like iiersecution, iVoin all possi- hlc allegation of severity nuist the |)ref--ent prosecu^ lion 1)0 admitted to he? li' we look nt the vows the appellee voluntarily assumed, and which he lias ut- terly hroken; when we remember that when he niisht have been a Methodist, he chose voluntarily to be a Presbyterian, and that every emotion ol hon- or and every prinii))le ol" truth bound him either to be a Presbyterian or not to t;ay he was one: when we then lock at the extraordinary attempts to keep ort'ailecision of his cause, attempts made as well in liie public journals as in our church courts, with what face can the accusation of unfair and oppressive dealing be brou;alion to aflirm that the proof is absent. All the j)roof relied on by the prose- cutor is here. And as to Mr. Barnes' absence, he has friends here as able as himself to defend his book. But again : if this absent proof were all present, it is improbable it should have any weight. If a man asserts a fact, and then asserts a contrary lact, he has the benefit of both so lar as the one may explain the other. But in moral truths, or truths of science, if he directly contradicts himself.it proves either that his system is involved in inextricable perplexity, or that the man himself is either knave or fool. If I should say that two and two five: and then again should atiirm that two and two make lour, what tt- fect would the last have but to show that the firtt assertion had not been made advisedly ? So it a man shall as.*ert that God is a tyrant, and afterwards shall affirm that the devil is a tyrant but God is not ; it will only show that he knows not what he Sc>ye, nor whereof he afiirms. There is an immeasurable difference between facts and principles. Supjiose a man shall be apprehended liar a felon, is ii a valid defence to show that in trying circumstances the man was honest ? It may be very good proof in miti- gation, or it may show tJiat he has no moral i rinci- ples. But once make out the perj etration of a n;oral delinquency, and all the proof of opposite conduct at other times will avail noihing. So it is idle to depend on being able to show, from proof not now present, that the accused sonieianes taught other doctrines which \vere not heretical. The christian ministry are not called to teach contradictory uncertainties touch- ing the salvation and damnation of men. We have the truth laid down categorically in our coi.fession: - and any distinct departure from it is a breach of our ordination vows. For a man once and again to do this deliberately and knowingly, is to be false to his vow. Nor is it a defence to say that inconsistency is habitual with him. The man who lontcnds for the production of the absent proof contends lor that whi'h does not exist: and which if it were hero, could bo of no benefit. \^i TRIALOF Bin it, is said the appellee is not here. Well ; ifevcry criminal could put a stop to ii' trial by absence, how many I pray would be tried 7 Or il' they conid avoid a Kcntonce by Ptandiiii^ mute, how many would be con- demned? If by not hearinrnal life is obtained, and that justifica- tion IS not only pardon. 188 TRIAL OF It is said, again, that he. holds faith to be iniputeeen tsettled without difficulty. We have been told that in the adminLstration oi our ju 'icial allairs so much mercy preponderates that ninety -nine guilty persons are cleared to one innocent person that is condemned. Now with the same extent of observation as the bro- ther who laid down this t^falement, 1 believe the fact to be very diti'erent. 1 believe that many innocent persons have sullered, and many have been destroy- ed who were only suspected. 1 was astonished that the member should speak with such force and po.-^!- tiveness when a case of the veiy opposite kind was within his own knowledge. A m.-in whom rumor has compared to Saurin was examined, tried, and con- demned: that same man alicrward came into the Presbyterian church, and so did hio o«uiuiaer ; ana \ Mil. BARNES. 189 trust both went inloheavpn: and at thia day it re- quires greiit acuteness 10 discover in what they dif- J'ered. Mr. R. BaEcnciNRiDGE. To whom does the speaker alUide ? Mr. Phelps. It is not proper liere fo inention names. 'I'lie volumes oi bolli iheir works arc pre- served. I admil iliat putiiy is ihe bond ol'pcarc, and that the wisdom whicU comelli from uiiove is first pure, then \)(i-Mcnh\v,; but il' we are too rijrorous in insisliii^ on tumor ditl'erencts we sliall g^o coiilt'nding down to [hit irravo 1 do not pay how far tiicfce re- marks ap;)ly : but there certainly must be mucli dis- cretion in ih'J api'lioation ol' a general principle. Wiiilc I s iy that j^rear deviations Irom our t-uuidards should be noticed and censured, I do not tliink there are in this book such as should silence a christian minister. Mr. VVm. Latta. Moderator, I thought we were now delivcrinjr our opinions as judges, not making arguments as connsel. MoDEKAToR. Dolh &ide? have been allowed equal hititude of remark. It would certainly bo desirable if the brethren would observe greater brevity ; but it is impossible Ibr the chair ro draw the line. Mr. Harrison. I am not a little at a loss to know precisely what I ought 10 say in tb.is case. 1 caaie here under tl.ie ex- pectation thai il would be reierred to the General Assenil)[y, and iherel'ore my mind had not been turn- ed to ilie subject in a degree commensurate wiih its importance. The reasons lor thisexpeclation, it is, perhaps, not qniie proper lor me to give. Nui liiat I had heard thai, such was tiie design ol" S\ nod ; nor was it becaut-e I ant.icii)aled the very stranjie course ol" action adi)pted l)y the Assembly's Second Presby- tery in repressing tiie record. I call that course strange, not that I believe it to have been constitu- tionally wrong, but because it was new and wholly unexi^-ected. Nor wris it because I held the ISynod incompetent to issue ihecafc; on the contrary I have believtd aiid do still believe that they are. It was because I knew that in tlie belitf of the world gene- rally, the Synod was considered as^^ being prejudiced, and so mucli so as to disqualify them liom acting in a christian way on sucli an occasion. This is the eimple truth. That there is such a sentiment pre- vailing must be manilesi, I presume, to all: and I may s.iy, farther, that it is industriously circulated. It could not otherwise have attained such an extent or such a force. I line! none oi" it in the mimis of the people of this town. I heard a minister say, since 1 came liere, that the S> nod liad come with an appe- tite Uke that of a raging wolf determined on its prey. 16* 190 TRIAL OF and resolved to glut ite Iiunger at arvy cost; aoit nstt unprejudiced man nii^lit perhaps believe lliat there was some truth in the sentiment. Mr. McCai.la. Is that orderly ? Mr. H. I did not say lliat the brother staled thia as fact, but merely as his own impression, it so ap- peared to him. The remark was not made in the house. I am not prepared lo asi^ert that we may not tometimes act under strong; prepossessiois without bein^ conscious ol it. Who, alas, can onderstiincJ hia errors, or can truly say that he knows his own heart? I doubi whether it wmdd not be better that liie case should £;o up to the Assembly, especially in view of these uii|)ressions. There is certainly a general im- pression that this Synod is not quitlified, under the influence of a state olfeeiine which has lonjr been pre- valent among some, at least, of its members, to issue ' the matter imparlialiy. As to the chaifrcs, 1 do not know that I can vote according: tc the evidence we have had subnn'lted to us. ItT am to judire iVom the book, I certainly cannot. I have read the book: and 80 far as I understand it. there are clearly discrepan- cies in it: so muci-i so as to sustain the appeal, tiiken as a whole. To what extent these discrepancies amount to errors, I am not now to judge. Whether I i'ully understand the hook I cannot say. 1 believe, however, honesily, as 1 shall give an account here- after, there is something wrong- in it it our standards rightly express ihe sense of Scripture. 1 am sorry to .say this, because 1 love the brother who is accus- ed, and have had reason to love him. Dr. Cathcart. I stand, perhaps, in a singular situation on this sub- ject. 1 came into this house having never read a paj^eor so much as a seiU.t.-Dce of the book that all the noice is about. I resorird lor my light to the ap- pellant and the appellee, and more especially to the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, without hiving dared to form an opinion of a)y own, because I had no materials on which to form one. This is truly my situation. I did attend, as well as I could, (for my infirmity of hearing has been but too obvious lo you,) to the arguments of the appellant : and to n\v a ma- 1'ority of them appeared greatly inconclusive. When think that this cause was fully tried before a Pres- bytery consisting of twenty-one members; out of whom only three could find any heresy in the book, it appears to be high presumption in me to rise up against their judgment. Of the eighteen members ■who acquitted the author, 1 am acquainted with 8ome|; 1 have wintered them and summered them, and 1 know they are lar superior to me. Their pie- ty never was questioned, and cannot be : it is emi- MR. BARNES. I9L ncnt in the churches. TliCfC men ht-nrd the vholo case, pro and con: and f hey then voted lliat there was no heresy. Alter this it would he (hirinf? pre- t'umption in me, knowing no more ol' Uh; c;i&;e Ihan I do, to say iIrU there was. All ihesc lliiiitr? make me stand and dchhcraie. I am totally una(()nain(ed with tiie book, hut iVoin what I have hiard, I f-liould say it was not homogeneous. 1 wJjjIi, iiowcvtr. iliat the wholi' cau=;e Iiad gone up to the GeiuTai Assemhiy. 1 think it would have been more lor tlie interest of relijjion. We are con?idered by the public, as a par- tial body: in this, however, I have been anticipated byayounsrer brother, (Mr. H.irrison.) As to Adam's knowlediie 1 know liule about it. I know that lu; was "created in knowledge," and that he gave names to all the birds and beasis of the crea- tion: but. it is a mere speculation to aiti nipt to tell liow much he had o.r how much he needed. No doubt he had all that lie needed for the ends and purposes for which God n-iade him. As tot he li! Ill charge, if this had happened twenty- years ago the Orthodox would have swid nothing about it. It made me shudder whea it was said that Mr. Barnes denied our obligation to Clirist for jus- tification by his riirhteousness. It was not said, how- ever, expressly whether Mr. Barnes held this. On this point he turned lawyer, and evaded mentioning too particularly what he meant : he (juibbled a good deal about tlie phraseology. This I deprecate. 1 do not approve ol it: nor do I approve of bringing in new phraseology into works on divinity, save where the meaning of words has changed since the Con- fession of Faith was drawn up. 1 was born a Pres- byterian, and I expect to die one ; none that ever I heard of denied my contorniity to the Confession. As to Adam's knowledge 1 think Mr. Darnes denied loo much. As to faith being an act and not a prin- ci])le, a man might preach for twenty years and not settle the disiinciion between an act and a principle. All depends upon the light in which the subject is considered. In some respects it is, an act ; in some it is a principle. When Christ said to bis apostles in the ship, " How is ii that ye have no faith 7" he did not mean to charge them with being destitute of saving faith, but with a want ol the act on that par- ticular nccnsi(m. The word Faith has various mean- ings in Scripture — sometimes ii is the head which a dinner holds out to receive, sometimes it is an anchor by which he trusts, and so forth. As to the point uf man's ability, I hearkened as well as I was able to the Appellant, and I was certainly very dull either of hearing or of apprehension ii he produced the most remote proof of the charge. If there is any heresy on this point it mutt be Con- 192 TUIAL OF etruclive heropj'. There was no proof. I was pleaped wilh Mr. ]3;iriit'8' eX|H)silioM of the miiltct ; but as for the A|i|)ellaiii he \vt:iil round about and round oboul il in a vory nii-lapliytical niannur. 1 hate all nielapliyisii-S. [a laui^h.J In re:^ard to the iinpulation of fiiih, the hook cer- tainly uses IScriptuiC lanjiuugc whaiever ihe author may hold. On ihe pa-s^aire ""The just ehiiil hve by faitli'' Dr. Junlun chaiires Mr. B. wiUi ti-arhinj? tliat it is a nian'-s f.ulh winch ju.-iilit s Jiini : but the apofclle is not sp^jakiiiij Hl)Out jus'ilicaiion, but aliout aposla- cy, and the just man's lioldnijjon in iiis lailli to eter- nal life and not laihi;^: away to jierdition. Neither Scott nor Gill nor Poulc say that liie passage relates to justilicarion. 1 am sorry Mr. Barnes everiindertook to write on the Rjmaiis at all. 'i'o write an able conimcntaiy on that episile requires the study of hit y years and \*--ilie intellect of a Locke: and even Locke lailed ^ Cirregiouslv. lli.s Paiajjlirase on the Gosjx Is is cx- ce'lcnl. It did him j^reai credit at d the chinch much fj )od. It is printeJ and | raided in Euro|^e. But there le should have stojjpfd. I know the diliicultics of the ilomantf: I have lectured on every part of lh& ei)istle, and on a part of it the second lime. Out of many conniienlaries 1 selected Guize as my^uide; ami I still third< it i.; the best: he reconciles all such dillicultiesasc.m be reconciled, and some he acknow- ledfjcs he is not able to explain. After these, I am sorry Mr. Barnes undertook it. The man did so much f^ood. He certainly did push on the temperance cause in the very lace of an audience at hrst much opposed to il, and since then many more have en- traj^ed in the same^ood work. 1 wish he would turn his atieniion more to that and let these minor mat- ters pass. I do not ap()rovc all ihat is in his book, especially all I hat about Adam's sin: and ihe change ol laiiiiuaife on I hat subject 1 also disapprove, but 1 do not believe tlie man ineHiis to deny oiiiiinal sin. But the moment our denominalion ol Chrisiians un- dertake to explain wlut God has not explained, and tell all ihe why and wlierifore of his doings they en- {fage in a business which if it is not anti-scripiural is ut least super-scripLural. JNoae disapjiroves such prying speculalinns nn^re than I do. It is not li.r edificaiion. To be sure it's well enough to raise these |)oints fjr an evening's discussion in some little literary club or associaiion, and there me may dilfer to the very utmost ; and when webreak up all'sover, and we leave iiaitirs just where we found them. To go firther does no j;oad, il only distracts meii's brains undseis them together by the ears, ju. t as they used to bft vvlx'u thi*y came loifciher at Corinth to eat the Lord's Supper. MR. BARNES, 193 The Moderator called to Dr. ('atlicarf (o ordt^r. Dr. C. Why, Moderator, I arn (>ptiiikin^ again.^t the hook now. However, I ciiiinot niuintain the ap- peal. 1 have not heard the Presbytery ; tliat stum- bles me. Mr. Kennedy. I have compared the i.aesagts quoted with the clmrtres, hut as I was not in the Houi?e the whole time it would be improper lor me to give an opinion, or to vote. Mr. Maginley. I was afTectcd witii surprise and distress when I lieard it alleged (hat the Synod isgcnerally supposed to be {rreaiiy prejudiced in this case. 1 do not think 60. I see no reason why they sl.ould be. A ^reat uuxriy of us live lar Iroin the bounds of the Prepbyie- ry more immedialoly concerned, nor are vve envious ol'the distinction fil' our brethren. And that the Sy- nod is more prejudiced than the General Assembly would be,js what cannot be shown. The circum- stances of the case are spread lar and wide : lor this ihinji^ was not done in a corner. Wherever the Pres- byterian church has spread througliout this Union, there icj to be found more or less acquaintance with this cape. But instead of too great a zeal Ibr truth> we have rather to lauiCnt a growing inditierencc to it; and to me it is pleasing to see some evidence of a revival of zeal in the cause of truth and sound doc- trine : fori have lon^: ob.-crved that inditiV^rcnce to the fundamental doctrines of the gospil of Christ is fast growing in our cburciies. If we are to judge of doctrine.? from the'r inlluence, then tlie opinions pro- mulgated by Mr. L'u nes must be bad: tor their eti'ect is to raise man in his own estimation, and just in the eame proportion to bring down the glory of God our Savior. V\*haiever doctrine exalts man is diametri- cally opposite to the Bible. We are toKi that man is not in a state of corruption, and that be possesses plenary ability to work out his own salvation. And It is .-Lliirnitd that improvements in divinity are to keep pace wilii the improvement of human science. This tends to generate pride. 1 think that ail the counts under the general cirarge of herfsy have not been established with equal clearness. Some of the doctrines quoted from the book, hov/ever, arc palpa- bly against our standards. Error has been clearly demonstrated on some points, but not so clearly on others. But there is sulKcient evidence to sustain the charges throughout. Mr. H. R. Wilson. ()eny what 1 understand to be the meaning of Rom. viii. 7. What he says on pages 164 and 165 ol his 194 TRIAL OF book, on that point, docs not sati.^fy mo. II»" holds, ill coiitriuiicfioii to the. (ieclaralion ol'lheapostle. that fallen man has full ability to keep the commandments ofGod. I shall vote to sustain the appeal. Mr. Sharon. On readinf? Mr. Baniefe'tj book, I find that the doc- trine ol'ihc ri'prctic'iiiative character of Adam, which, ncr^ordin^ lo tlie common use and acceptation ol' lan- guage, is plainly tauirht in Scripture, is distinctly impugned ; and the doctrine of imputation is also se- riously allecti'il. I must, lor my own part, take lan- Kuage in t!ie J5ihle and out, of it according to its plain and common accopialion: and if the object of the au- thor had been to convince me that he did not receive thet^e doctrines, he could not have used language more directly calculated to produi-e that impression. This bock and our Confession of Faith cross each other almost at right angles. 1 am therefore for eus- tain'JQg the appeal. Mr. McKnight. I have some diiJiculties on my mind, in i;elation to this case, vvhi^ impressiuns are: for I have not been able, in all points, to agree wiih my brethren on either side. I lelt home wiih a mind unprejudiced. I was not per- sonally acquiinied v.'ith the t)roiher who is accused, nor had 1 re„nj his hook. 1 had seen nothing relating lo this cause but the charges of the prosecutor, ana the judi:-ment of the court below. 1 took my seat with a mind as impartial as ever a man poi^sesscd on earth. 1 felt my position to he a solemn one, and sur- rounded with responsibiliiies to. the church, to the world, and to the great Head and Lordol'Zion. But, iu the irifipient stages ol the, trial, 1 was not a little etanled at the posiiion the Synod look in relation to the parties. If I understand the provisions of cur conslilutio.'i on the subject oi api)eals, the thing ope- rates in iliis way: When a cause has been irit t* in a court below, and is curried up by appeal to a higher tribunal, the original panics are there oul. of view. Before this court there are new parties, viz. the ap- pellant and the court aiipealed Irom ; and then the only question to be settled is this: Was the judgment given by the inferior court just, or not? To show you that, iii^ holdi.ig this opinion, I stand on ijolid Tn'We lii^Jl'prace, wl'iat are the grounci.^oAy'^c^il",' " Any irregularity in the proceed] gs of the iafcriof MR. BARNE9. 195 Judicatory: a reRisal of rensonuble indulgence to n. party on trial: decliitinfj to receive important testi- mony : hurrying to a decision belbrc I lie testimony ia fully taken: a maiiilestation ol" prejudice in the case: and mistaite or injuKiii-e in the decition, are ail pro- per grounds oi aijpeal.'' Suppose an appeal is taken on the ground ol' prejudice ; ihen you ai e to examine that point: you are to hear lestnuony on ii : you liavo to determine that, and that only. So in ihe 10th 6ub-seciion ol' section 3, liie object of the decision by the appellate court is declared to be, " eimer to con- firm, or reverse, in whole or in part, the decision of the inferior judicalory : or to remit the cause, for the purpose of amending the record, should it ap- pear to be incorrect or defective ; or for a new trial." in my view, the very nature of an appeal implies, that there is nothinir to do wiiii the incipient stage of the cause, until the appeal shall be issued. The ori- ginal p.uties do not come in at all, until the fourth stage ol the proceeding. In deciding tlie appeal, it ia necessary to have the testimony, and a// the testi- mony, which was laid before the court below. And, in the present case, as we have not all the testimony, 1 cannot, in view of my ordination vow to maintain the constitution ot our church, vole at all, c or the other. I am fully aware of being exposed to the sarcasms whicii proceed irom a certain corner of the house, against any who maintain such an opinion. But if the sneers of the brother are thrown at me, I can assure him they will fall harmless to the ground, for 1 am strong in conscious innocence. It is afar easier task to throw out sarcasm and invective, than to an- swer argument, A father has said that he is asto- nished tiitre should be any difficulty felt on the score of defective evidence, because he thinks it is complete and perfect. But I can asbure him that I have difli- culties on that ground; and I will tell Jiim why I dif- fer from him in opinion. I am no lawyer. 1 never either studied or practised law; but I have often at- tended courts, both civil atid criminal; and 1 have there learned some of the principles of judicial juris- diction: and the same principles, being of a general nature, may usefully be applied to courts ecclesias- tical. The analogy of proceedings is often very close. Now, in civil courts, it is well known that no court but that in which the triiU commences can make up t he record : and il it is niut ilated , or lost, no other authority can amend or restore it. As there are law- yers here, 1 challenge contradiction to this position. Mr. R. Breckinridge. The book the brother holda in his hand expressly provides that if a record is mu- tilated you may supply it. Mr. McKnight. I appeal then to lawyers out of \96 tRlAL OJ' this court. I have on this subject the opinion of an eminent judge. And 1 have inyseli" iseen the point decided from ilie bencli. 1 luive known, when ii has been discovered ihat the record has been mutilated, the court to reluse to pio/eed in the cause. And this opinion is preaiiy strensiem will not be complete at once. Hebe- gins, and having advanced some way, he lalls again mlo correct pin-aseology, atid liais liis work comes to be lull ofcoidiision aiut contradiciions. But he does not rest there: but contmuing his downward course, he never .-tops till at last he takes up his rest m the error to wliicti he has lieen tcntling. W e are called upon to dispose of the errors in Mr. Barnes' book, and indoi:!g so we must put u|)on 'ts language our own interpretation. If tiie book contracucls itself, and may be e.xplaincd to mean either one tiung or the op- posite, eacli man will of cour.^e explain it in his own way, and will take such i>aris as agree with his own Tiews. If a man takes iij) Mr. Barnes' book and be- lieves him to ho!d error, he will :?ay here are pas- sages whicii are clearly erroneous, and he will inter- pret all the rest of the book by these pari.-^ of ii. So if a man favors Mr. Barnes' vievvs he wiil say here. are passages which agree wiili the confession, and he will he for interpreting all the rest in conformity with these. 1 lldnk we, are bound to take up the book and judge of its language by the simple rule ol common sense. A man would not write such things as are m this book if he knows the use of language and does not intend to convey such a ineaniiig as the words express. I urn ready to vote for suelainin* the appeal. Mr. S. Wilson. I am not insensiole to ti.e responsihilitiee under •which I am called to act: at the same time I am not conscious that 1 came here with any piejudici s but a love to the truth. -Though I have uo pArlicular MR. BARNE6. 1\^ acquaintance with ihe accused party, yet all my leeiinf^s toward him were in his liivor. Bui, in re gard to the sentiment contained in hi-s book, 1 cannot say that my acquaintance has been so ha|)py. I be- lieve it contains errors which are extremely danger- ous. The system tliere taught, us far as it is laid down, amounts to a dilierent doctrine, " another gospel." It seems to me that the appellant has acted wisely in the arrangement of his charges. The first point, is that all sin consists in action : then that faith is an aci and not a principle: then, in accordance with this, that we are not cliargeable with Adams' transgression ; the denial of this is part and parcel of the system. Ami so with ihe rest. All the points are not equally injportant, yet they all constitute one connected system ; and the whole form a battery, levelled at the very foundations of the Presbyterian Church. Only carry out these principles and they subvert the whole grounds of my hope in Christ, I think that the appellant has fully sustained all the charges ; though 1 do not say that he has established all with equal clearness. Some of them are inferen- tial ; but tlie inlerenee is so clear that none can doubt it. If 1 deny an aliirmalive proposition, it is tanta- mount to aliirming the opposite. We are bound logically, to draw this itiference. But even suppos- ing that all the charges are not fundameiial, still they all impugn the standards of the Presbyterian Church: tliey arc all inconsistent with that Ibrm of sound words which contains the essential doctrines of the Scripture. And certainly, if a man impugns publicly the standards of faifh he has sworn lo main- tain, he cannot complain if he is denied a standing in the church which holds them. On the whole 1 am fiersuaded that this book is calculated to poison that ountain of divine truth from which as a church we all should drink : and I hold it to be our duty to in- tercept the polluted stream, before it spreads its con- sequences far and wide through the land. We are bound by our ordination vows to maintain the purity as well as the peace of the church. Truth was given for the illumination and sanctification of the church and of the world : and if you allow its streams to be mixed with poison, and thus to flow through the length and breadth of our Jerusalem you will al- low the dearest interests of men to be most seriously periled. But it has been said that Mr. Barnes's standing is such that we ought not to try him at all: and some have even said that if our church constitu- tion requires us to cut ofi' such a man as this, they are for getting another and a better as soon as pos- sible. That has been said. And now moderator, if it is como to this, and it is our constitution which thus prevents the spreading of erroneous doctrine, it 18* 214 TKIAL OF ia time for this Synod to ppeak out, and to express its «entimcius in such a manner as shiill be etleclually felt in our churches. If we are to sacrifice our Htandards and all our views oldivine iruih oui of de- ference for one man, it is time to irive up. We have, since tlie openiiur ol tliis! cause, been frequeniiy re- ferred to puulic o[)itiion as ihe rule which ou^hi to ifovern our procet-uing-s. No doulu we ouj^ht lo have ii decent respect for ihe public mind, in this as in all other niattcrf?: yet our paramount duty is to have regard lo truth, and not to ^o out of these wails to enquire what tiie world says. Let us rather go to scrii)ture and to the throne ol yrnce. Let us perlbrm our duty fully and learlest^l), and leave ilie world to say what they please. If that wholesome (!i?cipiiiie wiiich was meant to builil up tiie churcli siiall iirove tlie means ol puliini^ down and (iestroying it, the fault wdl not be ours, .i laitlil'ul ap|)licaLion of the proper means i.sall that is in our power ; and it will, in the end, prove the most successiul mode of es- tablishiiiir the church on sure Ibundaiions. Dr. Jun- kin has satisfied me in respect lo several of the counts in the irnlxtment he hris prelerrcd, and when the time shall come to Jiive tiie final vole 1 trust his ap- peal will be sustained. Mr. Moore. I had made some e.xamiri ition of Mr. Barnes'a book before I came to this [louse: and since then I have li.^tened with pleasure iuid 1 trust with jirolit also to the argumeni cf the appeil.mt. 1 thinl< he has fully sustained six of liw' charj^es. His arjjument in reference to the others I did not hear, bavins been diuained from the House by indisposition. Tiie vviiole affair has been very painful to me. 1 have known brother Barnes for these fifteen years past; 1 liave always felt a warm friendship lor him, altfiou^h I never hod what maybe termed nn intimate I'cquainl- ance. But thouijh 1 love him much, 1 love Christ better. I have paid some attention to the Epistle lo the Romans havinj? myself lectured upon tlie whole of It, and 1 ihink there are serious discrepancies be- tween Mr. Barnes book and the te.xl he prolesscd to explain. It Las been said that we have but a doubt- ful jurisdiction over the case, yet it is admitted that we have enough to have empowered us to reler it to a superior court: but 1 should think if we c:in go so far, we can go ihe whole. The errors in the book are some of them Arminian. and others either semi- Pelagian or Pelagian etitirely. True there are other passages which speak a difiereni language: but what then? The oracle it seems is of dubious import: it may bear one sense or bear another: which shall we follow? I can only believe what hae the imprimatur of truth upon it. The rest 1 mutt MR. BARME». 2121 eondemn. I had supposed tliaf. the wIioIk case would have been referred to a hi;gher tJoiirt, ;ind I wuk prf- rarcd to vole lor eiicii a course: but I am not now. have no predilections vvliir.h will sway me in lavor of the appellee, or airaiiist him. So far as he can re- move any of the eharii^fs hy explanation 1 should re- joice to hear it: hut I am ol"opinion ihal the appellant has fully established the jieneral charge. Mr. M';KNiGnT Williamson. After exaniininy- at^ ciotcly as 1 ( ouul the evidence which liiis l)cen suhnn't(cd lo us, I ;ini coiLstrained to eustain the ai)peal. When I review the Inn^ruaire of my ordination vow. I find ainonj? oilier cpieries put to me in that solemn hour, ilii.s cpiesiion: "' Do you sin- cerely receive and adopt ihe Oonlession of Faith of litis church, as contaiaiui? the sjsieiu of doctrine taught in the Holy Scripiures ?" I believed I could answer then, and 1 think I cm answer now, px ani- wo, that I do aiiprove ii : and I am constrained to think in view of what has been read to us Irom Mr. Barnes's lioolf, that what is there lauii'ht is not in accordance wiih that Confession, or witii the declar- ations of the Holy Spirit in I he word of God. On the eontrary, thi; lauHuaire of tlie Confession is openly attacked. Now ihis book professes to be intended for the use of Sabhalh scliool teachers and the chil- dren in our Sabbath scfiools, and it certainly does in- Blil principles which are opci^ly and directly at war with the Coid'ession of Faith lUid the Catechisms of our church. If its desijjn succeeds, it wiil raii^e up a host of men prepared and disposed to uproot the doc- trine which lias hitherto distinguished ilie Presbyte- rian church. Mr. Olmstead. I have had a copy ol ttie ouuic for some time; and I think the best speech I can make in re'erence to the case— I hope others wdl follow the example — ia to say, " no remarks." [Many did loUow the example.] Mr. Allen. I am not goin^ to make a speech; but as it is my constitutional ri^ht to give the reasons for my vote, I shall occupy two or three minutes in doing so. I think the appellant has entirely sustained his charges, I cannot bring myself to doubt on this subject ; or to believe tliat he can have mistaken the sentiments Mr. Barnes has promulsrated ; and i consider those he has enumerated as forming the essential raris of a system 'vhich had its birth in two very renowned places; the hist is New-Haven; and tlie other is Poplar Town.* [a laugh.] The nature of the charges ♦Poplar Town is the station of Rev. Mr. Campbell, a mem- ber of Synod. ^16 TRIAL OF ;is well ;is the cliTriicier of the man. may be prelly well judiTcd ol' Iroiii the otlcirts wiiicti have been niude to defend liim. We cunnoi have a, belter proof (if this than the relerence which was made lo ihe Hiolical Repertory and the auiiiorify of Princeton. Now we know what the eentiments o| Princeton are in relation to liiis matter. In Dr. Miller's letters we have a |)ic-ture, fully drawn, of this syeteni oi doc- trinal oi)ini'jns : and ihc author of thai work declares, in terms, thai iho.'-e who h-^ld these errors and yet Kuhscribe to the Cotd'ession of Faith, are guilty of perjury. And ihe same book declares that there are ministers in the Presbyterian church wlio liold those sentiments. He fixes this sli^Miia on t lie New Schoolmen: and the errors in Mr. Barnes's book form a part of the New S( liool system. I have no dilfirulty in declarii);^ that in njy view they are most dangerous. There was one ihinj^ vvliich, at first, bore witii great wei;;ht ot\ mv mind. 1 saw ihal the er- rors were there: bnl then it was said, and truly, that the book contained passages Ironi w lieh just the op- posite mis'ht be proved. Prolessor Ilodge lias shewn most clearly some of these contradictions. This was adifiiculiy with me lor a considerable lime : but it is fiO no longer. I reganl Mr. Barnes's book just as I do the work of Taylor. Edwards shews in his book against Taylor that Taylor teaches, in lact, both sides. While he undertakes to deny original sin, he does in some places prove the very contniry of this. Juslso it is with Mr. Barnes. He means to deny the system taught in our standards ; but ht; has also said things which lead to directly the reverse. But no man could, on this account, think of cleaiing him of such a de:~ign, any more than for the .-ame reason he could acquit Taylor. I know he has taught in some passages what comports with cur system, but the main design ol" his book is to contradict and over- throw it. He has fallen into the contradictions una- voidably, and tlirouf;h mistake. I therefore hold him guilty on all the charges. Mr. Todd. I came here with a mind entirely unprejudiced, and have listened to the course ol the trial with close attention. What little I knew of Mr. Barnes dis- posed me in his favor. I had met him in Synod, and was disposed to consider him as an aniiable and ex- cellent man. But since I have been here and have listened lo the charges, and the proof adduced in sup- port of them, I am constrained to say that I believe them lo have been fully proved. On the competency ol this court to take up and issue the appeal I have no doubt or difficulty. As lo the opposite passages in tlie book, I never in my life read a book ol any de- ecription that had not something good in it. I have MR. BARNS8. ^1'' never read Mr. Barnes' l)ool< ; hut adiiiiitinfj the paa- Hages vvliicli have heen quoicil lo tie contained in it, even thouuli all the reel were ever so pood aiiti ever HO eoinid, I eliould voie to condt mn il. ^Ihis jk jv book lor ilic une of our youth to form the niinde of those who are lo i'l-llow us, and in at least tome parts ofiLthe fund imental dociriiiert ol' our holy rciipiou are denied. 1 do ihink its doctrinal posiiion.s contain pross heresy. It i.< said he is a man ol talents and of an amia' le and excelietil private character : I fiave no reason to doubt this ; l)ui as he is a man ol' dis- cernment he must have known what it was that lie put into his book. He certainly liad a lull opportu- nity to consider them, tor he was ailmonished five years ago tiiai he had e.xpressed sentiments at war with our standards and with the Dihle. Knowing this he has persevered : he still adiiert s to the same views: he has expres.~ed them iiere, and he means lo express thim. 1 do not imjuiiin his ri^lu of opi- nion. He has an indubitable n^iit. to liold, and to express and spread abroad these or any other senti- ments, but. not at the same time to retain his stand- in;; as a Presbyterian minister. He had belter come out, like an honest man, and say at once, I do hold nentiments at war with your coidession, 1 no lonper believe in tiial coniession, and 1 renounce it openly. That would be the part n[ an honest and a pious man: hut I do detest the idea ol" a nian's professing to adhere to a certain standard of relijrious belief, and at the same time writintj against it, and preach- in? against it. Let Mr. Barnes be honest. II' he is no longer satisfied witli the lanjiuage ol' our church, let him tell his brethren how he feels, and ask to wiihdraw peaceably from our connection, and not keep us all in commotion a.= he has done. The high Btaniiing of the iiiaii and of his congregation presents no reason why he ought to be deaTt with lightly : on the contrary it forms the Very reason why we are bound to brini? the disci[)!ine of the church fully to bear upon him. Let him not, under any sanction from us, stand in the midst ol the metropolis of the Ktate spreading his oilious, detestable, abominable doctrine, a doctrine wiiich goes to destroy the lonnda- tions of human hope, and lo undermine and lay waste that f-iir slrurlure of Pre^ibyterianism which the wisdom of our lathers Isas erected. Mr. DuNL.\P. I have never, for eight years that 1 have had a peat in Synod, had anything to say which I thouglil worthy of being communicated to such a body. On this occasion, hov\ever, 1 will say a few words. My first remark is, that as a court we have nothing to do with Mr. Barnes's belief — but otily with his words. It is said, I know, that he does not intend to tI8 TRIAL OF convey the ideas he hae conveyed, and this impres- eion per|)lexe« ihe mind of some brethren. It per- plexed mine for eoine time: and I tiiou^ht if that aifliculiy were, removed my mind would be clear. Bui tlie way to jiidpe of any sermon is to ask the people that lieur it., not the man who preaches. Sup- nosing the lanj^uafje which has been read to us from Mr. Barnes's l»ook were used in a sermon: and you were then to ask the people that heard hin\ what doctrine Mi . B. meant to preach ? If they iii reply stated the truth according to our standards, why there would he an end of the matter. But where a book is puiiliiihed to the world, it Jiocs to the world : and, till' (luestionfor us is, 'how will lliey understand it?' If, h( vever, the experiment has been tried, wo find that every body understands if in a certain way, then we know what the book teaches. That experi- ment has been fully tried. It has been my privilege to see the |)ractical bearings of this very system. I learned it from the people themselves who embraced it. When I came among them and presented the claims of this church for aid, they told me we cannot give, and they gave me the reason, and that reason was almost a literal quotation from Mr. Barnes's book. They used his very language. 1 say that it is a system : a practical system in tr.e church. Go where it is and both elders and people will soon satisfy you how the doctrine is understood: Nor do ihey go merely as far aa this book goes: no: they carry the tiling out. VVc have been told here that Mr. Barnes does not denv the imputation of Adam's sin; but inquire where liis book is read, and they will speedily convince you how tlie matter is. They ust^ his very words. They will tell you that to talk of God's imputing Adam's sin to his posterity is a libel on the divine government — that it is horrid even to think of any human being's coining into existence nnder what will prevent him from doing all the du- ties required of liiiii: and if you press them with scripture, they will u~e all Mr. Barnes' arguments about the injustice of punisliing men for an action done thousiiiids of years bel()r(! they were liorn. Tiien you will hear tiiat all sin lies in action : that it is action and action alone which coiisiilutes charac- ter. When you ask tliem how God created man, they will tell you that he created him without any ctiaracter at all, but with liberty to form sucli a cha- r.uuer as he pieas"d. They expressly deny that Adam's coiuluct afflicted his ollsitring in any way. Tliey feel the dilTiculiy arising from the fact that all men do necessarily sin, but tliev deny that this ia consiquence of any thing done by Adam: and insist tliat men now sin just as the angels did at the begin- ning. If you ask, what do you do then with infants? MR. BARNES. lit lliey will answer that infants have no cliaracter. I wusfitrnck with what was said when I prrsscd upon Mr. Dutficki — I heir duty. But I ask, has not a n)an put on trial for his life, a right to avail himseif of all conslitutioi:al points w hich are in his lavor ? II sucli a man should deem it not expedient at this moment to come to trial, and find that there is some point in law, winch, if iircfcsed, will enable hirn to |>ostpon_e his trial to a time more favorable for him, is it unfair to avail himstll of it, and tiios get his trial put olf until a time when, as he sui)poses, he shall be more likely to obtain justice ? I think not, Mr. BariiCs was ready lor trial. He expected to he tried, and declared himselt" to be ready, but he liien discovers that the constitu- tion put it in his power to postpone his trial till the m.eeiin^ of the General Assembly, and he accordinsriy objected to have I lie trial now proceed. The Synod overruled his oojection and re- solved that they would go on with it. Very \4'cll; that IB, with them. But does that justily uic? I am placed here on judjjmcnt on my fellow man. Will it justify me to say that the Synod is resolved that the trial shall proceed ? It will not. I am stag-ojered, and feel at a loss to proceed. I confess I was sur- prised to hear it said by Dr Junkin on this floor, that if Mr. Barnes chose to sutler the trial to go by default it was not our fault. I suppose a cause ^oes by de- fault when the party prosecuted doe?; not sppc^ir, or neglects lo plead, but Mr. Barnes did appear and did put in a plea, how then can it be said that lie has suffered his cause to go by dclauli ? He came befbre UB, he put iu his pica to our jurisdiction, and whea MR. BARNES. 235 hia pica was over ruled he look an appeal to n higher court. He did so under the dec lured cotiviclioti that he eould not delt'iid liimstlf at. our bar without ad- mitliiii? our juri^diclion and llie constiiuiicnalily of hi.-? tri.ii : Imi, tins lie could not do vviili a {rood con- eciencc. IJc vv.-is shut u\) to the alternative ol' either takin;; this courcse or reliisinj? altoi/viinglo7i, Dr. Cuyler, Mr. ISelville, Steele, Dinwiddle^ Gibson, Vanarsdaten, JLndi, Stakes, Durfor, Brown, Dr. Mar- tin, J. LatM, Boyer, Kmmy, Park, J. N. C. Gm-r, Duuglass, Love, Ho iblon, Russell, Synimes, Davis, Davie, Rutter, Getn- 7net, Kellon, SUicard, Baijless, WliiUford, Budianan, J. Pat- terson, Marjhj, Wakn, fenny, J. Love, Jackson, Evans, Kerr, Dr. J. Iireckinndct oI'Mr. Boardmiin. Mr. Uutlield, in reply, utterly derned alt such intentioii, and aj'i)ealcd to iliose who had heard his Jan£uage. He rcsj ondcd with warmth to what he coiisitiered an unlbuntled charge, and expressed much personal regard lor Mr. Doardman. It appear- ed, on the whole, that Mr. Breckinridt^e's impression had arisen from a misiinderstanding, and ihai his warmth of remark had been i)romi)Led ny the desire to vindicate an ahseiii I'ricnd. The k-tier beinjr a pri- vate o;;e, was withdrawn : and the Reporter deems the above all the notice that it is proper to take of what pas.sed on the occasion.] Mr. Winchester, Irom the committee appointed to draw up a report in answer to ihc appeal ol" ihe 2d Presbytery of Pliila-!el|)hia, presented the iollowinf?: The commiitee on the paper purporting to be an appeal, &c. of the Assembly's Second I'resbytery of Philadelphia, from ihe vote of censure passed by Synod, made the follow- ing report, which was accepted and adopted, and is as follows, viz : The Committee appointed to prepare a minute in relation to the appeal of the Assembly's Second Presbytery, against the decision of this Synod, declaring the conduct of said Presbytery in endeavoring to embarrass the proceedings of Synod in the case of Dr. .lunkin against Rev. Albert tJarnes to be obstmate, unjust, &c. l)eg leave to report, that said Presbytery have suited in their appeal that their widiholding the recorJs in the case of Mr. Barnes was the ground of the decision appealed from. That this constituted a part of the ground your committee readily admit, hut the decision of Synod declares the whole conduct of slid Presbytery in the premises to be obstinate, unjust, &c. The said Presbytery have moreover erred in declaring that Synod refused to con- sider the plea to the juristliciion of :he Synod over the case of Mr. Barnes. The records of Synod show that said plea was duly considered and soleamly overruled by a vote of the house. It was declared to be no bar to the further proceed- ings of Synod in the case, from which declarative decision no appeal, nor complair.., nor protest was entered by the pf.rty now apj-ealing, and to which they thereby prefesbcd to submit. The plea bting overruled, and the overruling act not objected to in such a way as to arrest proceeding,', the records were again called for, and again denied to the Synod. Both the Appellant and Appellee having declared their readiness for tiial, they were ordered to proceed. But the Appellee finding liiat the records were withheld by an act of the Pres- bytery to which he belongs, and t« which he made no objec- tion, declined to appear as a party to the trial. Where- upon, the Synod being otherwise possessed of an authenti- cated copy of the proeecdinKs of the lower judicatory, declared the conduct of said judicatory to be obstinate, unjust, &c.; aud resolved to proceed with the trial, leaving the responsi- MR. bakNes. 239 bility of not appearing to answer ihe charges, and of with- holding the records in the case, lo rest upon ihose who sought thereby to embarrass the proceedings of Synud, and to de- feat a final issue of the case. Aajainst the first part of thia decision ; namely, that which declares ihn conduct of the lower judicatory to be obstinate, unjust, &c. the appeal in question is taken. The Bjuk of Discipline, < hap. vii, sec. iii, sec. xvj, declares thai "'it shall always be deemel the duty of the judicatory whose jud<^ineni is app-aied from, to send authentic coiiies of ihuir records, and of ihe whoh; testimony relaiiiif; to the matter of the appeal. And if any judicatory snail niglect its duty in tiiis rci-peci, especially if ihereby an appell ml, who has conducted wiih re!;uliriiy on his part, 13 deprived of the pnvi!et>e ol liavuig his appeal seasonably is- sued, such judicatory siiall be censured accordinsj 10 the cir- cumstances of the ca«e." When the Assembly's ISecond Presbytery wrre called upon for the authenticated records in the case of Mr. B-iriics, ihey answered in writing, wiiich an- swer is on record, that the Synod had no jurisdiction of said case, iiiasmucli as the said Presbytery, at the time the appeal was taken, belongtd to the Synod of Deiawaie, and that thereiore they refused to surrender tlie records in (jiestion. It appeared, nioreovi r, from ihe acknowledgment of the staled cletk of said Presbviery, that these records were in the house. The Synod averruieU ilio plea to theit jurisdiction on the ground that the appeal was laken to this Synod without ob- jeciion on the part of the said Presbytery, it being fully ascer- tained that no meeting of the Synod of Delaware could be held, because by the act of the last As5emli|y it would be dis- solved prior to the date to which it stood adjourned. It more- over appeared, fr'.'in the acknovvleili,'ment of Mr. Barnes, that he, (although the party accused.) knew no hing of the inten- tion of ihc Presbytery or of any of its members, to enter a plea until he came to this Synod. The Presbytery appealing, state as the ground of their appeal, that they appeared, that they were ccnsund unheard. But the records of toe Synod will show that after the refusal of said Presbytery to deliver up the records, the Synod ordered that said Presbytery forth- with lay their records on the table of Synod, copies of which order were furnished to the Jloderator and slated clerk re- spectively of said Presbytery. In reply to this order the said Presbytery presented 10 Synod a paper duly authenticated, reiterating their relusal and pleading as their reason that the Synod had no jurisdiction ovei the case. The prosecutor also applied to the stated clerk of the lower judicatory, for an au- thenticaied copy of the records in his case, which, though a matter of right to the prosecutor, was nevertheless, formally denied him, which denial is on record. Thus it appears that after repeated and proper steps being taken by the Synod, ta procure the records, the said Presbyiery continued to with- hold them, whereupon the Synod made thu decision from which lire appeal vyas taken. The said Presbyiery were heard by an authenticated, and being out of the house, as the judicatory from winch the appeal was taken, they could take no part in the discussion of any question connected with the appeal. Had the absence of the records been owing tamere neglect on the part of the lower judicatory, the decision of the Synod 240 TRIAL OK would doubtlrss have been diflereni from what it is. But thft truth is otherv\ise. The pnrnes, togetlier with the lower judi- catory, caine i:p to Syuod wiUi tlie expsctaiiiin and uiider- Btnndiii;; that the tii;il would regularly proctcd. VVhy elso were the records brought here? Nut to be reviewed, for if the junsilicii'Ki of this Sjynud coniuieuced with liie aciual union v taken by the Aa- Beml)ly's 2J Presiiyiery, nor thai they ever iniendcd lo screen those doiPiis of the Pre^hyieri.-B formerly attached to the Sy- nod of I'elaware, which took phicc t)etweeii the meeting of eaid A?snnl:|y and ihe Synod i>f Philadelphia, Iroiii the re- view and conirul of a superior juclx-itory. When the book makes it ilieduiy of a superior judicatory to censure the court below, f.jr coriiutnaciousily withholding their rec;ords in a case of ai peal, your commitice believe that It docs not contemplate nor make proxision (or a judicial pro- cess ag.iinst the olti^nding prti'hyiery, in ord r to arrive at the result against which this appial was taken. The fact o( with- holding the records in tins case i-i ailmiiied. It is a matter of record. The eirciiinstanocs which murk the conduct of the Assembly's 2d Presbytery in ihis matter, as they appear on recoro, do, in the jucigimiil of this Synod, reader that con- duct highly eonluniaeiou.". This juilj;inent the Synod have solminly expressed. In a case of review and control, where the Presbytery under review is chaig\ich as are fumJed upon the accredited standards of the Pi"pal communion, and to adopt any other means wbicii to them may stein expedient, and adapted lo difilise light iu the spirit ol love. Alter a brief explanation by Dr, B. stating that the day proposed in tl:e report wris that memorahle day on wiiicii the intrepid relormer nailed upon the church doors his Theses ngainst Teizel — the report was ac- cepted and miopted : ami Messrs. Green, Cnyler, Blyibe, VV. Eii'des, VVoudward, McKean, Brown, and Joseph P. Eiiirles, were appointed a committee. Messrs. Winchester, MusiTave, and INIcKinney were appointed a committee to dtd'enti the kSynod in ail appeals to the next General Assembiy. The Synod now iiroceeded to take up the report on the fast day. It commenced as follows : That from the accounts received from the Presbyteries in their narratives on the state of religion, it appears that there has been through the year, in our churches generally, with few exceptions, an absence of divine influence. 242 TRIAL OF Mr. MiisGRAVE observed that the report epoke of the ubseiice ol divine influenres during the i)ast year, and suirircsted the propriety of insertin;j the word " special" i)etbre divine infiuences. Mr. McCalla wi.-;lieil the whole clause stricken out. It was his decided conviction thai the position there siattd wa.s incorrect. He did not heiieve that there was any evidence to conclutle that ilivine inllu- ence had been withdrawn from the honnds of the Synod. On the conirnry, he did believe that the present a.spi.'ct and condition of that budy e.xliiliited more fvidtnice ol true divine inrlu^nce than had been known in tiic Prcshytcrian church lor twenty years. There was a greut (hllerence between the edification of ach.irchaiul the extension ol a chuccli by mere addition of nieadiers. I think, said Mr. McG.. that what lias transpired this evcnin!>-, contains an cvi- den'-p of divine inlUtence, sucli us sliould warm all our hearts. Alici eume further conversation, the word special was iusjerted, and the report adopted. The report ol the auiiitor on tlie treasurer's ac- counts was received and adopted. Mr. Annas, from the comniitiee appointed to ex- aminina ilic records ol the 2 1 Piesbyiery ol" Philadel- phia, reported tiiat iliose recorils liad not come itiio their hands, nor had they taken any steps to obtain them, because they were satislied that il" lliey bad made liie demand, it would not have been complied with. Mr. Winchester. I liope the committee will be instruct I'd to ask for the records, and if they are re- fused, thai the reasons given lor the relusal will be recorded. Mr. Annan. Is it then our duty to go to the offi- cers of that Preshyiery. anil demand the books ? MuDEisAroR. I think the committee ou^lit to do so. Dr. AlcUowLLL. 1 move that tiie report o( the committee siaiin;^ that tht; books have noi been put into tluir hands, lie accepted as sutficient, and tiiat the committee be discharged. Mr. \V'iNcnEsTE({. 1 oppose that motion. In an ordinary case ihut mi»ht he jiroper enou^'h, hut this case is peculi.ir. Our report to tiie As.-euibly states that the min.iieis ot" thai I'resbytery are here, and how will il look lor us to report ihat they have not been ex imined ? I wish it to ai'pear that tiie Pres- bytery have rKfu-:ed to s ib-nit their minutes lor ia- Bpection from the last np'Hiin^ o! the SynotI oi D. -Id- ware up to ihis time. VViihin that period tht: Pres- bytery may have t)een guilty of srro-s irrejjularities. Is tli It record to sleep forever? 1 liope not ; and I hope th;; chiirman of tb^* commidee wili make a for- mal application lor the Preubyicrial book. MR. DARNIS. 243 Mr. Annan now requested that the Moderator of the Synod would inquire whether the books were in the louse. MoDKiiATOiJ. Are Ihe records of the A?senihly'« Second I'resbyterv of Piid.idelphia here prcseiii? Mr. Adair. The riieiiihers of that Prebbyiery aro not now present, in tlie lionse. Dr. Ely. I do not knoiv vviiether the minutes are present or not, but 1 believe they are not in tha house. Mr. Annan now renewed his report, and the com- mil tec were discharged. Tlie Synod now proceeded to consider the report of the c niiriittee appointed to arranjre tlie Presbyte- ries, and the first rejwrt of Dr. Cuyler on that sub- ject was read. Dr. McDowell presented a remonstrance of tha 2d Presbytery of Philadu'lpliia, (syriodiciil,) against the proposed arrangement for presbyteriai bounda- rie?. 1.0.1 this subject .1 debate of much animation took phicej but as it was necessarily of a characier in a great measure local, and as die great lengUi of this report renders it desira- ble that it should be as much curtailed as propriety will ad- mit, we s'lall content ourselves with a very brief notice cf what was said.] Dr. Neill stated the wish of the 2d Pre.'^bytery (synodic il) to be, that the line of division at present exist ini^ between the Presbyteries should not be dis- turbed. He dwelt on the harmonious and happy condition of the Presbytery, snd their desire not to be broken in upon by any new arrani^ements which Bhould mix them up with the dis|)utes atid agitations which had so unhappily convulsed the churches of Philadel|)liia within the last year. Dr. McDo\ve:.l warmly opposed the plan of throw- ing all the Presbyteries together. It would form the enormous body of one hundred and forty memberp. He wan avvare of the difTiculty arising i'r&m the ex- istence of the Assembly's 2d Presbytery, and was settled in the opinion that it ought either to be dis- solved or limited. Il"left in its present state, it would soon be in |)Ossessioa uf the whole city of Philadel- Rhiii. He (hvelt upon the frequent changes which ad taken jilace, the new difficulties and perplexities etill recurring, and declared, with a groan, that his heart was fairly broken down under the burden of such a state of things. All he wanted, v/as to know •where he was, and there he wished to remain ;buta8 things now stood, nothing was fixed, nothing could be calculated on, and he looked forward to every meeting of Synod with drcnd. As soon as any good began to be done, it was all broken up, and the hope* of the best friends of the church utterly blighted. 244 TRIAL OF He had anqlher plan, which he thought Would obvi* ate much ol'the evil now complained vW Alter some convers.'.iion, in \vliicl\ Messrs. Win- chester, J. I3recl'. churches ? Was it so great a crime to make ne.v churches anion? a population, in the city and county, of two hundred tiiousand persons, not one fuiirth of whom went to any place of wor.'^hip ? Was the Synod resolved that the quarrels in Phila- delphi I should continue? Mr. P. adverted to (he comm indinon that influence ol her utdiappy divisions. As an arofument lo enforce his warning' against what he considered an oppressive course of measures, he adverted to the slate of the church in England in 1662, and went at considerable length in- to a history of the persecutions of the evangelical ministers, by the hi^h church party in that kingdom, and the issue of the struggle in leading to the act of Tolera'.ion. Mr. GiDsoN inquired whether this was in order, observing, that the Synod had heard this whole detail as ofter as Mr. Patterson had spoken. Mr. Patterson resumed, and insisted that the case was in point, as going to show the injurious effect and abortive result of all attempts to coerce the consciences of men by ecclesiastical authority. The Svnod never could squeeze the heads of minis- ters all into one shape. The trial in England liad failed, raid the attempt in America would etiil more signally fail. He adverted to the spotless character and high religious attainments of those who were the objects of persecution and contumely by the zealots of the hich church party, among whom were such men as Baxter, Flavel, Henry, Mead, Bates, Howe. &c. and the discontent, turmoil, and faction produced by such a course, and conjured the Synod not to pur- sue a course of conduct which must rend the Gene- ral Asseml)ly, and with it the whole Presbyterian church, and eventually prostrate the influence of the greatest religious body now on earth. He adverted to the passage in Ezekiel, where Israel and Judah -we represented as two sticks in the prophet'e haml, and dwelt upon Uie hajipy ellect of union in t-trength- ening every ijood dei^ign. He knew ihat Synod tuid the power, if ihey chose to use it, of crushing? the 2d Presbytery, and they niiglit push rnacters so far, as to leave to certnin nunisters no other akernalive hut to retire and form voluntary associations. Thus a high toned Presbyterian body would become them- selves tiiG promoters of conijregalionahsm. For one, he shoukl deeply rejifrct such a result; and he warned the gentlemen who were urging on this slate of things, to remember, that it was the lay members of the church who held the wealth of the church, to whom they had to look for the support of their semi- naries. They might rely upon it that matters would not end here. Gentlemen might find their resources dried up, before they were aware of it ; but be tlie result what it might, he repeated the warning, that to crush all minds into one mould was a vain and futile attemi)t, and so they wovdd find it. Dr. Green made a brief reply. He disclaimed ail attempt at coercing any body. All he sought or de- sired, was, that brethren who walked together should be agreed. As to the voluntary associations of which the brother had spoken, he wished, with all his heart, they might be formed, if such was the brethren's desire. As to the instances cited from the persecutions of the British church, there was no an- alogy between that case and ilio state of things ia this countrv. That was a tyrannical attempt to en- force the forms and rites of episcopacy upon men who wereconscientiously opposed lo them. Nothing of the kind was thought of here. The Synod souglit no religious establic^hment, but merely to secure such a state of things as that those who thought alike should go together. Mr. Patterson responded, and expressed the ex- treme reluctance with which he should be compelled. 10 leave many to whom his heart was united, and whom he considered as the very life's blood of the church; yet he, and those who acted with him, had now been told that they might sro olf, and the sooner the belter. The father of the Presbyterian church had expressed his hearty consent to their becoming Congregational ists; but were there no differences among Oie orthodox — on the baptism of children, for example? Some required faith in both parents, some in one only; while others would baptize the children of those who merely ledaraorallife. Would the father say to these, his orthodox coadjutors, ■' Go off, we can't agree" ? Dr. Laurie, from the committee appointed to pre- pare a minute in the case of Mr. Barnes, now brought in the following report; 21 24G TniAL OF " The committee appointed to briii^ in a minute in the case of appeal from the (Asscml)iy's) 2(1 Presbytery of Philadel- phia, wherein George Junkin is Appellant, and Albert Barnes Appellee, submit the following report and resolutions. This case has been brought up regularly by appeal^ as re- ported by the Judicial Committee of Synod, andunanmiousiy resolved by the Synod itself. The original parlies, namely, Dr. Junkin and Mr. Barnes being called on, answered that they were ready personally to proceed with the cause. Subsequently the Assembly's 2d Presbytery being called on for their records of this case, when tried by it refused to produce them ; and upon being formally ordered to lay them on the table, still refused to allow the Synod the possession of their records. Upon tiiis, the Appellee, (Mr. Barnes) put in a paper pleading to the jurisdiction of Synod, and declining the trial, and withdrew from tiie Synod. Thereupon the Synod passed orders that the Presbytery had acted disorderly, &c. and censuring them therefore ; that the Synod still found itself in circumstances to proceed to trial; and that Mr. Barnes' paper and the plea contained therein, was no bar to the regular issuing of the case. Then the appellant was fully heard. The Appellee was called and did not appear. The members of the (Assembly's) 2d Presbytery of Philadelphia being called on for explana- tions of their decision, put in a formal refusal. The roll of members was called, and this committee directed to prepare a minute. 1. That the appeal was orderly and regular, and ought to have been brought to this Synod, and issued by it, is apparent, from the reasoning and references in the minute censuring the Presbytery, and from the VII. Chap. 3 Sec. and 6 sub. sec. Discipline ; and Chap. XII. Sec. 4, Form of Government. The duty thus regularly laid upon this Synod, by the Appel- lant, with the approval, as appears to us, in the first instance, both of the Appellee and the lower court, we seemed called on to perform by the voice of the whole church, by the just expectation of the General Assembly, by faithfulness to the parties, to the world, to our own souls and to God. 2. The refusal of the Presbytery to produce the records, could not operate to arrest the trial. 1st. Because as is evi- dent from the records of this body, in this case, there was laid before Synod all the proof olTered by the Appellant in the court below as also copies of the charge and sentence. 2d. It is not believed that the Appellee oftered any proof, techni- cally so called, in the lower court. 3d. It is certain, that if he did oiler any proof it was only what is printed in his "Notes on the Epistle to the Romans," out of which also, every word of proof offered by the Appellant in the lower court and this also was taken. But 4ih. This refusal of the Presbytery to send up its records, is contrary to its clear duty, defined in Chap. X. sec. 9. Form of Government ; and Chap. VII. Sec. 3, and Sub. Sec. 16 of Discipline ; and to tlie spirit and act of the General Assembly of 1835, relative to the dissolution of the Synod of Delaware. 5th. The conduct of the stated Clerk of that Presbytery, in refusing the Appel- lant an attested copy of the record in this case, expressly violated the general command laid on him by Chap. XX. of MK. BARNES. 247 Form of Government, and the equally express personal right secured to the Appellant by Chap. IV. Sec. 16, of Discipline. And the conduct of both the Presbytery and its stated Clerk, is contrary to Chap. VII. Sec. 1, sub. sec. 1 of Discipline ; by all which references under this (5th) head, theconductof the Presbytery and Clerk, are proven to be foreseen and provided for, as' treated by this body. See also Chap. IV. Sec. 10, 13, and 15 of Discipline. 3. Upon the refusal of the Presbytery and Clerk to send the records in the orderly way, or to furnish the appellnnt with a copy on application, it was the part of the appellant, not of Synod to decline the trial. Any defect of regular proof would tend directly, to his defeat, and possible condemnation.— (Seo chap. sec. 7 Discipline, and chap. vii. sec. 3. sub. section 14.) Besides, the principles of additional ■proof, are settled, in Chap. i.\. Discipline, passim. And in chap. vii. sec. 1. sub. sec. 1, 3, and 15, of Discipline the principles are clearly laid down how this body should in cases of imperfect, or fraudu- lent records, or the total absence of all records, get at the truth of the case. And further, it is well settled thiit in the absence of the best proof, even admitting that case to be ours, that which is next best siiall be admitted. Especially when this Synod and the appellant used every proper means to ob- tain the supposed better proof, which is suppressed contuma- ciously by the co-Presbyters of the appellee, not only without regular conipiaint, but according to his own statements to the Synod, without any disproval by him of the principles, or the particular act, of that Presbytery. 4. When the appellee put in his plea to the jurisdiction of this Synod, and that plea was overruled, he ought regularly to have submitted and tried the appeal. And by so doing would have retained not only the right of appeal, which by refusal to submit to trial he has lost (chap. vii. »ee. 3. sub. sec. 2, Discipline ;) but after the conclusion of the trial here, might have appealed from the whole, or any part of the doings of Synod in the case : (chap. vii. sec. 3. sub. sec, 4 Discipline.) That the refusal of the Appellee to proceed with the case, should not have arrested the cause is apparent ; first because the Appellant proceeded at his peril, and had a right to insist on proceeding : secondly, the Appellee was safe unde- fended, unless the Appellant could fairly make out his cause, which the Appellee and the court below, declared he could not do, without the re'cord suppressed by that court ; thirdly, this conduct of the Appellee was highly contumacious, and he could have no right to take advantage of his own wrong; and lastly, the case is fully provided for, and the principles on which our ecclesiastical courts shall proceed, in the contu- macious, or voluntary absence of parties, laid down in our standards, (see chap. vii. sec. 3. and sub. sec. 3 and 4 Disci- pHne, for the real grounds of appeals; and same chapter and section and sub. section 15, for the real effect of appeals ; and as to refusal of parties, chap. iv. sec. 10, 11, 13, Disciphne.) 5. That this Synod has full power and authority finally to determine this case is manifest. The powers of a Presbytery as compared with the powers of a Synod, and the duties of each will appear by comparing chapter x. sec. 8, with chapter X.I sec. 1 and 4, of the Form of Government. The duties of 248 TRIAL OF this Synod as to appeals, are to receive andvtsuc Hum, (chap. xi. sec. 4, Form of Government.) What is meant by iesuino i- obvieus from the last clause of cbap. vii. sec. 3, sub. sec. 15, Discipline. That the authority of Synod covers the whole case, is apparent from chap. vii. sec. 3, sub. 10, and chap. iv. sec. 17, Discipline: Therefore, Resolved, 1. That in view of the proof presented to the Synod, and the whole case, the decision of the (Assembly's) 2d Presbytery of Philadelphia, in the case of the tharges of the said Geo. Junkin against the said Albert Barnes, be and the same hereby is reversed, as contrary to truth and right- eousness, and the appeal declared to be sustainid. 2. That someof tlie errors alleged in the charges to beheld by the said Albert Barnes are fundamental ; and all of them contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian church, in the Unittd States ; and that they do contravene the system of truth therein lauglit, and set forth in the word of God. 3. That the said Albert Barnes be, and he hereby is, sus- pended from the exercise of all the functions proper to the gospel ministry, imtil lie sh;ill retract the errors hereby con- demned, and give satisfactory evidence of rcpeniance." Dr. CuYLER reniiiuled the Synod that it was now past 10 o'clock, and that the farnilies in which they ■were guests would suOer incotivenicnce. He there- fore moved an adjoiirntuent, but withdrew the mo- tion, at the request of Dr. J. Bkeckinhidce, who observed, that in some of the leading' points ol' the paper which had been pre- sented, he was not prepared to concur. He could not go the Avhoie length of the pleasure there pro- posed. He therefore moved the following as a sub- stitute for the last resolution propoE^ed: Resolved, However, from a desire to avoid even the ap- pearance oi ivjustice or ras/i;ic«s, on the part of this Synods that in this slate of the business we refer it to the next 6enc- ral Assembly, to decide what judgment shall be rendered in this case ; and respec'.fully petition them to pass such sentence as they may deem most conducive to the glory of God, and the purity and peace of the church. Mr. Winchester quoted the following from the book of disci])line: "A refert^nce is a judicial representation made by an infe- rior judicatory to a superior of a case not yet decided ; which representation ought always to be in writing." and argued, that inasmuch as the Synod had decided on the merits of the present case, it was too late to propose a reference, and the resolution was there- lore not in order. The Moderator said he wished time to make up his decision on so important a point. And therelbre the Synod adjourned till half past eight to- morrow morning. Closed with prayer. Wednesday morning, half past 8. — Met and open- ed wi'h prayer. MR. BARNES. 249 The minutes of yesterday liavin!? been read and corrected, and the question beini^ whellier the sub- stitute moved by Dr. Breckinridi^e last eveninj? to the report ol the committee appointed to draw up a minute in the case ol" Mr. Barnes, was or was not in order : the substitute was read. The MoDEKATOit dehvered ic as his opinion, after a deUberatc examination of tiie question during the recess, that the reference was not in order. The constitution confined that procedure called a refer- ence to cases "not yet decided, <' but lie conceived that the present case was decided, All the previous steps had been taken as decided by the Book of Dis- cipline, and the final vote of the Synod had been giv- en and recorded. All that remained, was, to give the final award; but a reference implied tliat ihe whole case, ab initio, was to be gone over by the Assembly; but he conceived that the Assembly could not give an award, unless it should take up the whole case as an appeal: and therefore a reference niust be out of order. He delivered this opinion, h&wever, with great deference to the House. He felt ennrely impartial in the matter, and should greatly prefer that the House should decide the point themselves. Dr. Mc DovvELL. Is there no way to discuss this? If an appeal is taken from the decision of the chair all deljate \yill be precluded, yet this is the very vital point of the whole proceeding. It is the most im- portant question we have had before us. Dr. Cathcart. The case is decided only in part. The appeal indeed has been sustained, but there is no final declaration as to what censure shall 'be in- Hicted. The case therefore is not decided and will net be until we have pronounced a sentence on Mr. Barnes. The Synod may pardon hini, rebuke him, suspend Jiim, or depose him, and it has not decided which it will do. The Moderator said that the debate could not proceed. Dr. CuYLER moved a suspension of the rule in or- der that it might proceed. Dr. Neill. Were it not for the profound respect I feel for your decision as Moderator, and the atl'ec- tiou I entertain for you personally I would take an appeal. The Mouerator said he should consider it as not the slightest mark of disrespect, and should indeed be glad if such a step were taken, but the bieihren must remember ihat an appeal precluded all debate. Dr. J. Breckinridge. Did you pronounce an offi- cial decision or merely express an opinion 1 Moderator. I gave my judgment as Moderator. Dr. J. Breckinridge. If you decided e.v officio I cannot but think you assumed too great a responsi- 21* ICOU XKIAL 01 bility. There is one peculiarity in tlie case. The ground taken in that paper i*^, tliat Mr. Barnes is pre- cluded from an appeal, and if we are to be precluded from all debate on the propriety of a relerence how very peculiar indeed will tlie state of thin^^s appear. The mouths of ail must be shut up who do not agree in the course already adopted. Mr. Winchester. To afford an opportunity for discussion, I will move that the Synod declare a re- ference of this case in the present sta^e of it to the General Assembly to be out of order. Dr. Catucart. If 1 should now be met by a stran- ger and he should ask me " Have you decided the case of Mr. Barnes?" I should say "no." If he should then ask " Have you done nothing in the case?" 1 should reply " yes we have sustained the appeal." " Then the case is not finally decided ?" " No, it is not." With all due deference to the Moderator's opinion I think that that would be tellin*; the man the truth and unless 1 am very stupid indeed, I think I ought to know as much about the matter as the Moderator. Mr. R. Breckinridge. I want such a mode of pro- ceeding adopted as shall be fair to all parties. I con- sider it disorderly to move lo amend the third in a series of resolutions before the first and second have been considered and the third is reached in'tlue or- der. The regular course would be to take up the first resolution proposed by the report, and adopt or reject it, then lo take up the second and dispose of it in Jjke manner ; and when we get to the third then the mover of the substitute may propose to strikeout the third resolution and insert the substitute in the place of it. The house will then decide whether to strike it out or not. II they agree to strike it out, the whole question is then open and any other course may be proposed. I consider it as due to all that Ave have discussed and decided, and due to candor and to order that the present motion should not pass. It jumps to a conclusion and shuts out all the discus- sion which ought to precede it. Even if the Moder- ator were against this course I feel assured he would waive his opinions out of deference to the magnitude of the subject. Dr. Green. The Synod has been brought into confusion by the haste with which it acted last night. It was disorderly to admit of two distinct propositions before the House at the same time. The second should not have been introduced without a motion to postpone the first. If Dr. Breckinridge wished to in- troduce his substitute, the proper question was on a motion to postpone ; but the proposition which has now been made clears the whole ground. All the n^embers have now the perfect Uberty to speak as MR. BARNES. 251 much as they want. I am confident there is no man liere who wishes to confine tiieni to a dry aye or no. Mr. WiNCHESTEK. Certainly it was in order to re- ceive a motion to amend tlie report; but if it is de- sired tliat a division of the question be called lor, and that the report be taken up by paragraphs, I am ready to withdraw my motion. Dr. J. Breckinridge. I am vviUing that that course should be adopted. 11" an ingenuous, free, and open discussion is to be allowed us, 1 hail it with joy ; but I have no idea of bein^ brow-beaten. When it comes to tJie result, many of us will probably have to part, especially if more courtesy is not observed, than has sometimes been exhibited. Moderator. The Chair has observed no symptom of brow-beating. Dr. J. Breckinridge. I do not speak of you. I could, if it were proper, pay a just compliment to the mode in which you have presided over this body, but 1 am fully aware that both in the hou^e and out of it my course has been blamed in no very measured terms by some of those with wliom I have hitherto acted; while it is no less censured and opposed by brethren on the other side. We were never in such a position since we first entered on this dark and me- lancholy aflair. I merely threw in an amendment to the report in order to present to the Synod an alter- native between two cour.ses. I can see nothing un- candid or disorderly in such a step. Moderator. The motion is to take up the report by paragraphs. The Chair hopes that no evil will be anticipated, or at least that no such anticipations will be expressed. He pledges himself to exert hi.? authority to prevent any interruption to brethren speaTting, although it may not be in his power lo pre- vent every outward sign of impatience. Mr. Robert Breckinridge. When I said that I was willing, if an orderly course was pursued, that the brethren should have a full hearing, I did not in- tend to be understood that I was wiUing to sit here for a week listening to speeches, which those that made them could not themselves expect would pro- duce the least alteration whatever in the result. Moderator. Whatever is orderly shall be permit- ted and sustained. Mr. Winchester now withdrew his motion, de- claring a reference to be out of order, and the ques- tion then recurring on the adoption of the report of a minute in the case of Mr. Barnes, Mr. Winchester called for a division of the ques- tion. Moderator. Shall the papier be taken up by para- graphs? Dr. CoYLER. I move that Synod now consider 252 TRIAL OF the resolutions proposed at the close of the report, and that those resolutions be taken up in order. This motion was agreed to. and the question then coming up on the hrst resolution proposed by the committee, it was read as Ibllows : [See it above.] Mr. McKnight. A question has presented itselt to my mind whetlier there is not a stej) that should be taken before we vote on this report. In all crin:inal courts, when tne court has heard the evidence and the jury has brou.^ht in a verdict of guilty, the ques- tion is put to the criminal, " Have you any reason to show why sentence of the law should not now be pro- nounced against you?" This report proposes a sen- tence, and it appears proper that that question should first be put to Mr. Barnes. Mr. R. Breckinridge. That will be proper after we have decided upon the sentence. Mr. M'Knight. 1 presume that this is the proper time. Moderator. This is not the proper stajre of the proceeding for such a question, riie present motion does not ^o to the adoption of any sentence. Mr. M'Kmght. If you adopt the last resolution, do you not pass judfrmeni? Do you not, ipso facto, declare that Mr. Barnes is suspended Irora the exer- cise of liis ministry from the moment that resolution is adopted ? Moderator. Yes. Mr. M'Knight. Then I move to suspend the far- ther consideration of the report in order that the question may be proposed to Mr. Barnes whether he has any cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him. Dr. M'DowELL. I second that motion. ♦ Moderator. The motion is not in order at this time. It will be when the question shall come up on the second resolution. The present resolution is substantially nothing more than what was decided yesterday. Mr. M'Knight. Is it not^in order to move to sus- pend the consideration of a resolution on a debate with a view to take up another ? Moderator. It is generally in order, but in this stage of the proceedings the motion will not be in order. Dr. M'Dowell. I am deeply grieved that no op- portunity is ever given for a word to be spoken by those who are in favor Mr. Barnes. Moderator. Dr. M'Dowell has made an improper remark, and one which amounts to an impeachment of the integrity of the Moderator. Dr. Neill. Mr. McKnight and Dr. McDowell do not see this matter as I do. The course the Synod s now pursuing, will give to every member the full- MR. BARNES. 253 est oi)portunity he can desire of expressing his views. It is understood and generally agreed, that when we arrive at tlic tliird rcsohition, the opportunity desired for Mr. Barnes by Mr. McKni^ht will be fully ac- corded to him. This is the understanding all over the house. The first resolution proposed by the committee was now read again, ami the question being put, the resolution was agreed to. The second resolution was then read. [See it above.] Dr. Cathcart. I do not believe that. It is said that all the charges have been sustained. I believe that many have been sustained ; but one of the grounds expressly taken against sustaining the ap- peal was, that a portion of the charges had not been sustained ; and one brother asked whether the vote to sustain was to be understood as implying a con- viction that all the charges had been proved ; but when he went on and attempted to explain how far he considered thcni as proved, it happened as it has in all other ^ases in this afiiiir. We were put down. [Cries of order.] 1 speak history. I don't think that this resolution can constitutionally be acted upon, tor in all criminal cases it is proper and requisite where there are distinct charges, that the charges be taken up in detail and a vote given on each. Some of the charges I presume we should all sustain. I would sustain some of them myself, but the chair told us that we must vote to sustain or not sustain the whole ; we must swallow all or nothing. Now I can- noi adopt this resolution unless the word whole be stricken out. When you say that the proof sustains the charges, the sense is that it sustains all the charges, and I don't believe that it does. Mr. MusGRAVE. I move to strike out the word " fundamental" before "errors," and substitute the words "' great and dangerous." My reason for the motion is a desire that we may, as far as possible, move together. It is important in my view that whatever we decide upon should pass by as large a majority as practicable. I do conscientiously believe that many of the errors in Mr. Barnes' book are great and dangerous, and I am prepared to say so. My motion arises from no fickleness on my part, I examined the book before I came from home, and while I believe that it does contain great and danger- ous errors in doctrine, I am not ready to pronounce them fundamental, although I apprehend that some of the opinions he holds would naturally lead to er- rors that are fundamental. But the assembly has declared that we are not to convict a man of heresy on mere inferences of our own. Now, if you leave the word fundamental in the resolution vou will com- 254 TRIAL OF pel some of us to vote against it. I am perfectly Irank in the matter, and ready williout disguise to give my reasons in full. I do not consider tluit in the present state of the case the sentence proposed is just. If I did believe his errors to be fundamental I should say without hesitation, "Let him be sus- pended." 1 would not, in that case allow hirn to preach for a sinjrle day. I wish to be consistent in ray course, and according to my judgment in the case, I think I am. All who are opposed to the sentence of suspension must, if consistent, wish the word "fun- damental" expunged. If you diminish your majority and increase your minority the moral efl'ect of your sentence will, of course, be so lar impaired, and by retaining this word you will throw into the minority men whose soundness in the faith cannot be ques- tioned, and if these men are compelled to leave you, just so far as they have influence they will prejudice your cause. Dr. M'DowELL. I agree in sentiment with the brother who has just taken his seat. If I could bt'" lieve that all the charges against Mr. Barnes had been substantiated, and that ihe accused had had a fair opportunity for trial, I might agree to the reso- lution. 1 do believe that he holds errors which are great and dangerous. But while I admit that some of his sentiments, if carried out to their legitimate consequences, would lead lo fundamental error, yet I cannot say that he does hold errors which are fundamental. I have long been acquainted with Mr. Barnes. I have acted with him in Presbytery ever since he was ordained. I have been with him con- stantly and have met him repeatedly in social meet- ings, and I assert it as my belief that he holds as fully as any man in this house the doctrine of the entire depravity of human nature. Mr. R. Breckinridge. I call Dr. M'Dowell to or- der. We are not now called to say what Mr. Barnes is, but whether the charges against him have been sustained. Mr. MusGRAVE. Was it not said that while a man might not be able to say Mr. Barnes held heretical opinions, yet if he believed that his opinions weru contrary to the confession of faith, he might intelli- gently vote to sustain the appeal ? And are we now to be caught in this way, and lo be told because we voted to sustain that therefore we must say he is gulty of heresy ? Moderator. The chair thinks Dr. M'Dowell is in order, though it will not be in order now to enter fully into the merits of Mr. Barnes' opinions. Mr. R. Breckinridge. Will Dr. M'Dowell, as a favor, allow m« to proceed a moment? Dr. M'Dowell. Certainly. Mi:, barm: 3. 2oo Mr. R. Breckinridge. If the word cliar^es were stricken out and the word appeal put in, the dilTiculty of some brethren would be removed ; it is the ap))eal only that is to be sustained. I understand the first resolution relates exclusively to the appeal and to the sustaining of the appeal. The second resolution has reference only to the alleged errors and not to the errors proven, and certainly the alleged errors are fundamental. Dr. M'DowELL. I can vote with a good conscience that Mr. Barnes is guilty of holding great and dan- gerous errors, but not that he holds fundamcnial er- rors. I believe that he holds to the doctrine ol' total depravity as fully and as firmly as any man in this house, and that he believes this depravity to be de- rived from our connection with Adam. I believe that he holds that there is no salvation for a smner but through Jesus Christ, and that he is saved solely on he ground ot the merits of Christ, and that he be- tomes interested in these merits exclusively by laith. And I believe farther that he holds to the absolute necessity of the influences of the Holy Spirit to con- vert and sanctify the soul. I have long known that he dilfered from me in his mode of explaining some of these points, but I am satisfied that on the great fundamental doctrines of our religion he preaches in this way. I stand before the public in the expression of this opinion, and I shall act accordingly. Mr. MusGRAVE. I am satisfied with the explana- tions given by the brother over the way, (Mr. R. Breckinridge,) and I withdraw my motion for stri- king out. The question was now put on the second resolu- tion, and it was agreed to. The third resolution was thereupon read. [See it above.] Moderator. The proposition of Dr. Breckenridge will now come in by precedence. Dr. Laurie. I do not entirely concur in that reso- lution, although, as chairman of the committee, I re- ported it. I have some doubts as to the power of the synod to decide definitively in the matter. I have not been able to recollect any precedent lor it. My opi- nion is that the case should be sent down to Presby- tery with instructions that should Mr. Barnes refuse to recant his errors, he be by ihera suspended. Dr. CuYLER. My opinion differs in this respect. I believE that the clause of our constitution which gives to a synod the right to issue appeals, gives it power to carry out its own decision to the final re- sult. The appeal is not in fact issued until the sen- tence is pronounced. Moderator. The motion was for the adoption of the third resolution. Dr. Breckenridge has moved a 256 TRIAL OF siibslitute, and lie is entitled to the floor in enpport of it. and the question will then be on the adoption of that substitute. R. Breckinridge. The ground of compromise was that ins motion eliouid be on striking out the third resolution. Dr. J. Breckinridge. So I understood it, and on that motion the constitutionality of the reference of the whole case to the Assembly may be debated. Moderator. Yes. The substitute proposed by Dr. Breckinridge,was now read. Moderator. The question is on striking out the third resolution proposed by the committee, and sub stituting therefor what has now been read. Mr. Winchester. I move that the reference be declared not in order. Moderator. That motion is unnecessary, being virtually involved in the other. Dr. Neill. I am in lavor of the substitute. I know that there is a difficulty in the minds of some of the brethren arising from the words ol our Book of Dis- cipline, which declare that a reference can only take place when a case has " not yet been decided:" but with me this is no difficulty at all, because 1 consider this as a case not yet decided. The appeal, indeed, has been sustained: but is the case tiierefore deci- (led ? You have reversed the sentence of the Pres- bytery : but where does Mr. Barnes now stand? You lind and declare that his book contain? dangerous er- rors: it is of course your duty to say what censure he shall receive: this you have not done. That would decide the case: but until that is done the case is not decided. If we are asked, What sentence have you passed on a man who holds and promul- jrates such dangerous errors ? we must answer, none. But, in the second place, this is precisely the time when the reference should take place, if at all. You have said his book contains errors but have not yet assigned his punishment ; and you know that the case kvill, in any event, certainly go to the assembly at last: you will then lose nothing by referring it. 3. Your book provides that, " in cases of reference, the members of the inferior judicatory making it re- tain all the privileges ol deliberatmg and voting, in the course of trial and judgment before the superior judicatory, which they would have had if no refer- ence had been made." All your delegates will have the same right to vote in the assembly as other mem- bers on the floor, because it is a reference and not an appeal. But if an appeal be made, you are then deprived of a vote. Such is my understanding of tht"! matter. 4. It appears to me that by giving the cast this direction you will avoid all appearance of evil ; «R. BARNES. 5257 you will avoid the chfirp:e of precipitancy. The pub- iic, remember, will not understand our technical difficultiefi. Tney will look only at the s^eneral facte. These dilTiculties may have been improperly thrown in our way : I am not called todecide that point : but ifyou stop and refer, it is my impression that you will have the christian tniblic in your support. For thifi reason I am most smcerely and carneslly in favor of the substitute. I view it as the safe, the rig-hteoup, and the christian course: and if we adopt it I think that we shall feel that we have done to another what, in like circumstances, we should wish to have been done to ourselves. Mr. W. Latta. I think it is hi^h time that this Sy- noi.1 should take a firm position. This vexatious con- troversy has agitated us long enough. It is now five or six years since it has been upon us like an incubus, producing a complete paralysis of all good within our bounds. To me it does seem strange, after all the lessons of our past experience, to find still lingering in the midst of us such a spirit of procrastination and compromise. This, in fact, is the very root of the evil; but for this spirit, all that has so long agitated us and destroyed our peace, would have been avoid- ed. I am not at all surprised at the sympathy mani- fested by some tor the accused. They no doubt have a near sympathy not only with the man, but with his errors. If I believe Mr. Barnes to hold such errors as are charged upon him, I ought to be ready to unite in his condemnation. Surely a man must be more than blind if the present trial does not convince him that he does hold them. But while I am not at aU surprised at the course of some among us, I am not only surprised, but perfectly amazed at the course pursued by others of my brethren, — brethren who profess to believe the truth of the charges, yet have not the firmness to act out their belief, — brethren who acknowledge that there is a gangrene in the body, yet would rather allow it to spread its roots in every direction, than take the scalpelle and cut it out. They confess that Mr. Barnes holds errors funda- mentally dangerous, and calculated to destroy the souls of*^ men; yet while his book is daily spreading, and souls are in consequence exposed to all the mise- ries of the second death, they have no sympathy but for the man who, with his own hands, has mingled for them the deadly potion. It is acknowledged that Christ has been deeply wounded in his members, yet they will not allow us to put forth our hand and bind up his bleeding wounds. In vain his voice ciiesin our ears: "O all ye that pass by, was ever sorrow like unto my sorrow 1" All their sympathy is reserv- ed for the very man who inflicted his wounds, and Btill perseveres in inflicting new. I would earnestly 22 258 TRIAL or beseech such brethren to beware lest the/ wonn as an entering wedge, calculated and intended to spat the ranks of the ma- jority in this body. Brethren have gone so far as to lay their hands upon me and to say, you are dividing the orthodox party in the Presbyterian church, by offering that resolution. It is a serious charge, and if in remarking upon it, I should inadvertently trench upon the strict rules of order, you will, I am sure, con- cide something to the weakness of man. Indeed, I had ratlier, in view of any little influence I may exert, be out of the Synod : nay, I had rather be out of the church, and out of the world, (for it is not very im- portant that I should live) than be justly liable to such an accusation. Yet, when " such an one as Paul the aged' speaks, I ' rise up before the hoarr head.' But while an accusation of this kind is preferred on the one side, were I not known here as well as I am, you would hear, and in tones loud enough, on the other fiide the appeal against my violence in behalf of or- thodoxy. That cry has often enough been raised against me, yet here I stand accused of splitting the ranks of the orthodox, and of throwing myself as an JQterposing obstacle between that body of men, and MR. BARN£S. 259 that last act which would seal the safety of the church. Here then is the crifiis oi' our proceeding ; here is the last point at which those who would resist the course which has hcen resolved upon by some, must rally and make a stand — for I lully expect that after this meeting, you will no more be allowed to speak freely. For the lasi ten or fifteen years, indeed ever since I have been r member oi this body, I have taken my stand just wl t •, I now do. I shall act now as I ever endeavored to ;ict, yet I do not expect to do HO without many reproaches on all sides. The posi- tion ol the Presbyterian church within the last fifteen years, aud more especially during the last five ef these, has been peculiar in many respects. She has had amon^ her divines two dill'erent classes of men, both claiming: to be esteemed the Orthodox. One of these has been located at Prmceton, the other at Phi- ladelphia, and the result has been that in consequence ofthiswantof harmony between her leading mem- bers, a very small minoriiy has in effect ruled the Presbyterian Church. The spectacle has been a cu- rious one ; for while one of these two Orthodox par- ties has ever held up the writings of the other as cor-" rect standards in point of principle, they have contin- ually acted against each other on this floor. At the last Assembly these two parties united in one. If that union can be continued we may yet see good •days: but if thosje who are or>e in prirtcipie shall con- tinue as heretofore to differ from, and to oppose each other in action, it must sever the Presbyterian church for this age. It is on the platform of the operations ot the last Assembly that I am willing to stand or fall. There are those of my brethren who I hold to be as orthodox ae any, but whose course of policy is in my judgment calculated to throw the two great bodies of the Orthodox asunder ; and by selling against each other as antagonist muscles those which ought to be united in one and the same arm, to bring in a minority of less than one third to rule the whole. If I wanted a triumph for Mr. Barnes, I would mount the storm and seek to raise it into a whirlwind. An ill-omened prophet has told us that if Mr. Barnes falls, the Presbyterian church will fall next, and he may alas be found to be a prophet in evil, but too true. I believe for one that i( we at a crisis like the present go on t<9 consummate the act proposed, we shall, I will not say fulfil the very wish- es of that prophet's heart, but we shall too surely fulfil his prediction- If Mr. Barnes shall be deposed or suspended in the present stage of this trial, and the case in that form, shall come before the General As- sembly, depend upon it you will have entered the wedge which is to divide your church. I ask you to t'Aoiocide something to our weakness, and in so saying:, 260 TRIAL or 1 identify myself with a larjre class of men who are said in point of policy to be "upon the fence," but who are lar from lx?ing- so in principle. You must be satisfied that to some extent we do not go with you, yet let me be understood. I do not say to you. do> wrono^ for peace sake ; \hr from ii^^and certainly i may be permitted to say, that i! the course of so hum- ble an individual as myaelf can prove him to be tear- less of consequences in the path of duty, neither Rome witli her priesthood, nor unitarianism with her ranks of smooth philosophers can tesiily aught against me. But I have been slow to contest points with my own brethren, while ihe church is surround- ed and assailed on every side by enemies without. Yet v/hile I do not ask you to do wrong that good may come, I do ask that^ there should be in this body as in our last Assembly, a combination of all sound Presbyterians. And if in this measure you cannot carry those with you who should be carried with you in so important a movement, ought you not at least to be willing to pause and to await the last rebound ol the subject'/ You have gained much. Now take advantage of the public sentiment, and wait for the rest. It will meet you before the next Assembly. That body, if I mistake not, will have the same character as the last, only that the tint will probably be a shade stronger. But my reasoning is not to pov/er, it is to the subject, and to the destinies of the church. For myself I doubt the ri»ht of this Synod to suspend Mr. Barnes; but admitting the Synod to possess such a right, I ask, is it wise to ex- ercise it ? Is it best on the whole ? Is it not hazard- ing too much, to risk a division of the great Presby- terian party, and possibly to give a triumph to a mi- nority? Has not experience proved that you give error its death, by giving it rope to run? You will have to meet tlie question as before the last assem- bly, but with this great disadvantage, that you will then meet it with all the evils of a relapse. For one, 1 believe upon the whole, I should prefer, if the Pres--^ by terian church cannot cohere on the principles of the last assembly, that it should be dissolved, and this without the slightest personality. I do say that if Taylorism cannot be put down, (a party who, from less than a third of the whole, have now tri- umphed for years because Christian brothers cannot unite with each other in action;) I for one wish to see this church dissolved; I repeat the declaration, I speak it to the whole church, I publish it to all man- kind, that if Taylorism cannot be put down in the Presbyterian church, my wish is, that the church should be dissolved. I should prel'er even that alter- native to having a meaj^re minority any longer keep- ing us at perpetual variance. No man, I Itnow caii MR. BARNES. 261 interpret away the meaning of Mr. Barnes's book, bo as to show that he does not hold deep and dangeroua errors. Yet I desire to roll the cat-e jupt as it stands upon the hands of the General AsKembly, because I beheve sui'h a course, while it is clearly the most politic, to be at same time the most honorable, the most delicate, and altogether the most cdristian course. But it is not for me to censure your counsels. They have arisen in part from the position into which the contumacy of the Presbytery, and 1 must add of the Appellee, has thrown the Synod. In re^^rard to Mr. Barnes himsell, I would fondly hope, that al- though he holds great and serious errors, and such as aro almost fundamental in their character, he has enough of personal piety to keep his heart right, althoiiirh hie principles are grossly wrong. The The errors of his hook, I admit, have been proved, but this ha.~ tieen done in a way with which I am not fully satisfied. The steps required by our constitu- tion have not in my opinion been taken. The accused party has not been here, and has not been heard in his own defence. And althoui;h this may be said to be his own lault, yet I do not wish it to go out to the people of America, that we have condemned any in- dividual under such circumstances. There is among the people of this land, such a glowing indignation against vvhatever touches the rights of man, that they will not«itop to inquire info the minute circum- etances of the case. They will seize on trie result, and say you cast off" a man from his office, who had never been heard in his defence. It will be in vaia you ofler explanations ; the cry will only become the deeper and the louder. No matter what was the cause of his absence, he was absent: and though he were dead, and his book lost and sunk in the bottom ot the sea, it would make no difference: the public voice will side with any man, in any circnmstances, who was condemned unheard. I do not wish to place Mr. Barnes on this ground. Whaiever be his demerits, i would have him treated with patience, with mercy, with even gratuitous generosity. And now, a^ to the question ol the right of the Synod to punish the accused, it seems to me that all precedent is against its doin^ any thing directly, with its own hand. If you will do any thing in the matter, you will surely take care to have a prece- dent to support you. But there is no precedent to support you. Our fathers surely understood the con- etitution they framed, and iheir understanding was that in a case like this the lower court is to be in- structed what to do. That is my view of the matter. II you will not refer the case, you ought to send it down to the Presbytery, with or without definitive tnstructioDs, and ii' censure is to be inflicted let it be 22» 262 TRIAL OF inflicted by them. You have gained importsnt ffrouiid: Blop there. I am anxious tl>e Synod should go no farther. You obtained, by the weighty sen- tence of yesterday, ail the inlluence for truth which you can gain if you advance ; and 1 now seek that moral influence which will arise Irom mildness, and mercy, and voluniary delay. I would have you pay devoulest homage even to ihe shadow of justice. There is another point you ought to look at. It has been said that Mr. Barnes has no right to ap- peal, inasmuch as he has refused to submit to a trial. I believe this position ro b« sound. But I would have the Synod, without yielding that ground, still act with a heavenly-minded magnanimity, and say to the man at its bar, ' Thougli we have done no more than our duly, and though you by your refractory course have fjrfeited the right of appeal, and though we might now proceed to jutlgn)ent, yet we will spare the last act, that we may give you that which you have lost : we will still give you a reference though you have lost your appeal. We will waive the right we hold, and will meet you belbre the great Sanhedrien of ihe church, and there let the case be fully heard. By such a course you will lose nothing. Then if there is any error it will lean to money's side, it will savor of generosity, and never can injure you. I have with great candor, and with what some have considered great and intemperate violence, ex- pressed my unqualified disapprobation of the method adopted by the Presbytery and by Mr. Barnes to avoid a trial: and I have declared, with equal fear- lessness, ray attachment to the great principles held by the Orthodox party in the Presbyterian church. 1 have acquitted my conscience. I will no longer stand between that party and their object, or what has infamously been denominated "their prey." It is not I who have said, that every hours delay is paia and torture to their unglutred vengeance. For my- aelf, I do not wonder that their patience and longan- imity are almost worn out. I know well that the stand they have taken is by them believed before God to be the duty they owe to the Savior's bleeding wounds: and I believe farther that in this as on for- mer occasions, it is the Laity who by their firmness and intelligence will save the church. They have done it beiore : they will do it again. I could deal easier with the elders than with the preachers. Blackened as they may be by reproaches it is they and the holy mothers in Israel (first at the sepulchre last at the cross !) that arc the stall' and the stay of our drooping and endangered Leon. But I leel that I stand between you and your object. Placed be- tween men alike inexorable, I am doomed to receive MR. BARNES. 263 Stripes from both sides. I Udow it has been said by one side tliat I am "as hot as pepper," for Ortho doxy. I would remind the authors of that remark that pepper though it may excite burning heat in other substances, is itseil quite cool. But while I please not tliese men, I am as little acceptable to our ultra brethren on the Orthodox side. By these I am denominated "a middle man." I have had my right foot shaken by one party, and my lelt foot shaken by the oiher party, while both parties cry in my ear?, " como off the i'ence!" But I rei)ly to both, in the words ol the motio ol'the Education Society, a motto adopted to declare its eternal devotion to the princi- ples of Presbyteririnism but not to the dojjmas of either party, " nec dextrorsum, nec sinistrorsum." Tiiis is the motto wliich laillduliy followed will guide the lair and goodly vessel ot the church safe between Scylla and Charybdis. Good brother [he was under- stood to refer to Mr. Mc Calia] with whom I cannot always act, though I can and always shtill love him, knows very well that I do not feai difficulty. He re- members that 1 stood by him when our very lives were threatened for months together, and when damna- tion was openly thundered at us from the galleries of his own church. He well knows it is not from (ear that 1 am acting. He knows the lesson that was taught us on our mothers' lap. The day that he and I begin to fear anything in the honest discharge of our duty, on that day will our mothers first be ashamed of the offspring tliey bore, and we shall both be deservedly expatriated as unworthy to be called sons of Kentucky. Let me not, then, be charged with flinching. Some say I fear to meet the results of my own principles. 1 do not fear them. I fear lest an injury be done to the beloved ship in which my all is embarked. I do fear the next step in this pro- ceeding, the step you are now about to take. Not because I fear Mr. Barnes, or Mr. Barnes's people. No : but I fear to take Uzzah's part : I do fear lest we offend Uzzah's God. iVlr. Barnes and his people, or any other minister or church, is of little conse- quence in comparison with the triumph of the Pres- byterian Church, in comparison with the victory of truth and order. And on your next step, at least in my judgment, hangs the destiny of both. For we have now got to a spot whence the echo of our deeds will roll like blended music and thunder through the land. In this crisis my voice shall be lifted for Peace. Bestow something on our weakness. Concede some- thing at least to our doubts. They are honest. They are consciencious. Let us trust the next General Assembly. If that body shall not decide that there is error and more dangerous error in this book, then 264 TRIAL OF ray best prayer for it shall be " May it never never meet again!" Yes: if that shall be its decision let it be dissolved into its elements, and while out of its scattered fraojmenls the gold and silver and pre- cious stones shall be jratheretl into one heap, let the wood and hay and stubbit be f^iiihered into another. If the Assembly shall lake your ground, we shall be safe: but if not, I repeat the prayer "May it never no never, meet again !" Mr. R. Kennedy. I have not yet either spoken or voted on this subject: and my reasons are these. I knew before we began that there would be more speakers ihan edification : but beside this 1 was ab- sent during the delivery of a part of Dr. Junkin's ar- gument. But in our present circumstances I deem It my duty to give my opinion with great frankness and simplicity. I think we are in danger of doing something very wrong — sonieiliing that is likely to do great harm . and I feel that we ought to examine carefully the ground we are going to tread upon be- fore we take the first step. All men judge more cor- rectly in temporal than in spiritual matters. Al- though I pretend to know nothing of law, yet it seems to me a case in which we may all form without diffi- culty a correct judgment. Our difficulties result from the consequences of the appeal. In civil matters, as we all know, there are courts of appeal to which the sentence of lower courts may be brought lor revision. In one of these lower courts a man, we will suppose, is arraigned under an indictment for theft, and after a trial before a jury of his peers he is unanimously acquitted. But suppose that in consequence of some error in the proceedings the case is brought before a higher court bv appeal, and the sentence is there re- versed. What is the efleci of such reversal? To convict the mafn of theft ? Would this infamous crime be fixed upon a citizen once declared innocent, with- out a new hearing before his peers ? Especially if some of the members of the court of appeal express- ed a decided conviction that he was guiltless of the crime? and others doubted the grounds of the ap- peal? Surely not. All the power of the court of ap- peal would only extend to theremandingof the cause to the inferior court with directions to correct the record, and to get all the new light possible, and after a new decision to bring it up again. In civil matters there is always a leaning to the side of the accused, especially in cases of appeal. Our revolutionary fathers who fought for the establishment ef our liber- ties inserted in the constitution a clause declaring that no man's life or limb should twice be put in jeopardy on the same accusation. If an appeal must be met, it must at least be so conducted as not to put the accused twice la jeopardy. So the efiect of an MR. BARNES. 265 appeal is only to set the case referred back to the lower court. This principle is recognized and es- tablished in matters ecclesiastical as well as civil. Surely there ought to be in church courts at least as much mercy and as great a regard to the rights ot man as in courts ol law. It appears to me that our whole constitution, on the subject of appeals, pro- ceeds on this principle, that no man who has been tried and acquitted ol'a crime can by appeal have his acquittal so reversed thnt ho shall be pronounced guilty wiihout a new trial. On that principle I think that the case before Synod should either be referred back to the Presbytery or referred onward to the General Assembly. In the 1st section of the chapter on appeals it is said " An appeal is the removal of a cause already decided, from an inferior to a superior judicatory, by a 7>ar^7/ aggrieved." In all criminal cases there is but one party. In civil cases there are two or more: and as either of ihem may be ag- grieved, either has the right to appeal. In some cases civil and criminal matters may be mixed, and in that case all parties ought to have a right ol" ap- Eeal. But in a case purely criminal, there is and can e but one party belore the court. In the English courts the cause runs in the name of the king — in this country in the name of the commonwealth or the people — in church courts in the name ol the head of the church. The states attorney who conducts the cause is not a party to the cause : he is only the channel or instrument through or by which the king is supposed to act. In this matter Dr. Junkin was not a party, and should not have been treated as such. He was merely the prosecutor in behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was not the " party ag- grieved." He was no more aggrieved than any other niinister in the church. Had he been personal- ly censured or slandered, then he would have been legitimately a party in the case: but nothing like ihis is pretended. He was the prosecutor, but he was no party. I repeat, in conclusion, that no ac- cused party, on an appeal, can be condemned for a crime ol which he ivas acquitted in the court below. The appellant court has no power to condemn him. The present case can either be referred to the As- sembly, or remanded to the Presbytery of which, in the final arrangement of the Presbyteries, Mr. Barnes shall be a member. I have no dojbl a Pres- bytery can be constituted in which the Synod may place implicit confidence. If the publication of Mr. Barnes' book shall be suspended we shall have ac- complished the end of this whole proceeding, viz. the reformation of the accused : but if he proceeds etill to publish errors, without any correction or re- cantation, the Presbytery can lay their hands upon 3t>G TRIAL OF him. If he shall essentially change his sentiments, the Presbytery can be directed to receive and restore him. Mr. Mc Calla obtained the fluor, but yielded it to Dr. Green who said he wished to otfer a lew re- marks cljiefly ill relereuce to what had liilien from Dr. Breckciirid;re. And 1 freely confess tl it I dread a question of relerence as a burnt child dreads the fire. This very case, substantially, has once betore been referred to the Assembly ; and what did that body do with it? I am to speak respectfully of the highest judicatory of the church, but I have a right to say that as to alleviation of the grievance there was none. The award of the Assembly was a per- fect nullity: and the whole history of tliis business from that day lo this has been a history of corifusion, and all in consequence of that decree. That very act has been Ibe root of all the evils in our Zion. Although 1 leel confident that the next Assembly will be of a very ditierent complexion from tbat which passed this decree, still, 1 never will consent to a re- ference in a matter that I can decide. This is true Presbyterianism : to do all our duty, and then to let the agerieved party go up by api)eal and have our act revised. But we are getting into the habit of throwing all matters of any moment into the Assem- bly. Some of these referreil cases have veryipro- jjerly been remanded. I never will consent to a re- ference until the inferior court f.as done its business. It has been said that our church is divided and gov- erned by a minority. But let it be remembered that when we wished to go forward and take a decided step we could not get our brethren to go with us. Princeton opposed us. But, without their support, and against their judgment, we went forward, a little Spartan band, and you liave seen the result. I said to the Prmceton gentlemen, " We will do you good against your will." And they have seen it, since. I had to oppose tnem: 1 did oppose them: and I shall oppose them again. Yes : it is true, that a third party among us did unite with them, and we had to oppose both. Now they rejoice in it : I know they do •. and I hope the result will prove tn them an in- structive lesson. It has been said that Mr. Barnes has not had a hearing. And suppose he should not choose ever to be heard, are we never to come to a decision? Suppose he shall refuse to speak before the Assembly, are the Assembly never to decide 7 He has had every opportuniiy to speak, and if he chooses to remain silent, he must take his own course. It is said there are no precedents for a cen- sure by the Synod; and that the esse must be sent down to Prct^bytery. I hope not. The Synod has AJearly a right to issue the appeal : and they ought MR. BARNKB. 267 lo pefform their duty. It is said they have perform- ed it, and yet the whole ground is to be gone over again! 1 did find one precedent. A man by the name of Cruikshanks was condemned by a Synod, and hin case was carried up to the General At^sembly; ahci though the Assembly did remand the case, yet they did not condemn the Synod lor acting on it. This case will be found in the minutes of the Assembly in 1824 or perhaps 1827. Then there is the case of Mr. Craighead, but I will not now go into that. On the whole, I hold it our duty to decide the case which has been referred to us ; and not to reler or remand it. Mr. Mc Calla. II I heard aright there was some reference made to a decision of the Synod of Ken- tucky in the case of Mr. Craighead. I should be glad if those who deny the power of the Synod to suspend a minister would prove it from that case. Dr. Blythe. The minutes of the General Assem- bly for the year 1824 will shew what was done in Craighead's affair. Mr. R. Breckenridge. Whatever may have been the ultimate decision, the Assembly did ultimately restore Mr. Craighead without any appeal or refer- ence. He was a distant relative of mine. Dr. Cathcart. The case was sent down to the Presbytery for reconsideration ; but before anything farther was done he died. Mr. R. Breckinridge. He certainly did preach after he was restored ; lor 1 heard him with my own ears, after Dr. Cathcart says he was dead, [much laughter.] [Dr. Green and Dr. Blythe here read extracts from the minutes of the Assembly touching Mr. Craig- hada's case.] Mr. M'Calla» Now see how lo reconcile what Dr. Blythe says was done by the Presbytery with what Dr. Green says was done by the Synod. Both are ri^ht in saying the Presbytery took up the case and tried it, and referred it to the Synod. Then the Synod did suspend him. They took him up on the ground of a sermon he preached, and suspended him. Th^ assembly did not reverse the sentence till 1824, at which meeting I pleaded the cause of the Synod. It runs in my head that the assembly, while they re- moved the censure, directed the Presbytery to meet with Mr. Craighead and give him an opportunity of confessing his errors : that the Presbytery did meet accordingly ; that Mr. C. did confess his errors ; that he was thereupon restored, and then preached be- fore them. There ia no discrepancy between the brethren. Now here we have the act of the Synod «f Kentucky ratified by the General Assembly. B«t 268 TRIAL OF Iwill mention, for the edification of the brethren an- other act of the Synod of Kentucky. That Synod did eutipend twelve young men at once from the chris- tian ministry; men who were regularly ordained", and this because it was satisfied they were not fitted from their want of Itarned attainments and liieologi, cal accuracy, for the due exercise of the ministerial office. The last point, however, was not near so certain in their case as in that now befoie us. Yet they were put out of office by the act of Synod, which was to this amovint: " Resolved that A, B, and C, naming them, be no longer considered as ministers in our connexion." In consequence of this they went off and formed themselves into the Cumberland Pres- bytery ai\d have remained ever since a distinct body. Much has been said on the present occasion about the necessity of our having the records of the Pres- bytery. There were no Presbyterial records before the Synod of Kentucky; yet the assembly warmly approved what the Synod had done. I speak what I know, for I was myself upon the ground. I witness- ed, it IS true, an awful struggle. There were two or three who bore the brunt of all the opposition; one was named BIythe and another Cameron, (a good name.) Violenr. threiits were uttered — " We will not be priest-ridden: you are ambitious: you love to have the pre-eminence," &c. But these men bore the cross like good soldiers of Jesus Christ, and kept their ordination vow. Tiiey removed the man who was the father of all the errors which are here boast- ed of as some grand discovery. I have known per- sonally both the new lights of ttie west and new lights of the east. AH that is maintained here was main- tained there; and I cannot but contrast the pdvo- cates of these same doctrines on the two sides of the mountains. Here they are boasted of as some great ones — men of vast intellectual power : but over there they were mere clodhoppers, backwoodsmen, with- out beauty or splendor. Now I happen to have the books put forth there and here: and I am willing to exhibit them any where as the best test of the rela- tive strength of the two. And what comparison is there between them ? Here they take a text, and then you have a long fine-spun metaphysical disquisi- tion upon it, VO.C et ■preterea nihil, of which the text at the beginning is the only scriptural thing to be found in the whole matter. But the new lights be- yond tlxe mountains fill their books with texts of scrip- ture so cunnmgly misapplied as to mislead almost any mind, unless previously put upon its guard against the wiles of the devil. It is next to impossi- ble for a plain man to read one of them and not ex- claim, " Why this is all bible doctrine." Every new convert was sure to like their books. Here was evi- MR. BARNRS. 269 dence ofi?enuine talent: but, among us, we give the praise of talent to a man who after givinj? us one text from the bible, fills up all the rest of' his book with nothing but a farrago of metaphysical nonsense. It was not such champions the Kentucky Synod had to encounter. We have been told by a brother, whose attectionate spirit I love, and whose courage 1 will be the last man to impeach, that some one said he was afraid of consequences. I charge him with no such (ear. I know him better : but if we adopt his measure all will say that the Synod were afraid ol consequences. The cry every where will be, " There is the Synod who. after they came within one step of the enemy, turned their backs. There are the men who in a preliminary resolution declared the truth, but who in the end were afraid to stand by it: who first declare a man guilty of fundamental errors, and then fear the responsibility oi laying a finger upon him." We have been told of dangers from the Ro- mish church: but what did The Romish church do in a case like this? There was a day when she was not so lull of blood as she has shewn herself since. In the 12th century just such a book as this was put forth by Abelard, as talented and as handsome a. man as Mr. Barnes, the celebrated lover of Eloisa. He was then about fifty years old, and was possessed of all the learning of his day. He was attacked by a plain, modest, unpretending man, much such a one as Dr. Junkin, the same who v.'as afterward better known a^ Saint Bernard, and one of the most eminent of the fathers. He came into a council of the highest splendor and dignity, filled with mitred heads, and not without crowned heads also. Abelard expected to come off in triumph Irom the attack of so obscure and puny an assailant. Bernard came into the coun- cil with nothing bu^. the book of Abelard in his hands. He brought with him no proceedings of a lower court. Abelard objected to be tried on the simple testimony of his book alone: but the court overruled his objec- tion, and thereupon Abelard did just what Mr. Barnes did after him, he left the court. And what did the court decide? It expelled Abelard, great, and eloquent, and beautiful, and wealthy as he was, from the ministerial office. And this was the church of Rome. This she did on the simple naked evidence of a heretical book. We are told that we are to go on, as if the book of Mr. Barnes which the Presbytery had before them was sunk to the bottom of the Sus- quehannah, but suppose it was, the thirty thousand new copies ol it now nearly ready lor publication are not sunk. And are we going to say that because the book the Presbytery had before them is not here, that we will allow thirty thousand copies of a book full of gross fundamental error to go abroad through our 23 270 TRIAL OF churches? I trow not. Asa union of parties, wc should do our duty and bear the consequences what- ever they may be. Siippose we do refer the case to the assembly, we all know that i! a measure like this should be proposed here we shall have Princeton op- posed to it. Why? Because Princeton has become a remarkably bright star both in iiteraiurc and theo- logy ; and the gentlenien there are like some oi" the brightest and most talented men in the assembiy ol divines at Westminster, like Coleman, and Selden, and Li^htibot, who were always opposed to the prin- ciple of this resolution. Such men never could be broug'ht up to the point ol actual discipline. Their principle was Erastian. They were lor never put ting a man out of the church unless by the order of the civil authority. They held that it does no good to put men out. But this was no reason why the rest of that assembly should not be Presbyterians, and what was the consequence? When the assem- bly actually passed their resolur.ions thesse men fell into the ranks : so when the little minority in Pkila- delphia resolved to do their duiy they had the Cole- mans and the Liiihtfoots to oppose : but they did their duty : but who was it that opposed the adjournment of the Presbytery and denounced ihe act and testi- mony and hoisted their flag upon the Jersey shore? Yet the Synod went forward : they did adopt the act and testimony : and what followed ? Why the Cole- mans, and the Seldens, and the Lightfoots liell in and joined us. I remember that declaration of scripture. " Men will praise thee when thou doesi well for thy- sell." Yes: let us do our duty, and Princeton will praise us. But let the churches in this Synod pur- sue a wavering, halting, fluctuating course, their confidence in us will be gone and our character will be gone with it. Something was said about a heavenly magnanimi- ty. There is, I know, a considerable degree of this feeling in the brother who commends it tons: but let him remember that meu should always be just before they are generous. We have the charge of many churches oi Jesus Christ : here is an emer- gency : a popular minister has broached fundamental error : it is in danger of spreading : at such an hour surely there sliould be no hesitation among those who love the truth. How can we account for it to God if we leave the churches for six months to come exposed to these errors, while he who broached them is under our protection? The doctrine of justifica- tion is the keystone of the reformation. If there is a tundamental doctrine in the bible this certainly is one. Now look at the testimony, and see the advocates of the New Haven Theology sheltering themselves un- der Mr. Barnes' book, and declaring to the world that MR. BARNES. 271 Mr. Barnes rejects the whole doctrine of imputation. And now are we to be told that he holds the doctrine when his own Iriends maintain, and rejoice to main- tain, that he denies it? Is this no'.hins: to show that the doctrine charged upon him is in his book ? What ! a man work a commenlar>f on the epistle to tiic Ro- mans, where, ifany where in the bible, this very doc- trine is formally and profesi^edly discussed and esta- blished, and yei not say a word about it? Hnvvdid they hound out an Arian from the Synod of Ulster? A part ol the Synod urered that the accused was per- fectly silent concerning' the doctrine of Christ's di- vinity, and how could it be pretended that he was ffuilty of denying it? But William Cook replied that the very fact of his silence was in itsetf the strongest proof that he denied the doctrine. And he spoke sense and truth in saying so. So here, a total silence touching the doctrine of imputation in a work upon the Romans is the most conclusive proof that can be given that the writer of that book did not believe the doctrine. We need not be told by the New Haven men that he rejects it: his silence is in the place of all arguments to demonstrate the fact. Now ij it be true that here is a man clothed with the ministerial office who holds errors as fundamental as this, and that this Synod has the power of suspending him from that office for heresy, why, in the names ol truth and duty, let us do it. If there is a brother who can- not go so far, let us bless God that we can; and oh, let us do it. Let ue condemn errors like this, find them where we may, and save the churches under our care from so great a desolation. Mr. Winchester. The question before the House is on the reference of this case to the General As- sembly. Two inquiries naturally arise : 1st. as to the right of reference: and 2d, as to its propriety. In order to irive the House an opportunity to discvies the question of right, the Moderator declined deciding the point of order, or at least did not insist upon en- forcing the decision he had given. Now if we have no right to refer the case, the Assembly will never listen to a proceedinfir that violates the constitution ot the church. And if we do violate it, we cannot take advantage of any difficulties which may grow out of such a course, nor can we remove them. To me it is clear that in the sense of the book, this case has been "decided." To assist the Synod in deter- mining what is meant by a case being " decided," I refer them to the 10th sub section of the chapter on appeals. " The decision may be either to confirm or reverse, in whole, or in part, the decision of the in- ferior Judicatory : or to remit the cause, for the pur- pose of amending the record, should it appear to be moorrect or defective ; or for a new trial." Here 272 TRIAL OF you see that in order to a case's being decided, it is not necessary that punishment should have been in- flicted. TJiat I'ornis no part oi the decision. The decision is the final vote on the appeal. When a question of appeal comes up, the final vote is the thing called lor, " to confirm or reverse, in whole, or in part, the decision of the inferior Judicatory." Have we not done this ? Have we not '" reversed the de- cision of ilie inferior Judicatory?" reversed it "in whole?" If so the case is decided, and we cannot refer it. The question for the decision ol the House was simply this: Shall this appeal be sustained or not? Before that question was put, the reference might have been made: for then the case was " not yet decided :" but the vote of last evening sustained the appeal, and reversed the decision of the Presby- tery. What punishment shall be inflicted, is quite another question, and it has no connexion with it. This was a case between two parti s: tliey difl'ered: and the cause came up to us as the appellant court. They gave us the best evidence that could be got : and the quesion was raised, "sustain or not sus- tain?" and the vote was to sustain. It has been said if we refer this case in its present ptage, the members of Synod will have a vote in the Assembly. Now I call the court to the paper presented by Dr. Breckin- ridge, It contemplates a new trial before the As- sembly, and thus in consequence of some apprehend- ded unfairness in the present proceeding on account of the absence of the Presbyterial book, and he tells us that if we adopt his measure, we shall be entitled to our votes on the floor of the Assembly. Now I would ask every member here present, whether he will not enter thai body having prejudged the case on which he is to pass? Have not most of us decided that the appeal shall be sustained? How then can vye come into the Assembly and vote there? Icon- less, for one, that if I were a member of the Assem- bly I could not do it. I have sat upon the case, and judged it, and my vote has gone forth belore the world. Again: when you have decided that a man has been found guilty of holding doctrines like these, what authority have you totbibear laying on him the discipline ol the church ? It he were a man of weak xinderstanding, it would be a ditlerent case. But no such plea can be advanced in behalf of Mr. Barnes. And if you say that such a man shall go on teaching fundamental errors, can you refrain from passing sentence upon him? Suppose a court finds a man fuilty of murder, is it lelt to the discretion of the udge whether he will pass sentence or not? Surely not. It is the duty of his place. He must do it. Mercy is not with him to exercise : that is the pre- rogative of the executive. The sentence is a neces- MR. BARNES. 273 sary consequence of the conviction. You as judges in this case have declared that the aptieal shall be sustained: and that having been decided the law must taKe its course. The book makes it imperative. " The person found lEruilty shall re admonished or rebuked, or excluded from church privileges, as the case shall appear to deserve, until hegive satipfUctory evidence ol" repentance." (Ch. 4: 17.) Here it is not left to your discretion: it i,s made obligatory: the sentence " shall be" p;issed. Suppose the case should go before the Assembly on Reference, and that' body after weighing the circumstances should reverse the decision of this House: the question would arise, was [hat a point presented to them for their action? They cannot do it. They can reverse a judicial de- cision only in an appeal or complaint. In the chapter of our Book ol'Discipliiie on lleview and Control, it is expressly declared: "no judicial decision, how- ever, of a Judicatory shall be reversed, unless it be regularly brought up by appeal or complaint." Now is there a man who doubts that our decision last evening was a "judicial decision?" There is none. So it is clear that if we do refer the case to the As- sembly, that, body can do nothing in the matter. If our decision cannot be reversed, why refer it? Do we want to ask the Assembly whether we shall do that which the Book declares it to be our duty to do ? Dr. Cathcart interposing. That clause refers only to cases coming upon review of church books: it has nothing to do with cases of appeal. Mr. Winchester. I grant if. is found in the chap- ter on Review and Control : but it extends to cases of Reference as much as to any thing else. It de- clares that no sentence can be reversed, except it is brought up by appeal or complaint. You cannot refer the case in its present stage, without a violation of the constitution. If i. should go up, what will be the consequence? The parties can prove from your book of Discipline that it ought not to be there. Thus you put yourselves completely into their hands j and there you must wait till the next meeting of Siiyod ; and then your duty will still be just what it was, and the same round can be gone over again. And where or when is there to be an end of it? Your duty, your obvious and solemn duty is, to carry out the decision of yesterday by declaring what punishment the convicted party deserves. It will be remembered that one chief reason urged in favor of the reference has been the contumacy of the Presbytery and of Mr. Barnes, in refusing their records and in refusing to plead : and it has been con- tended that the testimony is ex-parte. The whole question turns on this. If that minute book which 23' ~74 TRIAL 0* has been withheld is essential to our orderly proceed' ing, tiien we can neither refer ihe case to the Assem- bly nor send it down to the Presbytery. We must first settle the question wiiether you have proceeded fairly in the case. Now then let us briefly review the history of this trial. What is the history of ihis case "2 It is short, and plain. Dr. Junkin tabled a coniplaiQt before Presbytery, against Mr. Barnes, charging him with holding and publishing heretical o|)inions. The evidence wc^s adduced in support of thechnrge. And what was this evidence ? Mr. Steel here testified before us that there was none other than Mr. Barnes's book. While so much has been said about other evidence, we have testimony under oath, that none other was produced. Dr. Junkin declared, in the outset, that he would do nothing but quote the book. What other evidence do gentlemen want? It has been said that Mr. Barnes quoted Edwards, and VVilherspoon, and other authors. But 1 ask, are the works of Edwards evidence of what Mr. Barnes teaches in liis book upon the Romans'? Surely not; they were used only in argument. What was the evidence given in before the argument commenced? What, but the simple book of Mr. Barnes? I chal- lenge here, any member ot that Presbytery to show what other evidence was brought belore them. Dr. Junkin charges errors in this book. You may bring ten thousand other books belore the court, and will they prove that the errors charged are not in this book '? If I charge you with libelling me in a certain letter, you may bring forward a thousand of your letters which are not libellous ; but will they prove that the letter I refer to contains no libel ? I want no better proolthat a certain thing is not true, than that it cannot be true. No man can v;ork impossibilities. And if it is impossible that Mr. Barnes could, in the way suggested, disprove the errors of his book, then I am sure that he did not so disprove them. But it is said that the evidence produced by Dr. Junkin was not put on record. But was that, which is said to have been adduced by Mr. Barnes put on record? We say that it was not : can they prove that it was? We have taken the best proof which under the cir- cumstances as we can get ; we have it under oath : and it has never been pretended that any other evi- dence was recorded. They talk of "other testimo- ny," but was it recorded testimony ? A court of ap- peal can only look at what is in the record of the court below. Another difficulty is, that the whole record of the proceeding is not here ; and Mr. Barnes says, that without this, the trial cannot be constitu- tionally conducted. Well : the Presbytery was called upon to produce the whole record: they declined doing so, and pleaded to your jurisdiction. Dt. Jun- MR. BARNES. 275 kJD applied to the Btated clerk ot the Presbytery to eet a copy ot the record : the clerk rcl'used it. This IS on record: and that record, on an Hpneal, will go before the Assembly in justificalion of liie Synod. I will now call the aitenlinn of Synod to the chapter "concerning clerks." (Form of Government, Chap. 20.) It is there declared that " it. slmll be the duty of the clerk besides recording the Iransactions, to pre- serve the ri^cords careiuUy; and to grant extracts from them, whenever properly required ; and such records, under the hand ol the clerk, ehali be consid- ered as authentic vouchers of the fact which they declare, in any ecclesiastical judicatory, to every part ol tlie church." Here it is made the clerk's duty to grant extracts from the minutes: if he had done so, and authenticated them by his sif^nature, that copy would have been of the same force and validity as the original records themselves. In the 4(h Chapter of the Book ol' Disciitline, sec. 16, it is declared " the judgment shall be regularly entered on the records of the Judicatory : and the parties shall be allowed copies of the whole proceedings, at their own ex- pense, if they demand them. And incase of referen- ces or appeals, the Judicatory referring or appealed from, shall send authentic copies ol the whole process to the higher Judicator) ." Here the parlies are to be allowed copies not only of the judement, but of the whole proceedings. Dr. Junkin did demand this : and the clerk of Presbytery violated Dr. Junkin's rights, and his own duiy by refusing it. He ought to have been furnished with an authenticated copy of the records of the whole proceeding. When Dr. Junkin demands it, and this House demands it, and a plea is taken to the jurisdiction of the House, there is noth- ing to support it, but a bald and naked refusal by their own clerk of what it was his duty to furnish, and contumacy in the Presbytery in withholding the book, they ought to have submitted. If conduct like this is to be winked at, then nothing can be eatjier than to create a bar to the progress of any trial. I will now look at the plea to our jurisdiction which has been put in. It covers ail the Presbyte- ries constituting the late Synod of Delaware. It is said that the Synod has no jurisdiction in the case where an appeal is taken. Granted. AVe do not clairnany. Butwe commence our claim now, after the appeal, and what is the substance of our claim ? It is a power to review the records of a subordinate judicatory, and to undo what was done irregularly or erroneously. But there are other members of that Synod who have acted in direct contradiction to the doctrine of their own plea. Have they not taken their seats and voted here? Their records were re- fused on the ground that we have no jurisdiction ia 276 TRIAL OF the case ; and yet they did sit and exerciee jurisdic- tion where they contend that no lawful jurisdiction can be exercised. They do, by act and deed, admit our jurisdiction, while in words ihey deny it. We may therefore demand their records on the ground of their own concessions?. As to the last assembly, tlie general understand- ing certainly was this, that every case should come upregrularly to this Synod. I never had a doubi that tnat was ilie intention of the aBsembiy. If (hen the Synod jro on to issue this case, whicli has come regu- larly before ihcm, the assembly will be bound by con- sistency to sustain us. It has been said here again and again, (and 1 was sur|jrised that the Moderator did not intenupt such assertions,) that Mr. Barnes has had no opportuiiity of being heard. This was not intended lor the members of this court. fSo; we all know the fact was otherwise. 1 will not say that it was uttered with the intention of impressing the Sopulace. Certain it is that the lact is not so. Mr. lames had an opportunity of being beard. He was advised, and pressed, and urged to delend himself: but he contuinicioasly refused. When the opijoriu- nity was oHered him, and the anxiety was universal that he should reply, he refused, in order liiat the case might be embarrassed, that so some ground might be allbrded for appeal or complaint. 1 do not see why the book sh«uld bear harder on the appel- lant than on the appellee. The book says that if the appellant abandons his appeal, the cause cannot al- terward go on; and shall the accused have the ad- vantage cf his own wrong when the same advantage is denied to the appellant? There was one argument urged by Mr. McKinney that is well worthy ol' con- sideration. It js founded on the 16th sub-section of the chapter on appeals. "It shall always tie deemed the duty of the judicatory, whose judgment is appealed Ironi, to sirid autheniic copies of all their records, and of the whole tsstimony relain^ to the matter of ihe appeal. And if any judicatory shall neglect ita duty in this respect, especially if iliereby an appellant, who has conducted with regularity on his part, is deprived of the privilege of having his appeal reasonably issued ; such judi- catory shall be censured according to the circumstances of the case." This law contemplates two cases : one of which is where an appellant is precluded frotn his appeal seasonably issued, by the withholding of the records which ought to have been furnished to him ; this is such a case. But the case is not so peculiar that for want of these papers it cannot go on. But a case might arise where the want of papers would stop all proceedings: in that case "especially" the judicatory refusing or neglecting to furnish the records, " shall be censured according to the circumstances." MR. BARNES. 277 Much has been eaid about a distin.-tion between errors wl)ich are and which are not " fundamental." And this 1 know forms an obstacle with many, in as- eentinff to the censure of Mr. Barnes. They admit he holds error, but doubt whether it is fundamental error. Now in cases of this kind, I have always adopted one rule for my own sovernment. The ques- tion for us to decide is not whether Mr. Barnes is a good man, or a useful man : thai is not a question for triis judicatory to settle. What we are called to de- cide is whether Mr. Barnes is a gocd Presbyterian minister, in judging: of this, we are lo act under the constitution. We are not a church without a creed. In a church on that plan, the only question touching a minister's standing is, ' Does he preach the truth, for substance V Bu'. that is not llie question here. If we belong-ed to the Methodist connexion, a man might come to the Synod and be admitted to preach provided he denies (,as Mr. Barnes doe.« in his book) anything like decrees touching individual sinners, but admits them touching nation.^, or founds them on good works foreseen. But should we admit such a man among us as a man who believes in the doctrine of the divine decrees ? But why not? He may hold such views and yet hold more ol truth than Mr. Barnes holds: yet we should all vole to exclude him. If it was discovered that one of our own ministers embraced such notions, we should tell him that as long as he remained in our church he muE^t believe as we do. VV'e do not compel a man lo believe as we do: and if we could, we should not. A head so soft that it can be " squeezed" into any mould we please, is a head we dont want among us. Our difficulty is with hard heads, on which no sense can make any impression. No man asked Mr. Barnes to enter the Presbyterian church. He entered it voluntarily. He read beforehand the vows he was to take; and he set- tled the question ol" tnking or rejecting them, on his knees: (as I suppose.) If a man enters a church under- standingly, it js a solemn covenant transaction. The church says to such an applicant: " We will admit you if you receive bonafide our Confession of Faith." The appellant says, by word and deed, " I do re- ceive it, honestly, ex animo.'^ On that pledge Mr. Barnes was received. But; if, after farther examina- tion and reflexion, he finds that the Confession he has embraced contains what is " absurd," (and if he thinks so he has a right to say so,) surely he ought no longer to profess to receive it. For my own part I could not remain in a church under such circum- stances, for a single hour. But Princeton has been quoted upon us. Now I had not long since a personal conversation with Pro- lessor Hodge; and I asked him, "Do you believe 278 TRIAL OF that a man whodeniesany one doctrineof our church ought to be a minister in our connexion?" He eaid that his mind had long been made up in the negative. I confess I rejoiced to hear such a declaration com- ing from Princeton. As to the last Assembly, we are only aclin»out the spirit of what was there done. I regret we have not been Ciirnished, as yet, with the minutes of that assembly, (I mean, however, in this remark, no cen- sure on the Stated Clerk;) if we had (hem here I could show that the assembly pronounces such errors as are charged upon Mr. Barnes to be " pestiferous heresies," and that " he who holds tliem ought not to be a minister in (he Presbyterian church." The declaration was drawn up by Dr. Junkin ; and he was careful to put into the enumeration of errors those contained in Mr. Barnes' book. The assembly adopt- ed the paper, and declared to all the churches that such tenets arR " peslii'erous heresies.'' It was Princeton which drew up the final miimte; and it re- ceived the Princeton vote. We therefore are carry- ing out (be decisions of the last assembly. If not, I do not understand the En^Mish language. Now I put it to the brethren, shall we carry out these positions? or shall we nit? For one I believe that the destiny of the Presbyterian church depends on a firm and Tearless decision of this question. If after toing as far as we have, we shall shrink now. our churches will lauirh at us. They will say, " Well, if the Sy- nod of Philadelphia, with such a majority, are not willing to come to the p?)intaiid say thai a man who holds such errors i ujiht not to be n Presbyterian minister, it is in vain for us ever to look lor a decision of the question. We must give it up. They are looking with intense an.Kiety at our deliberations. There is an impatient. eaify their de- sire to withdraw from it. 2. The boundaries of the Presbytery to be as follows, viz ; a line running from the Delaware along Tenth street as far Coates' street, and thence to the township tine road, where it intersects Broad street, and along said road to the southern boundary of Montgonjery county, including all between said lines ana the river Suhuylkill; and also the whole of the counties of Berks and Schuylkill, and as much of Chester and Philadelphia counties as lies north of thv Conestoga turn- pike road from Morgantowu to the Lancaster turnpike road, and along this latter roud to the Schuylkih permanunt bridge." A true extract, GeOBGE Dt^FriELD, York, A'or. 4, 1935. Clerk of Presbyter j. MR. BARNES. 287 The report of Dr. Ciiyler relative to the arrange- ment and boundaries of the Presbyteries of Philadel- phia was read a second time. Mr. DuFFiELD. I wish to state on behalf of the As- eembly's second presbytery that we have no wish to be the occasion of jealousy to our brethren. We are ready to shake hands with them and meet on friendly terms. We have no eleciive affinity principle lor which we wish to contend. We are willing: to dis- pense with at least one bone ol contention which has produced so much difficulty. Moderator. In what light is this paper, submitted by Mr. Dulfield, to be considered ? Mr. Gilbert. I move that the prayer of the peti- tioners be granted. Mr. R. Breckinridge now moved the following : Rcsohed \st. That the Assembly's 2d Presbytery be, and it hereby is, dissolved, and that all the churches, ministers, licentiates, and candidates belonging to it are hereby directed to make application, as soon as possi le, for admission into the Presbyteries within the bounds of which each of said churches, ministers, licentiates, and candidates may reside or be situated. Resolvedtd. That the stated clerk of the Assembly's 2d Presbytery is hereby directed to cause all the papers and re- cords of and belonging to said Presbyie/y, to be placed with- out delay in the hands of the stated clerk of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, who is hereby directed to cause an attested copy of said records to be made out and placed in the hands of the stated clerk of the synodical 2d Presbytery at the ei- pense of the last named Presbytery. Resolved 3d. That every church, minister, licentiate, and candidate who shall not apply for admission to the Pres-by- tery within whose bounds eacn may reside or be situated, at or before the next semi-annual meeting of said Presbyteries in the spring of 1936, every such church, minister, licentiate and candidate is hereby declared to be, de facto, cut ofl' frona the communion of the Presbyterian church, unless prevented from so doing by some providential or other insurmountable obstacle. Dr. Green. I hold in my hand a paper which must be heard before this subject is acted on. Dr. G. then handed in a- report on the vexed sub- ject of the 5th church in Arch street, and Dr. Dar- rach. Dr. Cathcart moved to pcrstpone the consideration of Mr. Breckinridge's resolution for the purnoee of considering auother plan for dividing the presbytery into three : which he read. Dr. CuYLEK opposed the postponement because he was opposed to the measure. It would only operate to form a nest that would be filled with cockatrices. The only true course was to extirpate the Assem- bly's Second Presbytery, root and branch. Dr. Cuy- 288 TRIAL OF ler then withdrew the resolution he had reported, with u view to consider that moved by Mr. Brecliin- ridgK, The question being on Mr. Breckinridge's resolu- tion, Dr. Cathcart moved his plan. Mr. M'Calla. Tho plan of Mr. Breckinridge re- quires exdminalion. Tliac ju&ioH'ered requircc! none. There is a vast ditlen-noe between the two. I can- not asri'ee to the proposal to give the Assembly's Se- cond Presbytery geograpliicai limits, because it was Irom the beginning unconsiituiiona ly organized, and organized lor the express purpose of maihiaining and propagating the doctrines in Mr. Barne*' book. That was the he,;inniiig ol ihe ali'air. Mr. Barnes came in amongst us, and this Presbytery wasconslitutid that he might be comtortahle. We huve now, prayerlully and believingly, sat in judgment upon his book, and have condemned it: and now that Presbylery comes and in humble tone i)rayB to be saved Irom that ex- tinction which Dr. Breckinridge said was inevitable. Itisno.v, however, proposed to adopt anew plan, and give up a certain district ol' the city to sail ; to do, in fact, wiiat Cyrus did when he turned the Eu- phraies into the plain oi' Babylon, and let that whole region be filled with dragons and owls and satyrs. What I say here 1 have said to these men themselves. They laugh, and say " we like you M'Calla, you are an honest man; we know whiM-e to hrid you." Let Synod t:o what they say, and theywill find it the best mode to protect tlie interests of sound doctrane. Then you will know what books and papers ihey are putting forth, and all they are doing. 1 speak lioneet- ly my meaning. I have no hate toward any of these men: bull disbelieve both their doctrine ana their discipline. I think it is high time their dissolution look place. But it seems they are going to live still :. yes, and in a far worse state than ever. So long as they remain toother in one mass, you know how to handle them. But while all their elemenis of mis- chief remain, it is now proposed to scatter them among all the other presbyteries. This is like spread- ing poisoij. So long as it is all in one bottle, you have it under control, and it can do compatatively little harm. But if, to prevent your servant or your son from getting at it, you swallow il yourself, you are not wise. 1 am now going to differ from some of the greatest and wisest of this body, just as 1 did once before, and after a while the Synod came round to my ground. There must be a forlorn hope some- where in every army strongly pressed, and as long as this pulse shall continue to beat, I am willing to be one of them, tor I love the Lord Jesus, and the Koals he bought with his blood. When leay that the MR. BAllSfES. 289 errors of these men are fundamental errors, you know that what I say is true, according to my con- science, iiccordinff to the conlVssion of T.iirh, and ac- cording to tlie Bible. To keep this Presbytery aninnff us will only be to spread all this poison. When they are talking among themselves, kthey comfort one an- other saying, " Well, never mind; let us but get in among them, and we'll find a way to manage, no fear of it." At first Mr. Skinner was the only man of this kidney among us. He preached doctrines lunda- mentally erroneous: and it was then said it would be hard to get any body who would undertake to prove the charge. I oHered to take that task on my shoul- ders; but could I get my Presbytery to agree to it? No, We could not manage him : but he soon found the way to manage us, and we soon had to encoun- ter plans upon plans. Dr. Neill. Moderator, is all this in order ? Dr. Cathcart. Did any man ever hear such abuse before allowed in a church court ? Mr. M'Calla. I had no intention to hurt the nerves of Dr. Neill. Moderator. You must keep within the limits of order. You may proceed. Mr. M'Calla. It is in vain for us to talk of ma- nagement. How are you going to manage an ounce of mercury thrown into any man's system all at once? You would find it hard to manage a quart of whis- key a day. It would take a whole Presbytery, if they were as many as would fill Second street in one so- lemn row. If it did not soon intoxicate them 1 know nothing of ecclesiastical physiology. No. Let their Presbytery remain as it is at present. Let them go on laying their eggs in every nest : that is the only way by which you will ever get men to vote to put them out altogether. That is my plan. I move the indefinite postponement of Mr. Breckinridge's reso- lution in order to introduce the lollowing: Whereas the Assembly's Second Presbytery was uncon- stitutionally formed for the protection and propagation of tliose errors which this synod has just now condemned, And whereas it has exercised its functions unconslitution- ally and against the peace and edification of the churches, And whereas it has refused to submit its records lo the re- view and control of this synod, And whereas this synod has already pronounced their con- duct in withholding the records in the case of Dr. Junkin against Mr. Barnes to be obstinate, vexatious, unjust, uncan- did, contumacious, and grossly disorderly ; therefore, Resolved, That the said second presbytery of the Genera] Assembly be considered, and they are hereby considered, no longer under our watch and care or in our ecclesiastical con- nexioi\ until they repent of their error and coatumacv. Mote> over, 290 TRIAL OF Resolved, That whenever the ministers or congregations, or any oltlieni, shall sue for admission into a connection to which they geograpliicaily belong, they may be received at the discretion of the Presbytery to which they apply. This will be (i)llowiii£j the example ofyour youngr- est dau-jhter. This wilj Iree us from wolvee in sheep's clothiiifj. I know ol' no cable that will hold huiift-ry wolves. Let us endeavor to do what the conslilulion requires. As to some brethren anions: us who do not a^ree to any tilrcin-- measure, we know there always must be eonie such men. There are some men who could not put down a heresy in a thousand years. It is not in their nature to loe tlie mark. But is that any reason why others are not to do it? Men who now plead the consiiLulion in opposition to any and every thitiir tliat lias decision in it, cared noihing lor the constitution when the Assembly's second Presby- tery was Ibrmed, in the very teeih of the constitution. Heretics may abound as they will, these men will never take any step. You can never get ihem up to a measure of discipline. Whoever undertakes the business must bear the whole omis opfrainU. He must make up his mind to be branded with all I he ob- loquy. I asrree with my brother (Mr. Breckinridge) if the Presbytery can't be dissolved, let us put it where David put Saul's arnior. I like a cannon very well; but if my enemv has possession ol'it, and every ball strikes intoniy camp, I sliould wish the cannon at the bottom ol" the sea. Just so our consiiiution is used : it is never employed ajrainst a heretic: when- ever the bretliren point and lire, it is always against ourselves. Dr. Cathcart. Heard ever any body the like? Mr. McCalla. I really think men ought to be sat- isfied withaciiii^ for three years ai>-ainst the consti- tution of their own church, and acting against it con- tumaciously. Moderator. The motion for indefinite postpone- ment IS not in order. It puts a whole Presbytery out of the House. The question was now put on Dr. Calhcari's ino- tion to postpone and consider the plan moved by him, and lost. The question then recurring on the resolu- tions moved by Mr. R. Breckinridge. Dr. Green demanded a division of the question: that it might first be taken on dissolving the second Presbytery. Dr. Breckinridge. Do we do this with the under- standing that the other two Presbyteries of Philadel- phia are to be retained ? MoEERATOR. That is the understanding of the Chair. Mr. J. Patterson. You are now about to dissolve the Assembly's second Presbytery for the mischieff MR. BARNES. 291 it has done. Before the resolution is adopted I wish at least to disabuse myself. [Mr. P. here went into a detailed hi!?tory of the Fairinount cluirch, and the agency lie. had had in reference to that whole afl'air ; ■ contending that the Presbytery i ad done nothing in relation to it oi which they had the least reason to be ashamed.) Dr. iVIcDowell, he knew, was sore, be- cause alter they had rescued it out of the hands of the sheriti', iher did not put it again under his care. But said iVIr. P. the child gasped and died in his hands, though his people are wealthy, and abundantly able to have built the church and bought it over and over. Would it liave been reasonable to put it back into the same keeping, that it might die a second time? What blame attaches to our conduct in thus saving a church out of the hands of the sheritf. And are iden- tlemen going to vote, wholesale, to saiash our Pres- bytery at a blow, for this ? I ilefy any one to point out any act of disorder we h ive been guilty of, uidfss it is the orgatiiz ition o( the central churcrt in the North Liberties: and 1 believe the Synod know enough about that. Mr. Davib. By this act you open the door for an appeal : and if the Presbytery do not enter it, 1 shall say they are men of peace: that's all. According to the sec )nd brancli of the resolution, tiiese ministers are individually to seek admission into another Pres- bytery by subiuiiting to an examination. To whom, I ask, are they to be responsible until they do this? Are they to bo connected with no Presbytery? Are they to stand nlone? Is this Presbyterian? To throw a hole Presbytery out of the bounds of all respons^ibility .' Mr. MCalla. The consequence is known to be that these men will become disseminated through all the presbyteries. I hope that all those who voted a2:ainst the errors of Mr. Barnes will remember that if this resolution shall be adopted, those errors will be speed dy and ell'ectuaily spread in all directions among us. Though I am said to be good at fighting, yet I am disposed to peace. Dr. Green now withdrew his motion for a division of the qiesiion. The question being then on the adoption of Mr. Breckinridgd's resolutions entire, Mr. M'Cai^la moved a postponement with a view to take up the substitute he had liimselfotTered. This moiion prevailed: and the resolution having been read agnin, Dr. J. Breckinridge rose to oppose it. I consider this as a disorgatnzing proposition. [ cannot go into a discussion of it: I leel my frame exhausted, and my heart too. I had determined to go hon)e in si- lence : but I cannot let this pass without one elfort 292 TRIAL OF against it. Whatever may have been the error c( the General Assembly in constituiin* their Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, and 1 thought at the time that it was improper, because they had no constitu- tional ri«^ht to do such an act, and because the ob- jects in view appeared to me to be wrong, yet now that the Presbytery has been constituted and has been recognizid by this synod as an existing ecclesi- astical body, and its members stand reciiin ecclesia, I think we have no right to put it out of the church without trying its members lor irregularities of con- duct. It is an ex post facto proceedmg, and we have no right to adopt any such course. The men of that Presbytery are not before us either on corporate trial, or on personal trial. We are now engaged in a re-organization of our presbyteries ; but this is not organization: it is excision. The assembly ordered us to arrange the presbyteries, and I am in favor of it, but I^ ani for having Market-street the dividing line. If we have poison in a bottle, I am not for breaking the bottle. Moderator. The chair has serious doubts whe- ther tb^s resolution is in order. It cuts oH' a whole Presbytery without a trial. If I am wrong, I wish pome member woald appeal and let the house de- cide it. Mr. R. Breckinridge. I will take an appeal. Mr. M'Calla. Dr. Breckinridge made use of words which I do not think were for edification. This resolutioi! is intended to do just what was done in the Synod of Kentucky. The Cumberland Pres- bytery was declared to be no longer under their watch and care as Presbyterian ministers; and this on the ground of the very heresy we have condemn- edin the person of Mr. Barnes. Moderator. The members ol that Presbytery liave never been arraigned for heresy. They have been chargei : i:h contumacy : but never with here- sy. I cannot think the resolution in order. The question being now put on Mr. Breckinridge's appeal, the decision of the chair was sustained, and Mr. McCalla's resolution was declared out of order. The question then recurring on Mr. R. Breckin- ridsre's resolution, Mr. R. Breckinridge rose in its support. If, said he, the Synod approves of the proposed dissolution of the 2d Presbytery, 1 have another resolution to oH'er, showing what ought to be done with the Presbyteri- al books : and what with the members of that Pres- bytery il the} sliall contumaciously refuse to deliver up their records. An elective affinity body is one wiiich has no limits ; and such a body is against the constitution. The assembly declared this in the min- ute adopted by them touching the memorial accom- MR. BARNES. 203 panying the Act and Teetimonv ; and their act di- rects, in substance, that we ehall dissolve that Pres- bytery. The first resolution I have had the honor to propose goes to dissolve the Presbytery : the third j)rovide8 what is to be done with the members com- no.sin^ it. You may make Market-street the dividing line, ii'you like — ancl let the existin'? Presbytery exist fitill, uulefrS some harm will result from such an ar- rangement. But I hold it the solemn duty of the Sy- nod to diminish the number of its Presbyteries. It was one of the best things this Synod ever did when it refu.sed to consent to its own dismemberment. We were divided by a coup de main in the assembly : and were it lawful I could tell some' stories of what passed between a brother (Mr. J. Patterson) and my - self on that occasion, [Moderator. Tliat will not be in order.] The plan of Dr. Cathcart goes to I'orce these members into other Presbyteries without their con- sent. But this resolution provides that before ad- mission into other Presbyteries, these gentlemen shall submit, if required, to an examination as to their religious beliel". If they were to apply to my Presbytery, I should certainly insist upon such ex- amination with respect to a great majority of the members of that Pretbylery ; and I believe that they would not be admitted into seme of cur Presbyteries. There is no way of getting into the Presbyterian church but through one of its Presbyteries ; and though we have a right to Ibrce these men into a Presbytery, yet I think this is the better way. I wish them to go lawl'ully into some Presbytery. They will have, indeed, to submit to an examination: 6ut if they feel as 1 do, instead of objecting to this, they will desire it and insist upon it. We have long laid a rule upon the Baltimore Presbytery, tliat an applicant must be examined before he is received, if any one member of the Presbytery desires it. The resolution provides that if they do not apply to any Presbytery fcr admission before a definite time, they shall be considered as no longer in the Presbyterian church. The question was now put on the first resolution and it was carried. The 2d resolution was then read and it also was agreed to. The third resolution was then read, and the ques- tion being on this resolution Mr. Gilbert. Can you dismiss a member from one Presbytery and not send him to another ? Would that be Presbyterian? Mr. R. Breckinridge. A Presbytery cannot con- stitutionally dissolve itself. A man may, indeed, cut his own throat, and a certain church in Baltimore juet and dissolved itself : but the act was not regular. 25 294 TRIAL OF Here Mr. B. went into a history of the case of Mr. Duncan and argued tiiat what was done in relation to one might as lawl'ully be done in regard to an- other.] Dr. J. Breckinridge. I doubt if a fair answer has been given. Dr. B. hf re entered into a larther ac- count of the case ol" Mr. Duncan, and insisted that what was done in that instance was quite a ditferent matter iVpni dissolving a Presbytery and leaving all its menil)ers at loose ends belonging to nobody, un- certain whether they were under the care of any Synod and in fact not Presbyterians. This was putting mm out ol' the churcii not by the door, but pusliing them out of the window. Moderator. These remarks relate to the first resolution and tlie brother will remember that that resolution has been adopted. Dr. J. BREOKi.NRmGE. I mourn over it. The quesLion was now put upon the resolution and it was carried. The Moderator declared that all other business in reference to the division of the Presbytery fell as of course by the adojMion of these resolutions. Mr. Mu.sgrave read an explanation of his vote which at his motion was ordered to be entered on the minutes. Dr. Ely from the Assembly's Second Presbytery presented the following appeal and complaint. Whereas the Book of Discipline Chap. Ill, arucle 1, of the preamble decides that " every hind of decision which is form- ed in any church judicatory, except the highest, is subject to the review of a superior judicatory, and may be earned be- fore it in one or the other of the four following ways, viz. 1 Gf.neral Review 2 Reference 3 Appeal and 4 Complaint: And whereas the Synod of Philadelphia and this Presbytery have now become original parties in relation to the decision of the Synod by which they have attempted to dissolve the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia; and of which we hereby complain : Therefore Resolved, that this Presbytery will and hereby does appeal to the General Assembly to meet in Pittsburg in May next, against the aforesaid decision : that the Assembly may decider, when they have heard this appeal, whether we shall submit to that decision or not. Our reasons for this appeal from thatdecision of which we hereby complain, to the next Assembly, are ths following. 1. The attempt to dissolve this Presbytery under the cir- cumstances of the case, we regard as the continued resist- ance of the Synod of Philadelphia to the authority of the General Assembly of former years, by which this Presbytery has been constituted and continued. 2. The Presbytery judge that the dissolution of the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia at the present time, and by the Synod of Philadelphin, would not conduce to the peace and edificadon of the Presbyterian church in the U. Slates, but on the contrary, would be highly prejudicial to the best iu- tfirests of religion. MR. BARNES 295 3. The Presbytery think the manner of the dissolution wholly unprcceacnted and iinconstiiutionnl. By order of the Presbytery, EzBA Stiles Ely, Committee. York, Pa. Nov. 4, 1S35. He observed that in all probability it was the last time that he should ever trouble the Synod, or have an opportunity ol'epeaking to Presbyters with whom lor twrenty years he had acted with great cordiality. With this paper, the Presbytery made their bow, for it seemed to him that the Synod now regarded them as stragglers, and so he suppos-ed they were to re- main, until those who were the superiors alike of Synod and Presbytery, should decide what was to be their standing. The Synod now took a recess. Mr. Winchester moved that when Synod adjourn it, adjourn to meet at Carlisle on the second Wed- nesday of February, but ailer some conversation this motion was rejected. Dr. Lauhie called up the report of the committee on dissolving the Presbytery of the District of Co- liimbia, and uniting its members with the Presbytery of Baltimore, which after a brief o{)position by I)r. L. wsvs on motion of Dr. Cuyler indefinitely postponed. Synod took up a memorial from the Presbytery of New Castle, complaining of the Presbytery of Wilmington for its organization of a church within its bounds, and in the midst (as alleged) of the congregation of the Rev. Mr. Russel. Af- ter a desultory discussion, it resolved that the Presbytery of Wilmington be required to lay on the table of Synod forth- with so much of their records as relate to the above mention- ed case. To the above order of Synod, the Presbytery of Wilmington made the following reply, viz : At a meeting of the Presbytery of Wilmington, at York, Penn. Oct. 29!h, 1835, it was Resolved, That the Stated Clerk of this Presbytery be not allowed to deliver the records or papers belonging to this Presbytery to the Synod of Philadelphia, because, in our judgment, said Synod has not and could not have any juris- diction over this Presbytery prior to the 23th day of October, 1835. True extract from the minutes of the Presbytery of Wil- mington. Attest, E. W. Gilbert, Stated Clerk. York, Oct. 23 sciiih side ot said line, be trans erred to the Presbytery of Lewes; and that the Sla- ted Citik of the sail Pre-bytery of Wilmington be directed to transfer the records and all other documents belonging to said Presbytery, to the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of New Casile. Mr. How and Mr. Jones gav3 notice of their intention to complain of ir.e disposition thus made of the churches under their care. Dr. EitECKiNniDGE made a report on the state of religion, vvhicli vvus adopted. The minutes were comtuitied to the Moderator for publication. Mr. H. R. Wilson, Stated Clerk of Synod, report- ed that he iiad put into the lianils of Mr. Bernes, an attested copy of the minute of Synod containing the sentence of Mr. Barnes's suspension. An overture on lire subject ol foreign missioui? was next considered and adopted, with some modifica- tions. Mr. WiNcnESTER reported a minute on the memo- rial of the P.-esbytery of Carlisle, in the case of Mr. McKim, which was tidopted. The Synod then adjourned to meet in the city ol Philadelphia, in the Central Presbyterian Church, on the last Wednesday of October next, at 10 o'clock, A. M., and the sittinj? was closed with prayer. APPENDIX. DEFEXCE OF ALBERT BARIVES* Defence of Albert fiarnefi ao;ainst the charges ofthi Jttec. George Junkin, D. I)., President of Lafay- ette College ; tried before the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, June 30 — July 8, 1835. The char^ea here alleged are ten in number, for erroneous doctrines tauoflit and published in the 'Notes on the Epistle to the Romans.' Before pro- ceeding to answer them at length, it may be proper to advert to three remarkable circumstances in re- gard to the manner in which they have been brought. The first is, that the prosecutor and the accused belong to ditierent presbyteries, and to different sy- nods. In my own presbytery 1 was in good standing, and enjoying, so far as I had, or still have any reason to suppose, the confidence of my co-presbyters. I was pursuing peacefully the duties of a most arduous pastoral charge, requiring all my time and strengtli; and indeed exliausting the vigor of my life, and rapid- ly undermining my constitulion hy arduous and in- cessant duties. I was surrounded by a church per- fectly united and harmonious; having confidence, so lar as I knew, in my ministry, my character, and my orthodoxy. It is not k;iovvn that the voice of com- plaint had been heard among the people of my own charge of any dereliction Irom the doctrines which had been taught in the First Presbyterian Church in the United States, for a period of one hundred and thirty years. Charges similar to these had been al- leged against me — not indeed in a formal and regular manner, but in an irregular manner by the Presbyte- ry of Philadelphia. Those accusations had been laid before the General Assembly, and the highest judica- ture of the Presbyterian church had fully acquitted me of them. The agitations of that time had died somewhat away. I was permitted to return to my labor with the hope that I might pursue it in peace. 1 * APPENDIX. These charges are eubstrintially of the same na- ture, and are not pretended to be difierent by the prosecutor himself. In the midst of mv labors, and my phins for the welfare of my pastoral charge, my attention has been arrested, and a demand made on my time and patience and strength to answer again substantially the same accusations. They are brought by a member of anotiier prvsbytery, and another sy- nod. To Dr. Jiiiikin I had done no injury; I had made no allusion. His opinions 1 had not attacked ; nor in the book an which tliese charges are based, have I made the remotest allusion to him, or his doctrines. I admit indeed the right of any minister of the Pres- byterian church to bring charges of heresy, or immo- rality aeainst any other minister; bin the question instinciively arises in looking at the circumstances ot this case : ' Wliy should IJr. Junkin feel himself call- ed on to stand forth as the defender of orthodoxy, and as the accuser of his brethren ? Why shoulJ the president of a literary institution feel himself called on to bring solemn and grave charges of error against a pastor in another presbytery ? Why should he feel it to be his duty to excite suspicion, and disturb the peace of a church of Christ, and utiseitle their confi- dence in their pastor, and allege charges fitted, and designed doubtless, to depose him from the ministry — to blast his good name, and arrest his schemes ot la- bor, and put a period to the little good which he might be doing? Why should he be the man to tear open old wounds scarcely healed, and raise again the cry ot alarming heresy, fast dying away, and throw the christian community again into agitation. There inay possibly be such an eminence of talent, learning, piety, eloquence, as tOionstilute a man a guardian of the orthodoxy and the peace of the churches. But it is a very material question whether it is wise for a man to put tbrtli any thing which can be construed into any such claim of ecclesiastical pre-eminence and guardianshiu. On a/iy consideration of this sub- ject, it is not easy to see why the president of Lafay- ette college should have felt himself called on to al- lege these charges. A second circumstance that is remarkable is, the manner in which these charges have been brought. Our Savior h;ts laid down a rule which it is conceiv- ed is equally i bli^Mtory on all liis followers, and in all cases whether i ertainiiig to public tr private trans- actions. Mat. xviii, 15: "Moreover il thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone : if he shall hear thee, thou hast gaini'd thy brother.'' That this direction is appUcable to all the cases ofoffence which may oc- cur in the church there can be no reasonable doubt. APPENDIX. 3 Charores can be brought against a man in no other way tlian as they are Kiii)|josed to constitute some offence or crime, either of a j)uhlic or private nature. They can be brought by itii iiidiviihial only us that in- dividual has been injured or offended. Iltlie deed be oi'a public nature, it is an otl'ence against the prosecu- tor only as a part of the public, and he can be consid- ered as injured only as a part of the public. If on thie grounil tlieretbre charges are brought, the rule of the Savior should be regarded as applicable and binding. It 13 equally manliest that our Savior mentions no case where any other course would be proper. He speaks of no public offence where this course would not be demanded- He specifies no instance ol an of- i'ence where this course might be dispensed with. Had there been any such cases, they would have been referred to ; and he would not have concealed the instance where an otience might have existed in which it was not proper or necessary for the brother " to go and tell him his fault" alone. Every instance, therefore, of oH'ence comes under this rule of the New Testament. The wisdom of the rule is manifest. No small part of the trials for injury, for heresy, for error, for oH'en ces of any kind in the church, would be avoided by the observance ol this simple direction. A frank and friendly intercourse between brethren, vvould often show them that there was no ground of ofi'ence ; that no crime had been intended or committed ; and that all that was necessary was a simple statement of the facts as they occurred, and of the intention which led to them. This is as certainly true of doctrines as of alleged moral oH'ences- In most cases of supposed error, all the difficulty can be removed by a frank and tree interchange of sentiments. Ifit be alleged that a book is an exception to these remarks, that it is public, and the oli'ence spread abroad, I reply that the Savior made no exception in any such case; nor should he have done. A book comes under the same general direction as offences of any kind. If a man feels that he is injured by a book it must be either as one of the public, because the book holds erroneous sentiments, or that he is particularly intended by slanderous or other inju- rious words ; and in either case if he suppposes that an injury is done so as to demand his attention, the rule of the Savior is applicable. Further, there is this dilierence in the case of a book from other forms of" public or private injury. A book can be corrected. Tne correction can How in the same channel, and it canbecomeapei-mancnt and wide-spread attestation ol the author of his conviction of his error, and he may thus do more to repair an injury than in the case 4 APPENDIX. of any other moJe of od'ence. It is evident, therefore, that ihe Ibct that tlie alleged injury was done in a book, does not remove it from the operation of the Savior's ride. Now 1 iiave cause to comi)lain that this plain and obvious rule of Jesus Christ was not regarded by Dr. Junkin in regard to a miriisier in good standing. By bringing tliese charges, Ur. J. alleges, impliedly, that he has been injured, either personally, or as one of Ihe Christian community. If not mjured in one of these senses, there could have been no justifiable pre- tence for bringing them, //"injured, he was bound to go ami tell his fault to the oli'ending brother, and en- deavor to recover him from his errors. But this was not done. No interview was sought. No exjjlanation was asked. No fraternal admonition was addressed suggesting error, and injury to the cause of truth. Nothing was done until the charges were fully made out, and ready to be prosecuted; and all that was then done was a leUer apprising me of ihal fact. This letter is in the following words. Lafayette College, March 16th, 1835. Rev. and Dear Sir, —In yonr Notes on the Episde to the Romans, there are doctrines set forth, which, in nay humble opinion, arc contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian Church and to the word of God. It also appears to me, and has long so appealed, that these,, nnd certain affiliated doctrines, hive been the chief causes of the unhappy distractions over which we all mourn. A third opinion, operating to the production of this commu- nication, is, that peace and union in evangelical eiibrt, cannot take place, so long as these important doctrinal points remaii> unsettled; and that, therefore, all the friends of such union and peace ought to desire their final adjustment by ihe proper judicatories of the church. It is certainly true that many have wished to see theiii brought up, fairly and legally, before the proper tribunals, unconnected with mere questions of ec- clesiastical policy, and without any admixture of personal or congregational feelings. P^egret has often been expressed by many, and by myself among others, that the Presbytery o( Philadelphia had not, at the outset, instituted process against yourself instead of the course they pursued. I am sure, how- ever, they did what they thought for the best. It is much easier to find fault after a measure has been put into operation than to foresee its defects and prevent ihem. Now, dear Brother, your recent publication has re-opened the door, and, unworthy as I am and incompetant to the so- lemn duty, yet duty I feel it to be to enter it ; and by ar» open, fair, candid and Christian prosecution of the case, to bring out a formal and legal decision of your Presbytery on the points alluded to. I tlierefore intend, IJo volenle, to pre- fer charges against you, founded solely upon your Notes on Romans and referring to rio other evidence fjr thetr support, than what shall be dediiced from that boek. APPENDIX. 9 In prosecuting these charges, I hope I shall be enabled to act with gravity, solemnity, brotherly affuction and ail the re- spect due to a court of Jesus Christ. The object is peace through union in the Truth ; and I hope the Clod of Truth and Peace will direct us to a happy issue. Most conscien- tiously do I believe that you have fallen into dangerous error. I feel that your doctrine shakes the foundation of my perso- rial hopes for eternity. If t< be true, then I cannot "read my title clear, to mansions in the skifs." Around the discussion of a subject so solemn, I cannot doubt, the Son of God will throw a hallowed influence, which will call up feelings very different from those, that too often agitate ecclesiastical bo- dies, where principles of minor consequence acquire exciting power from adventitious circumstances. May I now ask of you the favor to transmit to Mr. Henry McKeen's, No. 1-12 Market street, a note, with responses to fee following queries, viz. :— 1. Will you admit the Notes on RomaiTS, bearing your name, to be your own production, and eave me the trouble of proTing it 7 2. Will you waive the constitutional right often days, &.c., [Book pp. 396-402,] and 80 let the case come up and pass through the Presbytery with as little delay as possible; provided I furnish you with a copy of the charges at least that number of days beforehand '? To these postulates I can see no reasonable objections on your pnrt, and presume there will be none. A friend of mine will receive your reply and dispose of it agreeably to arrangements already made; and will also in- form me of the time and place of the Presbytery's meeting. Your brother in the Lord, Geo. JtTNKin. Of this conduct I hftve a right to complain as a de- parture from the express authority of Christ; as pre- venting the possibihty of conference and explanation; as giving unchristian publicity to charges and accusa- tions tending to injure my character, and usefulness, without the possibility of meeting it in the precise spot where Jesus Christ contemplated that such accusa- tions should be met ; and as depriving me of that pro- tection and defence which at this point the Savior has appointed for all his professed followers, and all his ministers. A third circumstance, not less remarkable, is, that even when the charges had been brought, no charge of crime was alleged, nor even oVheresy. The Book of Discipline of the Presbyterian church, proceeds on the supposition that a minister can be arraigned only for crmie or heresy, ch. v. s. 4, 5, 6, II. It never con- templates that suspicions may be breathed, or pub- lished against the character of a minister unless some one shall undertake to make out a specific of- fence, or crime ; never supposes that that character may be held up as a matter of convenience in refer- ence to which theological difficulties may be discussed and settled. His character is supposed to be s-acred : 1* 6 APPENDIX. and as in all other cases, he is to be held innocent until he is proved to be guilty. Yet in tliis instance, Dr. J. alleged neither crime nor heres)^. Thous^h in his letter to me, he char{?ed me as holdino^ opinions that, it" true, took away his personal hopes ol' heaven — that is, in efVect, with leaching doctrines that would destroy the eoul oC a minister forever in hell, yet he brought no charge of crime or heiesy. From some cause there was a re- luctance to give these charges a name. When a man is accused before a civil tribunal, it is indispensable that the crime be specihed in the indictment. If mur- der be the crime charged, it is indispensable that it be legally denominated j it an assault, that it be speci- fied; if treason, that there be no shrinking from the name. Yet in these charges there was no specific ofl'ence charged. It was neither crime nor heresy of xyhich I was accused. Nor was it until after much delay, nor until there was a prospect that the presby- tery would not proceed to a trial on charges so vague, that Dr. J. declared that he regarded the charges as Bubstantially charges of heresy. tVfiy there was this ehrinking from specilying the intended nature of the charge, lias never been explained. It has thrown an air of mystery over all this transaction, which it is difficult to reconcile with tiie jjrinciples of the New Testament, and with the requirements of the Presby- terian church in regard to the character ol"its minis- ters. The Notes on the Epistle to the Romans, against which these charges are alleged, were written in pur- suance of a plan formed several years since. That plan was, to prepare a brief expliination of the New Testament in a style and manner adapted to popular use, and esi)ecially to the wants of Bible Classes and Sabbath Schools. The want of such a book was every where deeply felt, and it became apparent, that this want must, from some quarter, be supplied. The demand was supposed to be, not of a work deep- ly learned, nnd profound ; not stating the critical pro- cess by which the meaning of the Sacred Scriptures is arrived at, but the results of such an investigation ; and such heads of practical remarks as might furnish topics ol useful illustration to be enlarged on at plea- sure by instructors in Sunday Schools and Bible Classes. A part of that plan was executed in the publication of " Notes on the Gospels" ; and although 1 felt deeply that there were many defects in the exe- cution, yet the consciousness that such a work was demanded, that I might be contributing in some de- gree to form the views of the rising generation to just views of the oracles of God. encouraged me in my work. Amidst the anxious cares and responsi- APPENDIX. 7 bilitifcs of an important pastoral charge, tlie work was prepared for the press ; und the luvorahle recep- tion ofthiit portion ofiiic work i)y the Cliristian pub- lic, Cavorahle beyond my most t^anguine expectauons, shewed Jiow much euch a work was demanded, and how ready tlie Christian churches were to avail themselves ol" any eirort, however humble, to dilibsc just views ol" the interpretation ol' the New Testa- ment. The notes on the epistle to the Romans, are a part of ihe same general plan ; and having the same de- sign. Their character is varied only as the nature of the subject is varied, and as the difficulties of the book required a somewhat more Uhored exposition. The fact, also, that, as supposed, some important er- roneous views had prevailed respecting the true in lerpretafion of the epistle, that it had been explained under the influence of erroneous philosophical opin- ions, required additional labor to remove the in- fluence of that philosophy, to leave, it possible, noth- ing but the simple sense ot the inspired writer. The primary design was not to attack any system of phi- losophy, or religion, but to arrive at the simple doc- trines of the apostle — an object which necessarily led to some of the statements in reference to which these charges are brought. In preparing the notes, which have given occasion to these charges of heresy, 1 was not. ignorant that the exposition of the epistle was attended with great difficulty. It was known that this epistle had been regarded as the great ai-enaoi' controversy, and that many diti'erent modes of interpretation had been pro- posed and defended with great zeal by their respec- tive advocates. The reasons of this variety of inter- pretation, I have endeavored to state in the introduc- tion to the " Notes," {p. ix. x). I am not conscious of being so obstinately attached to the exposition which I have adopted hs to be un- willing to be convinced of error, and f/convinced, to abandon the sentiments which I have expressed. Whether the mode that will be most likely to secure a change of opinion, is that of arraigning me for the high misdemeanor of heresy, is the Christian mode, and the most desirable to secure such a result, I shall not now take upon myself to inquire. I may just be permitted to say, that it is not tiie use ol hnrd names, and the language of reproach, that will secure the re- sult. In this land, and in these times, a change of opinion is to be efl'ected not by the language of autho- rity, not by an appeal to the fathers, not by calling on us simply to listen to the voice of other times — how- ever venerable and desirable such a deference may be in its place — but by the sober and solid exposition 8 APPENDIX. of the oracles of God. Men, even in error, listen re- spectfully to those who atten)|)i to r-easoti with them, and to convince them that they an- wronsr; they turn instinctively awav when denunciation takes the place of argument, ana the cry of heresy is the substitute for a sober appeal lo the understanding. As the discussion in which we are now engaged is one that may deeply atfect my character, and my min- istry, and still more as it may have a material bearing on the prevalence of truth, I may be permitted to state a little more fully the principles of interpreta- tion in which I have written these notes. These prin- ciples are stated in a summary manner in the preface "The design has been to state, with as much brevity and simplicity as possible, the real incaning of the sacred writer; rather the results ol" critical inquiry, as far as the author had the ability and time to pursue it, than the process Dy which these results were reached. The design has been to state what appfared to the author to be the real meaning of the epistle, without ani/ regard to any existing theolooical sys- tem; and without any deference lo the opinions of others, farther than the respectful deference and candid examination, which are due to the opinions of the learned, the wise, and the good who have made this epistle their particular study." In regard to this statement, I may observe, that my design was to give the true meaning of the sacred writer. I aimed to arrive at the exact sense which the apostle intended to convey. My object was not to attack any system of theological opinion which is now held, or which has ever been held, but to arrive at the true doctrine of the inspired writer ; and that only. If in arriving at this, there is an appearance of having attacked any existing and prevalent opinions, I may be allowed to expect the credit of sincerity when 1 say, that it was from no design of wagin:j war on those dogmas, but becausa it did not seem to me possible, in the existing estate of theological opin- ion, to give the true exposition of (he epistle, without attempting to remove that which was false; nnd which almost by prescription had come to be consid- ered as the real sense of the sacred writer. He that wishes to rear an edifice that shall be permanent, is under a necessity of removing any obstrnction that may lie in his way. It will he observed that in the Ktatement which I have made of the principles on which I am' to interpret the sacred writers, I do not claim infiUibility ; nor exemption from the common infirmitiesof human nature; I do not assume that I am free Irom all prejudice, or bias ; nor do I intend to speak witli disparagement of the opinions cf the wise and good of other times. I simply say that " my de- sign has been to state what appeared to me to be the real meaning of the e|)istle, without any regard to APPENDIX. 9 any existing theological system, and without any de- ference to the opinions of others, further thanthe re- spectful deference and candid e.vaininntion which are due to the opinions of the learned, the wise, and the ffood who have made this epistle their particular stuaii.'"' It was, farther, my intention, in preparing those notes, not to be influenced in (he interprclation by ,t. regard to any creed, or conlession of faith, whatever. I njai?ainst a minister of the gos- pel, than that he teaches doctrines which take away a man's hope of heaven ; that his opinions tend to un- settle the title to eternal rest; that his instructions tend to beguile, and destroy the souls of men ; and that instead of saving them, according to the high design of his ofTice, he is leading them down to des- truction and perdition. When a minister of the gos- pel is charged with inculcating sentiments that des- troy the hope of heaven, the highest point of accusa- tion against his ministerial character is reached : and if true, he is unfit to be a guide to the souls of men. (2.) A minister u( the gospel will not take upon him- self the tapk of bringing charges against another, un- less he believes them to be of a very serious and alarming nature. He is aware that he makes himself liable to be censured as a slanderer oi the go?pel ministry (Book of Dis. ch, v. s. 7.) ; he is aware that his own character must suffer if they are not .sustain- ed ; and he cannot but be aware, that in thus bring- ing charges, he is producing agitation, alarm and sus- picion ; that he is disturbing the peace of the churches; and, what is of not less importance, that he is laying a tax on the time and patience of tliose who are call- ed to investigate the charges. It involves no common responsibility to call a presbytery from the direct work of saving souls to engage in the strifes of public dis- cussion. A man who regards his own character will not bring charges against a minister of the gospel until he teels that the heresy is so great that all these hazards are to be met ; nor until he feels that the benefit to his cause is likely to be a compensation for all the great and acknowledged mischiefs which the very act of bringing charges of this nature must pro- duce. (3.) if it should be said, that the purpose of thus bringing charges was to discuss certain abstract doc- trines; to obtain a judicial decision on the proposi- tions rather than on the w,an ; to ascertain the truth, and to settle a controversy, rather than to in) peach the character of a minister, then I reply, that if this was the design, it should have been so stated. A propo- sal should have been Bubmitted to the pre.sbyler/ APPENDIX. 15 fo organize itfelfinto a court of judges, on a trial o' Kkill in controversy, and tlic propositions thould have been suhmiitcd for discussion ; and cliarfjcrt eliould not have i)e('n broufrhl atjiiinst a. niinisrer of the gos- pel. But this could not have been the desijrn. When a man is arraigned on specific charjres, it is not for discussion, k is for crime. It is to brin^ him to a trial foran ajfimce ; and 1 utterly deny the j-ighl ofany man to arraijrn me hei'ore a court, merely to make me the occasion for a disc^ission of an abstract doctrine, in theology, politics, or morals. Twr> civilians may a<:^ree to discuss before a moot court, the abstract question of the prei'ise nature of the crime of murder ; or larceny ; to examine the authorities, to determine what eonstilutes malice jirepeiise, or what would be jiroper evidence of the fact of thell, and all would be well. But when one of them goes before a grand jury, and charges the other with the malice prepense and the act of larceny, the case is materially changed. It becomes then not a moot question, but a serious business involving character, hapfiiness, or life. Sup- l)0se that Dr. Junkin hud arr.iigned me before a court having competeni jurisdiction, on a charge of adultery. Suppose that the I ict was proclaimed abroad, and euppicions were excited, and counsel was employed, and a jury impmnelled. Suppose the public mind had liad time to he agiialed on llie subject, and a strong bias sliould set against my character, and peace should flee Iroin my fimily, and my public work should be closed. And then suppose that the public should be gravely told that all this was not desigtied to injure me, but to settle certain mooted points about the crime in question ; and thai all this array of indict- ment, and oftestimony, and of trial, had lieen merely designed to bring up the subject before a tribunal in order to obtain a decision on the law. And would it be possible for the community to repress its in- dignation against conduct like this? And yet how would this ditl'cr from the act of formally bring- ing charges of heresy against a minister, and pub- lishing them abroad, find exciting suspicions, and using all the influence of tfie name of the acccuser to destroy ministerial character, and ihen gravely say- ing that all this is designed merely to settle some lili- gated question in theology 7 Yet this is evidently the object aimed at professedly in the charges of Dr. Jun- kin. Thus he says, in his letter, that '" peace and union in evangelical effort cannot take place as long as these important doctrinal points remain unsettled, and that therefore all the Iriends of such union and peace ought to desire the final adjustment," &c. that " many wished to see them," that is those doctrinal points, "brought up fairly and legally before the pro- 16 APPENDIX. per tribunals," A,r. " IVow, dear brolher." he ndi}=, " your recent publication Ims re-opened ilie door, "thai iii,/or (/iscussiiiff tliose poii.ts, 'and unworthy as 1 iin), and incompeleni to the solemn duty, yet doty I leel it to be to enter it, and by an open, fair, candid, and christian pro.«rcution of tlie case, to brinjr out a lormal and legal decision of your presbytery on tub I'OINTS AiAUDED TO," lliat is. to pelllc cerliiin abstract mooted doctrines. '" I therelore intend." he adds, " to prefer char^e.^ a2;ain3t you," that is, to hold me upos a convenient staifiiip^ point, to Facrifice my time, and strength, and lacerate niv feding^p, and obstruct my work, ill understand it, to <.'ive convenient occa- sion lor the discussion and decision ofceriain abstract doctrines before the ecclesiasiical tribunals. A/jainrt this claim, I lilt up the voice of remonstrance, as a violation of the ri^-his which every man has. No man has a right to arraiirn nu- to give him the occa« sion to diejil ly his l;ilcnt, or elocjuence, or learning, in a mo'it f|uesiion of theology. The moment chargea are talded against a minister, the whole sOliject as- sumes a character involving reputation, integrity, and usclulness. It is not ilien a businees of absLiuc- tion, it is an allair oi'criinr. The fxtciit of the naitt r at issue, at any time, is fo be judged of by an examination oi' the charges. In this case, the specifications are ten in number, in each one of vvliich there is charged a violation of the conlession ol fiith, ami of the doctrines of the Bible. In each one of which there is a separjiie ar:d solemn fpt'cificaiion ol violation of orditiation vows; ard of unfaitbfiilne>s to the high trust reposed in a minister of the eos|)el. The osff/egale of fen such iristarices of a violation of ordination vows, if true, must affect, and must be di'.siirnt'd to all'ecf. a man's character for life ; and such as to draw on him tlie sentence of dis- qualification for the office which he holds. Alter these preliminary observations, whose lengthy it is hoped Avill be excused by the circumGtrnccs of the case, I proceed to the main incjuiry, whether the sentiments which I have taught are to be tolerated in the Presbyterian church? There are tv.'o points before the psesbytery lobe considered. One is, wheiher the •' charges" nov^ al- leged, express the true sense of the l)ook airainst wliich Ihey are brousrhf ; and the other is, whether it" they do, the sentiments tin mselv< s are contrary la the Scriptures and the conlession of faith. This re- mark is of importance, bee luse, whatever may be my belief on the points referred to, iffhe charges do not express the sense ol the book, and are not sustained l»y this, they cannot be sustained. My real belief I do not hesitate nt any time ^c ivvcvv j but the presbyter)' APPENDIX, 17 is now concerned with that only, so far as that belief is expressed in ihe note?! on the cjiistie to llie Romans. Against several of tlie cliarges under consideration, I shall urpe tills plea, that they accusf nie of senti- ments which arc by no means advanced iti the book belbre us. In reg'nrd to the otiiers, I eliail enPEN'D1X, t«i5llng of many parte connected in eur.h n manner nu to create a ch.un orniutual tlept^ndencu e.'' — VVtbeltr. We epeak ol a systein ol' loj^ic ; a systtm ol' asiro^ nomy ; a system ol pliilopophy ; a system of holany, chemistry, morality, guvernnicni, &c. In lliis we mean to dislintrui/?li one arransiomcru of doc rines on these t;u!)jects I'roiii anollier — not to express tiir un- qualified assv'rit to every |i atiire, and evciy pariiiular in the system. Wc e>»pre:;>-< cur assent to ilio systivi which we cinhracf, as di.viin;;iji.-iicd iVom siune other system. A man vs ho embraces i lie Lirn ffiansyftemot botany, as preleralile tj aiioiher system, is nut jire- cluded iVoui ex|)ressiii°: his distent IVoin the pro- priety of the cl.isbilicatioii ol some of the plants which may be enumerated. The system may be maintained as a system, while ilie pr prieiy ol cer- tain minute arrangements may he ilcobled. A man who eitibraces ilic Cojieriiiciui sysieia ol" astro;ionry in preference to the Piolemaic, m;jy have doubl^ about some of the minute statements in recard to ilie tye- lem, while siill its great and disiiMj^uiKbine feaiiues shall be uminiaitied. To deny this, would be to re- press all invest illation, and to give to the system the idea ol' iidainbilily. So aho in the doctrines of religion. To embrace the " SJ/.s/t'rt? nf doctrines" in llie conree-ion of lluih, mu.'^t mean to denote the emliracing of that pyslem iisdis- tinguisiied from the ."iociiian, the Ariari, ihe Pela- gian, the Armini.ii). It" this was not ilie Kieaiiii;|r, the term system would tievcr have been in.*! ritd. And to deny ihi.--, is to suppose that the confession is invested whh inrillibiiity, and occupies the. place cl the scrii)tures as a rule ol !>,iih and practice. (2.) "I'lie " system of docirise in the cotilession of faith, is nruloulitedly emluaci d by rbcse who adhere to the Mibctaniial or es>cnii d n.tture of those diiC- trines, hut who n;ay in some laiimpnt t:int points ditler as to the modes of e.\plana;ion. For exauiple, men may ai:rfe in ! '.e fuct oftiit- dociriie of tlu^ 1 linilv in opposiiion to the doctrines ol the Svtcinian, and Sa- beili.in, who may yet not be able to suiiscribe to every word in tue Ath.iiat-i.ui creed. They mt'y asrree in the fact ol thedudrine ol the vicarious suf- l"eriti;;s of (Jlirisi in oppofition to the Unitarian, and yet one may adhere lo the quid pro tjuo, or Uethse- ma e view ; a setoi d may aooi-t the idea of ihe infi- nite ra/M« of the alonenn'nt ; ii third may liold that it was originally o7;/9//tv/6/e to ore niati as much as another, ami a fourth may hold that it wns desi; all heresy with others. (3 ) It is impossible, in the nature of the case, to se- cure esitire and perfect uniformity in every niimile. article of doctrine in a book so firi^e as our contessioQ (if faith, and in a church so hir^e as our.-i. We em- brace ia our communion more than two liiousand or- dained and licensed preachers, and two hutidred aDd_ thirty thousand communicants. The confession of faith, aiid catechisms cf the church |)roftss to go over (he whole ijround of Chi istiiin d(.ictrii.e and dulien. The doctriats are expressed in lurm and language purely human ; and ofien, IVom tiie very nature of the ca8e, iiuermingled v^ilh j)hi!osophical views which were prevalent when the confession was Iramcd. in a book like the I»;'-le, where all is inspired, perfect unjlbrmiiy ia regard to prolesscd belief must be maintained. In tne Roiuan Catholic com m union, where the Iwad luofesseslo ib.ink for all its members, and where all is ectllcJ by aufhoriiy, such a unifor- mity might, with more shew of reason, be expected. But in the Froleetant churclies, where it is ilie birlh- ri^lit of every minisier and member lo think for him- selt', and wluire thought and invesii^alian ynust he tree, no such thing is practicable. 11 any man has ever cherished the hope ih.it a quarter of a million of minds in one generation could be made lo think just alike on ihe various, andmuliiludinous subjects inour etandarde ; that every one of those minds must be ad- justed on ctiis bed ol Procrustes, and that this pro- cess can be kept up to meet the udvaucing ojillions ot' '20 APPENDIX. coming generations who shall adopt the confession, iie lias sadly mistaken the nature ol mind, and the spirit of tiie nge in which he lives. And while, from the nature of the case, it is impofiRible but that there should he some dilferences ol opinion, it is for the church to declare, in a constitutional manner, what shall he rcf!^.irJed as a departure from the essential doctrines of the confession, and shall deserve depoei- lion or excommunication. 4. That the Presbyterian church in this country, did not contemplate in its orjraiiizaiion any such lite- ral, and exact unilbrmily of opinion, is apparent from ihe dilfcrence in the terms of subscripiion here, and in the church in Scotland Irom whicii, according to the Biblical Repertory, " by far the greater por- tion of our rules and habits are derived." In our church we express assent to the ' System of doctriiie' therein contained. In the iScotiish cliurch every licenciate is required to give his assent lo " lim whole doctrine contained in the confession," and " to disown ail other doctrines, and tenets, and opinions whatso- ever, contrary to, or inconsistent with ilie Ibresaid confession." This is the kind of subscription which is contended for in our churcii ; but which, it is evi- tienc, our Standards did not intend to rt-cjuire. That this interpret-uion is correct, is manifest from the lact that the Presbyterian chnri h has made a ditference in the ordinary assent of licentiates and ord.iineinion in regard to the mean- ing of the articles, [b] The same thing is appcrent, atid well known in re^;ird to the men who coni[)Oscd tile Synods in 1753. The act of 1729 was the basis of that union; and among the men of that time there were material, though not essential diilerenccs of opinion oa the doctrines oi" tiic chundi. [c] The same thing is expressly stated to have been the practice in ihe time of President Davies. " We allowed" says lie " the candidate to maitnain his objections againt-t ANY PAKToftlie confesfrion, and the judicatures judged whether the articles ubjectid to were issemial to oanisTiANiTY ; and if they judged they were not, they \'.'ould ad.iiit ths; candidate, notwithstanding his objet« lions."* Here it is evident, that a very v.ide latitude ♦CUrJslian Spectator Match I9i5. 22 APPENDIX. was i^iven in the admission of candidates to licensure and ordination. Notliin;^ which was not deemed " es- sential to Christianity" was regarded asi sullicient lo exclude him; — a latitude of interpretation certainly quite as wide as has ever heen desired, or contended lor in more modern times. It show?;, at leaft, theca- tiiolic spirit oi' the founders of our church; and in those times, larj^e and liberal vn'./s had obtained in regard to the interpretation of the Standards. He is not in much danger of error, in regard to christian doctrine whose views accord with those of thai illus- trious and holy man. [d\ The same thing has been evinced in the Cxcneral Assembly, with a very marked unilormity. In particular, since llie unliaiipy cont.en- tions in llie church commenced in 1830, the subject has .been in various ways before ihe assembly, and with uniform results. For four successive years, de- cisions were obtained, not immedialehj pertaining to the doctrines in question indeed, but of such a cha- racter rss to leave no doubt in the minds ol either of the parties in the church, of what the di.«position of the assembly has been. Perhaps no stronger evidence of that disposition could be given than, the fact tliat those decisions h. give the phrase in question such a latitude that any one, who holds the great furidn mental ddctrines of ihe gospel, as they are recognized by all evangelical doiiominations, might adopt it ; while on the other, some are di-pused lo interpret it so stricily as to make it not only involve ihe adoption i>l" all the docirincs contained in itie coiifussion, but to preclude all diversity in the manner of receiving and explainino; them. They arc therefore disposed to regard ih'se who do not in this sense adopt the coniession of faith, and who yet remain in the church, as guilty of a great departure from moral honesty. This we ihiiik an ex- treme, and a mischievous one. Because it lends to the im- peachment of the character of many upright men, and be- cause its application would split ihe church into innumerable fragments. That it is an exiremp, we thmk is apparent, from the following considerations : It is making the terms of subscription imply more than {liiey liierally import. Two men may, with tqual sincerity, profess to btlieve a docirine, or sysiem of doctrines, and yet diHer in the mode of under- standing and e.xplaiiiing them. 2. Such a degree of uniform- ity never was exacted, and never has existed. The confes- sion, as framed liy the Westminster divines, was an ackriow- ledged compromise between two classes of theologians. When adopted by the Prtsbyieiian church in ihis country, it was with the disiinct understanding that the mode of sub- Ecription did not imply strict unilorm.iy of views. And frora that time to this, there has been an open and avowed diversi- ty of opinion, on many points, among those who adopted the confession of laith, without leading to the suspicion of in- sincerity, or dishonesty. 3. Ii is clearly impossible that any considerable number of men can be brought to conlorm so exactly in their views, as to be able to adopt such an extend- ed formula of doctrine precisely in the same sense. "llie very terms, 'system of doctriiu-s,' conveys a definite idea — tiie idea of a regular series of connected opinions, hav- ing a mutual relaiion, and constituting one whole. In pro- fessing to adopt the system of doctrines taught in the Sacred Sciiptures, a man proicsses to believe the whole seiits of doc- trines taught in that system, in opposition to every other. Thai is, he profts.~es to believe the whole series of doctrines which go to make up the Ualvinistic system, in opposition to the Socinian, Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, Arminian, or any other opposite and inconsistent view of Christianiiy. These doctrines are clearly express d ; such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation and supreme deity of Christ, the fall and original sin, aion. ment, justification by faith, personal election, eflbctual calling, perseverance of the saints, eternal punishment of the wicked, &c. Now, every man who ex animo and bona fide believes an these doctrines, does, accord- ing to the correct interpretation of language, hold the 'system of doctrines' contained in the confession of faith. And ws think, so long as this is done, we are safe. VViih respect to each of these several points, there are, and may safely he, various modes of statement and explanation consistent with APPENDIX. 25 their sincere reception. Thus, with regard to the Trinity, Bome may be able to adopt every expression found in the Nicene creed, or in Bishop Bull's exposition of i;, while others may feel a strong repugnance to many of its phrases, and yet adopt evdry idea essentia! to the doctrine. And thus, too, m relation to the vicarious atoiieinent of .Fesus (Jliristj some may adopt the strict quid pro quo system ; others, the infinite value theory ; oiher:<, that of universal applicability ; and yet nil hold the doctrine itself. But ♦ ♦ the presbytery lias a light of judgment in all such cases. ♦ ♦ ♦ It is their business to de- cide this very point, whether the candidate believes or not the doctrines of our standards, and they are under the tnoet Bolemn engagements to (iod and the brethren to do thi« honestly. And here the matter must be left." In the examination of these charges, however, it will bo my object to show that there is no real tle- Sarture IVotn the syst fu in the standnrds, in the fotes on the_ Romans. A part of those charges, I shall show, pertain iriore.'y to philosophy , a part are irrelevant, on which the confession liiid dt-ciiicd no- thing ; a part arise from misconstruction of my lan- guage ; t part accuse me of heresy, in holding the very expressions ol tne Bible ; a part depend on dis- tinctions which the Bible and the confession do not make; a part consists of a statement of a doctrine which i do hold, and an inlerence which I do not hold, wherein the inference is charged as heretical; a part are based on my rejection of certain terms and phrases which are not in the Bible, and which are not necessary to the "logy, one is surprised, on opening the Bible, to find how unlike all this is to the simple atatenient in Genesi.i. And the wonder cannot be suppress- ed that men should describe the obvious infancy oi the race as superior to its iiightst advancement ; or that \\\e first man, just created, just looking upon a world of wjnder.-', unac- quainted with law, and moral relations, and the cfl.-ei of transgres^l.)Il, shou d be represented ;is endowed wi:h know- ledge which four ihoiifnrid years af erwards it rtquueo the advent of the Son of God to cu.uinanicate." How c I'Urary i!i alt uiia to the standards of the Presbyte- rian chun h will appear, hv rd'erring to Con. chap. iv. i; i^ar. Cat. 17, 2U, 22; Snorter Cat. 12. APPENDIX. St In rejjard to this charge, I Bubmit to the Presbyte- ry the iullowins" rcmiirks, as my delV.nce : It is not intended to deny tiMt the death which was threatened to Adam, and which actually comes upon men, as a viohitioii of tiie law ol God involve!? eter- nal death, nniess man is redeemed. This is fully and expressly stated in Notes, p. U6: The passage buforc (Rom. v.) shows in what sense he (tha apostle) intended to use the word (death). In his argument it stands oppyscd to " the grace of God, and the gift by gractt" (ver. 15), to "justification by the forgiveness of "many of- fences" (vcr. 16); to the reign of ihe redeemed in eternal life (ver 17); and tj "justification of life" (ver. 18). To all these, the words death (ver. 12, 17), and judgment (ver. 16, 18), stand oppos. d. It cannot be that the tvils involved in the wor 's "death," "judgment," &c. relate simply to teniporul death. The evident meaning is, that the ward ■acaib.,'' us here used by the apostle, refers to the train of evils \. hich have been introduced by sin. Iido>.^s not mean simply temporal death, but that group and collection of woes, includrng temporal death, condemnalion, and exposure to eternal death, which is the co.isequence of transgression. Tnc apostle often uses the word dealh and to die in ihis wide sense. Rom. i. 'd'Z ; vi. 16,31; vii. 5, 10, U, 24 j viii. 2, 6, 13: 2 Cor. xi. 16; viii. 10 : Heb. xi. 14; &.c. The statement which is made in the passage on which the charge of heresy is based, is obvious in its meaning. It was intended to convey the idea that Adam was in the infancy ol society, that he had had no opportunity of observing the etleci ol transgres- sion ; that teKiporal death would be likely to be that which vvotild suggest itself to his mind at the threat- ening ; that there is no e /idence that he was acquaint- ed with all the eli'ects of his sin ; and that the account wiiich is usually given of iiim in the books of theolo- gy is not sustained, by any evidence which is fur- nished in the Bible. This is ciiarged as heresy. If 1 should be asked why this statement was made, I would o.iserve [a. J that it is b. cause it seemed to me to be sustained by the account in the Bible ; and [b.] because the ascription of e.xtraorilinary endow- ments to Adam is so often ituide in theological books, and enters so materially into the systems oiinany wri- ters, as it seems to me wi'hout auth rity. It is indeed a matter of mere specular ioa, having no'hing to do directly with orthodoxy, or heresy ; but I may be al- lowed here to refer to some 'd the older theoloiriral writers in regard to the extraordinary endowmentai of Adam. Morerialtirni.i that " Adam was perlectiy skilled in the sciences, etuecially in astrology, several curious secrets of which he lintl taught his children." According to Josei has. Moreri iidds, "Adam en- graved the ol sjrvaii >"- h ; had made on the course ol tiie stars on two d.flereat tables." '" Cajetan haa 32 APPENDIX. been very much ceasured," says Bayle, " for not al- bwin^ liima perl'ect knovvle(Jge of the planets and the elements." " It is asserted," he adds, " thattliespe- ciilative understanding? of the first man was inlbrmed with all tiiu phiiosopliical and mathematical know- ledge which the human mind is naturally capable of attaining ; and that his practical understandinfif was endued with a consummate ^irudencc in regard to a man's conduct in all thincrs, whether in pubhc or private lile ; and besides this, all the moral sciences, and liberal arts, as rhetoric, poetry, painting, sculp- ture, husbandry, writi.ig, &.c." Suidas says of Adam " that he distinctly knew and clearly explained all the dili'erences of the seeds and plants ; the virtues of the several roots and herbs, and whatever else nature had appointed to every animal for their subsistence, or cure. That he examined all things, and prescribed them their exact rules and bounds. The arts, sci- ences, learnins: both liberal and illiberal ; prophecies, sacrifices, and lustrations ; the written and unwrit- ten laws; the several institutions, and every thing that is necessary and commodious to lif^, all these were his invention." See Bayle Art. Adam. And as a specimen of the ease and conhdence with which men are f'ccws^omef/ to speak of the remarkable en- dowments of Adam, even where the Bible has said nothing, I may be permitted to read an extract on the subject Irom a review of my Notes in the Biblical Repertory, vol. vii., p. 299. In that review, the writer — who is unknown to me— has fell himself at liberty to speak as if he had been familiar with Adam, with hia Uselings, and views, and anticipations, as if it were all perfectly revealed in the Bible, and without any ex- pression or mark oi' hesitancy or doubt. Thus he says " what Adam understood and felt was, that if he transgressed he should incur the disapprobation of God. This was the evil, and the dreadful evil ; the sum and essence of all punishment. He felt that transsrrcssion would suspend his friendly and delight- ful intercourse with God, which was the life of hia soul; that it would separate him from his Maker, which is spiritual death," &c. Now that Adam really felt and understood all this. I am by no means prepa- red to deny, but the question inslanily arises, how came this known to the reviewer ? How did he be- come so intimate with the feelings of Adam ? The familiarity and intimate connection which many men seem to have had with Adam, cannot but be a matter of surprise. The vindication of my statement will be contained ia the following remarks : (1.) The statement which I have made, as far as I knew, accords with the account in the Scriptures, Gen. i. 27, ii. 16, 17, 19, 20. I have not denied to AFFENDIX. 3S Adam the possepion of holineps; I have not denied that he was created in the imii^*iof CJod ; nor liiat he wasc.'idned with the knowledi^f; which wiie rf'(juiKite to qualify him to act asj a moral i.s^ent. Nor does tho charge hifore the Presbytery accuse me ofVuch a de- nial. It accuses nie of denyiii"^ that Adam liad a cer- tain amount of knowltd^e in respect to Iii> relations. And lor any thin? that, app-arssuch a denial in regard to Adam\ appe- tites, and desires, and who are not led by the Spirit of God. Cannot pleane God.— Th^ii is, while ihey are thus in the flesh, while ihey thus pursue the desires of a corr».pt nature, they cannot please God. But this affirms nothing respect- ing ilieir ability to turn from this course, and to puifcue a dif- ferent mode of life. That is a dili'eient question. A child may be obsiinate, proud and disobedient; and while in this slate, it may be affirmed of him, that he cannot please his pa- rent. But whether he might not cease to be obstniate, and become obedient, is a very different inquiry, and the two sub- jects should never be confounded. ♦♦* He [the sinner] is en- gaged in hostility againcl God; ^nd if he does not t.imsclf lorsake it, it will be endless, and involve his soul in all the evils of a persona!, and direct, and eternal warfare with the Lord Almighty. ♦♦* The Holy Spirit is often represented as dwelling in the hearts of Christians ; and the meaning is not that there is a personal or physical indwelling (•[ the Holy Ghost, but that he influences, directs, and gudes Christians, producing metkntss, love, joy, peace, long-suff.rmg, gentle- ness, goodness, &c. The expression to dicell in one, denotes intimacy ot connexion, and means that ihosn things which are the fruits of the Spirit, are produced in the heart." Prof 2, p. 108. '■ We were yet without siren g.k. 'The word here used (asihenoon) is usually applied to those who are sick and fctble, deprived of strength by disease. Matt. xxx. 38; Luke X. 9 ; Acts iv. 9, v. 15. But it is also used in a moral eense to denote inability or feebleness, with regard to any un- dertaking or cl'ity. Here it means that ihey were without strength in regard to the case which the Apostle was consider' ing ; that is, we had no power to devise a schenie ol justifi- cation, to make an atoneinem, or to put away the wrath of GoJ, &,c. Wiiile all hope oi innii's being saved by any plan of his own, was then taken away ; while he was thus lying exposed to divine justice, and dependent on the mere mercy of God ; God provided a plan which met the case, and se- cured his salvation. The remark of the apostle here has re- ference only to the condition of the case before the atonement was made. It dees not p rtain to the question, whether man has sironath to re|ient and believe, now that iha atonemen) is made, which is a very different iiKjuiry." The contrariety of this to the tficinuards, will appeal by re- ference to Con.cliap. vi. -1, ix, 3, 4, x. 1, 2, xvi. In rcsrartl to the passages from the ' Notes,' quoted in proofof tlic dmrgc, 1 remark that it did not seem possihie that thuy should bo iiiisunrlerstuod. Vv'hat- ever may he niy seniiiiirntf on this point, which at aliproper limes and places, I never he-;itiite to avow, vet the passages in question teat li notliing on that APPENDIX. 37 subject. They simply affirm that the expressions ol* Paul oil whicli I am lh{ir*iCOtnt\\cnl'n\g, teach nothirifc one way or tlie other on the subjai of munh' abitity, or inabLlity, aiul this is my dcleiice against the charge. Tlie charge has two couiitf. 1. That 1 teach ihat ■■ uuregencrate men are able to keep the com- mandments, and 2. Tiiat the} arc able lo " cuavert themselves to God." Now in regard to the&e, it \'i remarkable tliat on l\\efirst,\. expressly declar-^ in the Notes that the pasi^agesi in Paul leach nothing on the subject one way or the oiher; and in regard to the second count, it is as remarkublf, that lliere is not the remottsL allusion to the suLJtct of meal's conveit- inp; ththiselves to God. The subject is not even nametl, or relerred to in the remotest degree to my recollection throughout iJie eniire volume. The ques- tion which the Presoytery is to decide is, whether these ciiarges are suolinned by the Notes on the Ro- mans. And my plea here is, that I have expressed no opinion on the subject charged on me, and of course that the charge must be dismissed, it is not a little remarkable that grave and lormal accusations should be brought against a minister ol the gospel on a subject on wliich he e.cpressly declines giving any opinion in the book under consideration. It certainly seems to indicate that there were certain doctrined vvhicti it was deemed desirable to bring into the dis- cussion ; that on certain points there vvi'.s a wish, arising from some cause, that the character oi';i min- ister should be held up to odium for holding ct tain opinions; and the case now before us, ii one striking evidence of what 1 iiave before relerred to, and of what luis given me so much perplexity, the loose, and hasty, and undigested manner in which these charg- es have been brought aijainst my ministerial charac- ter. Of the conduct ot' Di. Juukin in this, 1 have cause lo coaiplain, and do com])laiu that he has false- ly accused me of teaching that '" men are able lo con- vert themselves lo God." That expression, neither in written nor oral discourse, havf; 1 over used ; and it was incumbent on the pro5ecut')r to have alleged the precise expression in proof. Injury has htcn tione by the charge, so far as a gratuitous and vvnjily un- Ibunded charge could do me injury. i\len 1 knov/ have been held in popular rumor to have odvanced Kuch a sentiment; and no small amount of odium has been excited aarainst them. For myself, I have never heard the declaraiion made; and I distinctly declare, that 1 have never taiu'ht it myself And 1 ask whe- ther it is to he permitted in the Presbyteri '.n church ihat one iniaister shall be sullered bravely lo charge another with that of which there is not, even in t/ie alleged proof, the semblance of evidence? Pursuinsr 4 98 APPENDIX. this couree, how easy it would be to ruin the charac- ter of any man ! Allowin;sr this, what man is sale iVotn wholly unlouniied and graiiiilous accusations 7 If it were called lor, 1 slio^iki have no reluctance to engage in a discussion on the subject ol human abili- ty. But the case does not demand or admit it. 1 may just observe, however, that the Conle?sion of Faith ofour church, like the Bible, knows ot no inability in the sinner that does not exist in the will, and which is not therefore moral, and not |)hysical. Its lane^uage is, (Con. Faith, ch. ix. sec. 3, 4,) "Man, by his i'all in- to a state ol sin, hath wholly lost ail ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man being altogether avekse from that which is good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength, to convert himself, or prepare himself thereto." In this statement on the subject of the state of man in regard to conversion,! observe (l.)That it is the forma Btatement of the doctrine of the confession on the sub- ject. Though, therefore, the confession elsewhere epeaks ol tlie sinner's inability, yet it is to this chap- ter, which professedly treats on the subject, that we are to look for the meaning of the term. 2. There is no statement, here nor elsewiierc, of any physical or na- tural inability of the sinner to obey the commands of God. Had such been the intention of the framers ol* the coniession, such a statement would have been ^made. 3. All the inability in the case is traced to the (will. " Man hath lost all ability"— ol what 7 Of the ^ understanding? of his physical powers 7 No, but all (ability of will ; and the eti'fct of this is that he is / AVERSE, i. e. opposed lo iioliness, and this is the reason V why he is not converted lo God. That it was the in- tention of the framers of the confession, to say that the inability spoken of existed in the will, or disposi- ; tion, or heart, alone — that is, that it was a moral and not a natural inability, is manifest. Nothing could be more clearly expressed than this; and with this state- ment I eiuireiy accord, and this I have always held. 4. This accords with the Bible, and with common sense. There are two kinds of inability — one arising from the want of physical povver, the other from a want of inclination or will. The inability of a man lo remove a inmniain is one thing, and an inability to do right arising from the strong love of sin is another. The one excuses, the other does not. The latter is that which is to be charged on men; for [a] it is that only which is referred to in the Bible. The Scriptures when they account for the reason why men do not be- come Christians, trace it to sih, and to di.-^i'iclination, John V, 40, 44. Particular sins are specified, the love of the world, pride, passion, lust, &.c. [b] They ad- APPENDIX. 39 dress men as subject to no other inability. They com- mand men to choose &c., to make themi?clves new heartP, all o( which suppose that man has power to obey. Deuf. xxx;19: Josh, xxiv ; 15: Jobxxxiv; 4: Luke x; 42: Ezek. xxxiii ; 1 1 : xviii ; 31, 32. [<] Ifnot, man is excusable tor noloheyin,5i. This isamatrer of common sense. The dipiinclion is made by all men, by all parents, teachers, lawgivers, &c. [d] The con- trary doctrine tends to produce the neglect of religion, and security in impenitence and sin. IIDr. J. chargres me with error in this, he holds the contrary, that if, 'that unrej^enerate men are not able lo keep tlie com- mandments ; that there is no ability of any kind to yield obedience; that in no conceivablie sense has man any power to repent, to believe, and to love God, or to love his fellow men ; that there is an inability on these sub- jects, which does not lie in the disposition, the heart, or the will, but which lies in somethins: that is inde- jiendent of the will, and which is therefore of a phy- sical nature; that it is the same kind ol inability which a man should labor under if he were commanded to drain the ocean or to lilt a mountain, or to create a world, or to raise the dead ; and that therefore a com- mand to do one would be as reasonable as to do the other.' And this is the same as to say, that God has gciven men commands which in no sense they are able to obey. Now to say this, is the same as to charge God with tyranny. What was it that made the go- vernment ol' Pharaoh tyrannical but laying tasks on the Israelites which they had no power in any sense to obey, comTianding them to make bricks without straw? And what will be the etiect of preaching this doctrine? Is it not evident, that it will be to convince, men that the irovernment of God is one of tyranny? Will it not be to confirm them in sin? Why should man make an effort when he has no power of any kind to move ? Is it not so obviously in the face of the common sense of men — so much at variance with the ereat original mipressions of truth, made on their minds, that they will reject it, and reject the system which professes to hold it, with abhorrence? Would Dr. Junkin dare to preach it to my people, or to any other people? or if he did, would he expect that men would be roused by it to repent, and turn to God? Is it not known that the tendency of it every where is to annihilate a sense of responsibility, and free agency, and to make revivals of religion cease? [e] The Bi- ble no wfiere requires more of men than they can per- form. Thus our Savior says that the sum of the Jaw and the prophets consists in this, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind ; and thy neighbor as thyself.'' Luke x ; 27. In iO AVPENDIX. this passfisrc the requirement is exprppply limited (o the cnpacity of ihf^ piibject. All t' e heart, the pon', the etrenjjth, i;^ required; and this is the whol^ofthe requirement. It doe? not ly nature, that he will always remain a sinner unless he is aided from on hi^h. No man ever was, or ever will be, it isjmy full conviction, awakened, convinced.or convert- ed, but by the agency of the Holy Gbost, an agency which is necJAirto arrest his attention ; to alarm hia fears; to disjjose him to inquiry and lo prayer; and to convert his heart to God. No man becomes a Christian, or goes to heaven, without being disposed by the Holy Ghost, and without being broui^ht to eter- nal life from the commencement to tiie close of the work, by the sovereign mercy of God. and by the agency of his spirit. No miin overdid or will repent, except an influenced by the Spirit ; so that in all ihis work it is true as a fact — as a historical verity, in which sense 1 understand the pass>ige, that "no n;an can come to the Savior, except the Father which hath sent him draw iiim." Jolm vi; 44. As, however, the charges alleged against me are for doctrines taught in the "Notes on the Romans," I demand that the sentence in this case be solely on the senlimenls in that book; and as in that book 1 have tau.^^lit nothing on the subject, either one way or the other, the charge is not sustained ; and the Presbytery cannot find me guilty. The only semblance of an argument here must be, that I have removed certain texts which have been usually supposed to prove the doctrine of the sinner's inabiliiy, iroin the category of proof-texts on that sub- ject. But assuredly, if the interpretation of those texts is correct, that is not to be regarded as an of- fence. It cannot be assumed that a certain interpre- tation of a text is orthodoxy, and that to doubt it is heresy ; or that a man by subscribing the Conlession ol Faith is precluded from an examination of the Bi- ble. If the inlerpretulion of i hose texts is erroneous, the error can be stated and corrected; but because I have ventured to give a diti'erent interpretation of those texts Irom that which Dr. Junkin supposes to be the coriect one, or which has been commonly held to be correct, I am not, therelbre, to be changed with de- nying the doctrine of the Confession. To make this perlectly plain, it is only necessary to apply it to other cases. Ttie text in 1 John v ; 7: has been applied in * See the trial of Lyman Beecher, D. D., where this is abun- daatly proved. 4* 4? APPENDIX.. all a^es of the church, by the maj'^iiiy of the ortho- dox, 10 prove the doclriiie of ihc Triiiiiy. Boi if ii man should express a d -ubl in regard to ihe gtriuiue- nessortlial texi, is Jie therelbre to be churijed wiih t'iie deiiiiil of this doc'rine? Tlie pass^aj^es in Jer. xvii ; 9. and in Ercl. vii ; 29, h;i vo been usually applied to prove the doctrine of total dej. -nvity. But if a nmn should venture to give a diH'ereni interpretation to these texts, and to show that they are not pertinent us prool", is he therelore to be charged with denying the doctrine of depravity ? Yet ihis ie the principle on which this charge is brought; and on this principle, the orthodoxy of no men in fhe land who examines the Bi')le for himself, can remain long unsuspected; •and on this prinnple I could convict ol heresy the most illustrious man for learning and piety that ever adorn- ed the church or the world. Charge IV. The fourfh charge is in the following words: " That faith i.a an act of the mind, and not a principle; and »a itself imputed ky rigfitcousness." Proof 1, p. 94. " Abraham believed God." In Jhe Hebrevr, "Abrahatii believed Jehurah." Tht sen.-ij is siibstaniially the same, as the arijumcni turns on the ast of believing. Thefaitli which Abraha"''! exercised was, that his poaterity should be like the stars of heaven in number. This promise was made to him wlun he had no child, and of course when he bad no prospect of such a posierity. See the strength and nature of this faith furih-r illustrated in verses 16—21. The reason why it was counted to him for righteousness was, that it was such a strong, direct and unwavering act of confidence in the promise uf God. And it. — The woid " it" here evidently re- fers to the act of believing, h does noi nfer to the righicou.'j- ness of another— of God or of the Messiah ; but the discus- sion is solely ofthes/ro?i5'ac; of Abraham's faith, which in .tome sense was counted to him for risihteousnes:, In what sense this was, is explained dir(H:ily after. All that is material to remark here is, that the act of Abraham, the strong confidence of his mind in the promises ol God, his unwavering assurance that what God had rromikei he would perform, was received for righteousjif . The same thuig is ex|"essed more fully in ver. 18 -22. When, then fore, it is said the rij^liieousnet-s of Christ is accounted or imputed to us; when it is said that his meriis are transferred and reckoned as ours; wiiaiever may be the truth of the doctrine, it cannot be defended by tliU- pt-s- sage of Scripture. Faiih is always an act of the mind. Ilia not a created essence which is placed within the mind. It i.** not a substance created independently of the (•oul, and placed within it by Almighty power. It is uoi a principle, lor iha expr{:fs\on, a prih'.ii>le of fuilh, h as unmeaning as a pri;t- ciple of joy, or a princip e of soriow, or a principle of reniurse. God promises, and the man believes, and this is the whole of it. Beyond the mental operation, there is nothing in the case, and tlie word is siiictly liniiied to suih an act of the mind throughout the Bible, 'i'here is not a place that can be ad- duced where the word nicans any thing else than an act of APPENDIX. 43 flie niinr?, cxt-rciscd in relation lo somr' oFj -ct, or Bomc pro- mine, or ihn aiciiing, or dffclaration ol some otlicr hciiig." I>. 95. " IleiJiark (I) Tliat it is evidently nut intruded that tho :ict of l)i'l;ijving, on the part of Ahraham, was the miritorivua fjrouiid (if ac-ccptancc ; lor then it would have been a work, •'"aith was as much his own act, as any act of obeilicnce to the law. (2) rhe design of tiie Apostle was to sh'jw that by the laxo, or by ipoiks. man could not be j'istified. Chap. iii. 28, iv. 2. (3) Pallli was not thai which the law n. qjircd. Ii de- manded comiilete and perfect obLdieiice ; and if am n va3 justified by faith, it was in some other icat/, titan by the law. (4) As the law did not demand this, [laitii "confidence in *.>od" s;:e page 30;] and as fuiili was somcihiiii? difftrent from the demand of the law, S'>if a man were justifi -d by tliaf, it was on a principle altoijethcr diflL'reni froii justification by works. It was not by personal merit. It was not by com- plying with the law. It was in a mode eniireiy diflercnt." How contrary this to the Confession of Faiil* is evident. See Ciiap. xiv. 11. Lar. Cat. 72, 73. This cliapiie consist? of three counf.«, or specifica- tions, which it is ni'.cefsary to dispose ot'iii their onirr. The rirst is, that " i'lith is an net of the mind." The proof is in p. 94. in -eg.ird to this portion of the charg-e, I admit that 1 tneant to teacii, iis charited, that '■ faith IS always an act ol'the mind.'' And the maatiin^ is so obvious, tiuit it t^c.irce requires elucida- tion. I desij:n^d to teacli that it was not a created essence inde|)endent of the soul ; and that there was nolhiiii^ i/i faith which could not be appropriately de- scribed l>y tlie mind rtccichi!^, and re.-e, thai to believe implies an operation of mind ; or the mind act- ing in relntion to certain truths. The views which I iiTve expressed in the specification are, therefore, freciseiy in accordance with the Confession of Faith. 3.] It would be easy to sho>v that this accords with tlie sentiments of all those who h^ive usually keen re- g rd-id as orthodox. One testimony, bowevcr, must cuttice. Itislromihe Biblic.ii K< pertory of Prince- ton, where the sentiment which I have advanced, is advanceil in explicit terms. In speaking ol the propo- sition that " taith is an act of the mind, and nothing but an act of the mind," the conductors of ihat^work APPENDIX. 45 I Kny : " We should be eorry to think that the Apsem- \ My had denounced this as a ' peKtilerous error,' for we conf s.s our.selves iruiliy of thi.s opinion. We can- not conceive what laiih is hut llie act ol'liclicvir'^; it i3 one of the njiniilV'Staiions ol lh.\i j)n')icip/f oi holi- T'.eas wiiicli vvehelieve lo he the rendi oi' the Spirit's opera! i >n on 1 he heart." Vol. vii. 480. The second count in the charge is^ tliat " faifh is not ft principle." hi the jiapeage referred to in the noieH as prool, tiii.-? ?.s" expressly stated as niy beiii f tliavliiiili i.s not. (I prinriulc. By this, I meant to adirni thai it was not any ihinj!^ irulrpcitdi^nt of the aciinjr of tlie mind; uny c.rea ed or conceivable e.^^si-nce ofiiie soul tiiat was lyin^ back oftheact ol'believinjr. Dy iiring- ing this chirj^e, Dr. Junkin cvidenily Gupiio.-es that faith is nut an act of the mind bui is a principle ; ihat it does not consist in the mind's actino:, or in any men- tal operation, but in somethinj^ di.siinct from all ^uch operations, and independent of them. Inoiher \vor(i."=, that the (nind does nol act in believing, but ihai there is somiMhing/M llie mind indci)etident nf any siiili act- in.? that is 10 he called faith. As he hn.^not told us in his charixes wiiat he means by this, it is impossible for nie to know how to rtieet the accusation. l! il is meant t-hat ftiih is such an independent, created essence that has no connection wirb an act ol'ihe mind, it was my purpose to deny it. But if it he mcani. ihat_ the Chris- tian, the man who believe.=^ — is a man of principle ; that he has certain creat principles of coi duct, by which he is rer^ulated, it was not o'y purpose tn deny it, but to affirm it. [ understand by "' a jirinciphj" of action, nol a created and irresponsible essence of the . soul, a part of the physical structure ol (he min(l, but an adopted rule ol life ; a purpose or deiermiiaiion of the mind ro act in a certain way ; a fixed risnjuiion to do lislit whatever may be the result ; the creat rules and laws wiiich a man adoius, and by which he in- tends to reiru'ate his conduct. In this sense, it doea not diHer from a firm and established purpose of ihe mind itself; a purpose which becomes strengthened by ev('ry snccessive decision of the nn'nd ; which ri- paps iato iuihit by frequent repetition ; atid which may thus be called the habitual hi-nt or dispn.'^ilidv of the Koul. As intended to describe the hadivs: pmposp^ the estal)ii>hed preference and tinbit of the man's mind, it was not my intention to deny that there ore such principles of action, and that the Christinn is thus a man of principle. But in this case, we speak of the man as a mf prwciple ; we do not inrend to describe \\w. art of the mind as a principle. We. say tiiat a man who will act ri^ht in the face of oppo- sition and p"rsecution. is a man of principle ; but we do not describe his acting rifjht, the operation of his mind, as a principle. We do noi speak of a prmciple 46 APPENDIX. of joy, a prinriple o( sorrow, &c., but we speak of the ffrccit principles or leading deterjiiinatiotit; by which a man regulates his eoruluct. When a child obeys a parent, we do not speak of the act of obeying: us a ■princiiile ; but we may speak of the son aa acting ac- cording to ()rinciple in this. VV hen Howard exer- cised corni)assiou on the sutifring prisoners in Europe, we do not s])eak of his sell-dfuial and sacrifices as a principle; but we sjieak of ihe man as intiuenced by principles of action which he luid adopted, and from which he had never swerved. So of the Christian. The great leading, deeply cherished, principle of hia fOul is 10 ot)ey Gocl. It becomes the habitual bent and disposition of his mind ; an inclination or disposition, for the furmation and clierishing of which he is re- sponsible — an inclination, or preference, or disposi- tion which lies back of any specific act of believing, just because it is the deeply-cherished preference of the man's soul ; the purpose which he has formed thus to live, and thus to act. This principle is strengthen- ed by action ; fortified by repealed exercise; confirm- ed by every new act of resisting temptation; until it becomes the /a7C of our renewed nature ; the indomi- table jirinciple of attachment to God and his cause. My vindication from this count in the charge is (1.) That the confession of faith does not any where affirm that this faith is a principle, which it is incumbent on Dr. J. to show is atfimied ; and (2.) Th;it the whole Buhject is one that jiertaius simply to the phiiosoj)hy of ruind. ami not to theology. It would be ab-- proper for V)i\ Junkin to allege an error in my views per- taining to niemonj, or ima^inuliun, or the powers of mind in regard to abslrdclivn or analysis, as to charge me with heresy tor dill'ering from him in regard to a mental operation on the subject of faith. The tnird specification in this charge ie, that I have taught that "faith itself is imputed for righteous- ness." In regard to this, I observe [1.] that so far as I am rxble to understand the Apostle Paul, tins is iiis very languaire and sense. Rom. iv. 3. "Abraham be- lieved God, and it was (-ouriied unto him, (or imputed elogisthe] fur righteousness." The word " it" ia our Iransl.ilion, 1 understand as referring unques- li'-nabiy to the act of Abraham's mind, since bin Ktron/ act ot' faith was the subject and the only sub- ject of discussion. That it siiould refer to any thmg else, seemed to nie to be a departure from all the proper 1 ivv.s of interpretation. If I have been in aa error in supposing that the Apostle meant to refer to Abrabam'.s fiiih, or to his believing, I am not unwil- ling to tie corrected. If my interpn lation is a correct one, thi-n it is not a little remarkable that I am accu- sed of heresy that renders void Dr. Junkin's title to ArPENOix. 47 heaven, for teaching a doctrine in the express vjordg of the Apostle Pant, and liiat those won.'s are se- riously^ charircd with containing dangerous er.'or. My defence here is, that 1 coincide wiili the Aposlle Paul in heliei' on this subject ; and that the doctrine which I iiave expressed is in his very iiingurig^e. [2.] I have not laughi tliat either Abraham's aci of be- lievinjj, or liie act of Ihitli ol" any other man, is ihe meritorious ground of acceptance with God. In the very passage now under consideration, tiiis has been disclaimed. In reference to this we may remark [1.] Tiiat it is evidently not intended that the act of believ- ing on the part of Abraham was the vieritorious ground of acceptance. * * ♦ * [5.] By being jus- tified by faith, it is meant, that we are treated as righteous ; that we are forgiven ; that we are admit- ted to the favor of God, and treated as his li-iends. * ♦ * * It is in no sense a matter of merit on our part, and thus s'ands disliniruished entirely irom justilica- tion by works, or conformi'.y to the law. From begin- ning to end it is, so far as we arc co.icerned. a matter of grace. The merit b]i which all this is obtaitud is the vrirk of the Lord Jt^sus Christ, through ivhom this plan is proposed, and by xohose atonement alone God can consistently pardon and treat as rip;hteous those who are themselves tini^odly." The doctrine which I have defended is, that the merits of the Lord Jesus are the only ground oi"the justification of a sin- ner before God ; and that in ihis, faith i? ?i mere instru- ment, a s//2e^aano?2 in the work ofjustificaiicn, This I have taught in as explicit, language as possible. Yet I did not suppose that the appointment of faith in this work was arbitrary. I regarded the want oflaiihin God in the earth as the great crowning evil — produ- cing the same sad eifeets under the divine administra- tion, which the want of confidence in a father, a wife, aneighbor, acommercial house does in a community ; and that the grand desider.-itum in a plan of salvation was to restore to an alienated world cnvfidtncr. inthe existence,t'ie ^overnvifnt, and the perftclioni of God. This Abraham evinced; audit was such a slate of mind as lurnished the proper evidence of reconcilia- tion, and he was reckoned as in fact a justified man. His faith in God was so sirong as to give an unerring indicati.m thaljie was recovered, and was reckoned to him " for righteousness," or. "in order to justifica- tion," just as faiih is now. The same principle of the divine administration was eviued in his case as in ours; acceptance with God not on the ground of faiih as a meiitorious cause, but because his laiih evinced a state of mind to whicli God liad promised ac- ceptance. In his case, as in all others, the ground of acceptance with God, according to my unwavering 48 APPENDIX. view, is the anticipated or the arcomplished merit of the tcrcaialoiiiii^ sacridcc, the Son ol God. Tlie siate- ment ol' this view, will orcur more at len^tlj in another Kart ol' Miis delence. My vimiicaiion here is that 1 ave not tauijiit that the act of laiih is impcttd as the meriiorious eround of acceptance wiih God, but the contrary. 1 may here remark, that jitrhaps a part orihe ol)ji ciion to my glafement will be removed by advertiuir 10 a coi reciion which 1 have mad»^ in my Notes. P. 95. In the comment on the phrase '"for rii;hleon?ness," Rom.iv. 3, instead of " as ri^zhteous- nefs" tile corrected ediiion reads " in ohdek to jus- tificatio.n'' ; wiiich more accurately expreeses my meuniiiy, ai'.d avoids an ambiguity in the exprrssioii which was ijclbre employed. And also hy a change which has been made in the Notes on p. 94. Instead ol'readiiij^ — "Beyond the mental operation, tiiere ia nolhiiiii in the case; and the word is siricily hmited to such an act oC the mind ilironorhont the Bible. There is not a place that can be adduced where tho word means any thing else than an act of the mind, exercised in relation to some object, or some jiromiee, or lhreateiiini,s or declaration of some other lieiiig" ; the lollowing passage has been substituted in the four til ediiion, viz.: — '' While the wor.\ ftnfh is some- times used to denote relif^inus doclruie, or the system that is to be btlieved [Acts vi. 7, xv. 9, Rom. i. 5, x. S, xvi. 26, E|)h. iii. 17, iv. 5, 1. Tim. ii. 7, &c.]. yet when it is used to denote tiiat which is required ol man, it always denotes an actinf^ of the mind." Charge V. The fifth charge is in the ibllowing words, viz.: — Denying "Tliat Gud entered into covenant with Adam constitulina him a f'edcrni or cuvi nant head, and representative to ail hii natural dtscenriniits." Proof 1. p. ill. " From these remarks it is clear that tha apostle does hoI refer to the man here from any iuea that there was any pariicular covenant transactio.n with him ; but tint he means to speak of it iti the usual popular sense ; referring to hnn asbtiiigilic fountain of all the wues that sia has introduced into the world." Proof 2. p. 128. "The most common (explanation) haa been that Adam was the representaiive of the race; that ho was a covenant htad, and that lu.s sin was impu id lo his pos- terity, and that they were held li-ible to puiiibiiincni ior it, as if they had cononiiled it iheinstlves. But to this there ara great and insuperable ubjeeiions. (1.) There is not one word of it in the Cible. Niiiher tho terns rei)r!.'.«eniniive, covenant, or impute are ti»«r a.ip'ied to the iiansaciion in the sacr- d scriptures. (2.) It is a mere phi- losophical theory." Proofs, p. 115. As quoted under charge II. Proof 4. p. 120, 121. " A comparison is also instituted b»- APPENDIX. 49 tv/een Adam and Christ in 1 Cor. xv. 22—25. TUc reason is, not that Adam was tlie representative or federal head of the human race, about whicti the apoatle says noihing, and which is not even implied, but that he was ihe first of the race; he was the fountain, the head, the father; and the con- sequences of that first art introducing sin into the world, could be seen every where. The words reprcscntalive and federal head are never applied to Adam in tlie Bible. The reason is, that the word representative imp\ics an idea which could not have existed in the case— s avowed. With these views 1 was licensed. With the same views I was ordained ; and these views, 1 h?ive reason to think, were al- ways known to the fathers and brethren who introduced me into the sacred otfice. And these views, I have every reason to suppose, are held by a very lar^re portion of the ministers and members of the Presbyterian church. 1 have not supposed that, in them, I was advancing any thinsj peculiar ; nor do I now suppose it. Whether it be Irom early preju- dice ; or Ironi not correctly understanding the doc- trine in ijuestion ; or whether the language conveys to my mind ideas ditferent froai those conveyed to ethers; or whether it be from want of apprehension of the true doctrine of the Bible, yet 1 Irankly con- fess that I have always prelerred to express my views of the rei,;tion of Adam to his posterity in lan- guage diiferent from that which has been conunnnly employed on the subject. The reasons of this. 1 shall state soon. Before doing that, it may be proper, in few words, to slate what 1 have (seen accustomed to hold and to teach. My own belief is, that while I have chosen to m ike use of ditferent words, yet that I have always held to the facts and essential doc- trines which are intended to be slated in the Confes- sion ol Faith, and which are taught in the Bible. The iUcts tiien, in the case, which I have supposed to be true, are briefly these : [1.] That Adam was created holy; apprised of his relations to God, as his crtature and as a moral agent; capable of obeying a law; yet free to fall. Gen. i. 27. [2.] That a simple law was given him, designed to operate as a test, by wiiicliil should be known wheth- er he would obty or rebel. — Gen. ii. 16, 17. [3. J That this law was adapted to ilie condition of the man — simple, plain, easy to be obeyed ; r.nd fitted to give iiuni.in nature a trial in circumstances as fa- vorable as ijossihie. [4.] That its violation exposed him to the first threatened pennity — to the penalty as he had under- stood it; and to ah the penal collateral woes which transgression might involve in its train — involving, as subsequent developments have showed, the loss of Gtnl's; lavor ; his displeasure evinced on earth, in the toil, ;uid cares, and sweat, and sickness and death et man ; in the subjeciion of the soul to hereditary APPENDIX. 51 depravity and the curse ; und to the pains of hell for- ever. [5 ] That Adam was the head of the race ; that he ^was I lie loiiniain of being' ; that he was the orij^in of /'nociety ; and that luiinan nature was so litr tried in ^hiin, ill fcivorahle circiiniiiianc.es, tliat it may he said /he was on trial not for himself alone, hot lor his i)os- ! terity, inasmuch as his fall would atfoct them, and , involve ihem in ruin. 16] That Ijy a constitution ofdivine appointment — wliich the trainers of our Confesc?ion call " a cove- nant made with Adam, as a public person, not lor himself only, but ior his posterity" — it was so ar- ranged that liis fall should involve his posterity in ruin, without any exception, save only tiie Messiah; that th.it apostacy secured as a certain result, the tact that ail his posterity would be sinners and would die. [7.] That his posterity are subjected, in conse- qnencenf this act of Adam, to the same train of ills us if they had themstlces persovalhj been the trans- frressor — that is, that his posterity are " indubitably affected." I use now the lani^uai a result, that his children will be beggared, wretched, and ruined ; e. g. they are subject to a train of ills on these subjects the same in regard to their character, property, peace, and perhaps health, asiflhey, not their father, had been intemperate. So of the trai- tor, the murderer, the pirate, and especially when such a man is at the head ola community, or a race. This I regard as an i7/Ms/r«Yj07i of the general ar- rangement in regard to social liabilities, and as fully vindicating the principles of the divine administra- tion from all the objections which can be urged against it. I may here be permitted to say, that \ APPENDIX. 53 have never declared nor believed, ' that we have no more to do with the bin of Adatn than with the ein of any other ntan.' In most important respects, I re- {rard our relation to him as peculiar. While the ilealint^e of God wiih him and his posterity can be vindicated on the peneral principles ol' his adminis- rraiion, as they now occur, and while all the objec- tions which have been tiiade to it can thus be remov- fd, it is still my belief that there is vmch that is pecu- liar in his relation to uj— much that does not occur in the case of a traitor, a drunkard, a pirate. O/ze pecu- liarity, and a very material one, is, that the sin of Adam secured us a certain result, the sin of all his l)osterity. The sin ol" a drunken lather, pirate, mur- derer, does not. The consequence may follow in their cases, and does often ; but in the ca^e of Adam, it not only maij, but it does inevitably follow always. Adam was ilie head or root of all ; and his act had this tremendous pre-eminence, that it involved all in ruin, as ifall had been on trial lor themselves, and uJl had fallen. The lUcts occurring under God's administration, I have supposed could be delended on the same princi- l>le. 1 liave not supposed thai God had dilferent principles in regard to facts ol a similar nature. My belief has been that the same principle th it would vin- dicate the one class, would vindicate also the other ; and that the same weapons by whicli I can repel the attacks of men on ihe existing order oi' things, Avould. avail to repel the attacks of the infidel on the state- ment in the Bible in regard to the primeval condition of man, and the organization oi" society. I have loved to contemplate the government of God as one ; to find the elements of the sameadministraiion everj wiiere , and to find the demonstration that one part could be sustained by the argument from the analogy if acknowledged lacts in all the divine arrangements. i have lelt a reluciance, therefore, lo suppose that I F^as to lake a new and independent set of principles, when approaching the facts that are stated in the 13ible, and have found nothing that relieved my diffi- culty by the use ol ihe terms " covenant-head." and "federal relaiion." The facts in the case I have l»een willing lo leave, as all others are, to be fully un- derstood, perhaps, only in the clearer light which thall attend all these developements in a future world. These are the views which I have always held, and intended to express on this subject, so perpl< xing, and eo'full of controversy. If any expressions occur in the Notes on the Romans which seem to convey any ditl'erent views, tliey do not express the idea clearly which I intended to convey, and 1 profess my willing- IJCBB to correct them accordingly, if ihey arespecin- 5* 5i APPENDIX. ed. The aimple facts in tl\e rase I holJ as fhry are held in the Bible, and in the Conles.sion of Faiih. [9.] The principles on which I have supposed these facta may all be vindicated, 1 have stated in my Notes, p. 129. The reasons why T have not chosen to use the terms in relation to thie^ transaction which are often employed, I shall now proceed, in few words, frankly to state. 1. In regard to the term "covenant," and "cove- nant or federal head." [1.] The terms are never applied to the transaction with Adam in the Bible. No place has ever been ad- duced where the Hebrew Beriih, the Greek diatheke, or auntheke, or the English term covenant, is applied in the Scriptures to this transaction. Now, I would not altogether reject the use of words which are not found in the Bible, for there are important advan- tages in the use of the terms Trinity, Person, &c. as applied to the divine nature, and of total depravity as applied to man, &c. But assuredly a reluctance to employ these terms, provided the Scripture doctrine be retained, cannot be charged as heresy. On this f round, 1 put my defence ; and maintain that while hold the substantial fticts which the Conles- sion of Faith designs to state, 1 am not charge- able with gross heresy, for not employing a word that is not Ibund in this connexion in the Bible. [2.J The words, to omit the use ol vvhicli is here charged as heresy, would convey no idea to the class of persons for whom 1 wrote. My aim was to benefit mamly the young; and I did not suppose that it would contribute materially to their inlbrniation, to be told that Adam was the " tederal head" of his posteri- ty. After the numberless times which I have heard^ these terms used, and have Ibund them in books of theology, 1 acknowledge that the idea which they convey to me has never been as clear and exj)licit as could be conveyed by oiher terms. It is language re- mote from common lile; not used in reference to the common transactions of men ; and very imperlectly adapted to the common mind. [3.] The terms were not used in the passages in the Kpistle to the Ro- mans, on v/hich I was commenting. I did riOt I'eel rayself called on, therelbre, to make use of terms which the apostle had not used, and which were not necessary to give a fair and full idea to his menning. [4.] The use of the terms " covenant," and " federal headship," applied to Adam, is remote from the usual /signification of the words. They naturally imp y the j idea of equality between the parties, the notion cf a ^compact where either of the parties should beat ^ liberty to rfec/ins the agreemeni. But it is evident that there could be no such equality between God and {APPENDIX. 55 man; and tliouffh the term " covenant'' is often, in the Bible, api)iie(l to transactions bctwef-n God and men, yet it i.-? evidently in a metaphoncal eense. The Hi'.brew word, in accordance wiih a usage in all languages, means properly a compnct, league, usrree- ment, netween man and man [7\iylnr , Gesenius, &c.] ; a compact " which puts- their atliiirs into a new state" [Taylor's Heh. Con. J; and implies the idea of equality, or liberty to reject tthe terms, &c. It oc- curs some hundreds of times in the Old Testament, but not in a single instance, it is believed, in regard ,'■- .^ • "j Ao the transaction with Adam. It is o/ifcn applied, , r ,' I indeed, to transactions between God and man [See '.v *.,( 1 Taylor] ; and when so used, it is evidently equiva- / lent to law, or constilulion ; and had the term been \ applied to the transaction with Adam, it would have been as proper as its use in the other transactions with men which are mentioned. The simple observ- ation in my ' Notes' is, that the f/°rm is not used in regard to the transaction in the Bible ; and whatever may he the bearing of the remark, such is the un- questionable fact. ]5.] To many minds, the term conveys an erroneous idea. It has been made the basis of false doctrines in regard to the sui)ject of the imputation of Adam's sin. It coiittitufes, in fact, the argument by which many defend their peculiar views of the imputation of the sin of Adam on his posterity, on the supposition of a personal identity between him and his descendants. And there are many men, per- haps, who hold that doctrine, who would be them- selves surprised to learn how entirely their views are based on the supposition of a covenant with Adam of which the Bible says nothing. As it was not my intention to teach that doctrine, it did not appear de- sirable to retain the use of language which seemed to lead to it. [6. So far as 1 have examined the standards, the phrase " federal or covenant head" is not to be ibund in the Confession of Faith, or in the Catechisms of the Presbyterian church. Not to use them, therefore, cannot be charged as heresy. [7.] The Confes^sion of Faith evidently means by the term " covenant, ^^ a. constitution, or law. Thus in ch. xix. . § 1, it says, " God gave to Adam &. i.A\v, as a cove- { nant of works by which he bound him, and all his pos- j terily to personal, entire, e.sact, and perpetual obe- \ dience," &c. And again, §2: " Thi- law, alter his ' fall continued to be a perfect rule ol righteousness." &c. And again, §3: "Beside this law, commonly f, called moral, God was pleased," (Sec. In these places, J it is evident that the framers of the Confession did < not intend to use the term "covenant" in its strict ' and proper sense, but as synonymous with law, and as expressive of the same thing as the " moral law" which was given to Adam as a moral agent ; and in 56 ArrHNDix. this sense, it denotee the law, or conslihilion under which inun was placed. My answiT, therefore, is, [I.J that the tfrm coven int is not apphtd to tiie trans- action in tiie Bibitt — which is all that 1 adirined ; and [2.] that i hold the suits atilial doctrine on the sub- ject — liie same Ktaicment oi' facts about the ellect of Adam's sin on his posterity which occurs in the Con- fession of Faiih. 2. In resrard to the other term — "representative'* — I remark in grcneral, that irs use wat, avoided lor the eame reasons which have led me to preter not to use the terms " covenant" and " federal head." My spe- cific defence a:|aiiist this charge, however, is this, (t/) The terms representative and representation, are not to be lou.id in the Bible as aj^phcable to this transaction. In expressing mv views of this transac- tion, I have su|h word, and si^nifieth one that is set in the turn, slt'ad, or place of another, — \vho.':e warrant from liis master is ponit loco suo talem attornatum suum, which seitelh in his own turn or place such a man to be his attor- ney.'' Ciikf\7ipon Littleton, iii. p. 352. A number ol the house ol commons, or of the house of rtpre- sentatives is the representative of his constiiuente. An ambassador is the representative of his govern- ment or nation abroad. In all these, and in all the other casps of agency i\\e obvious and natuial idea is, that there has been a deleg ition of authority or power to act in the case from ihe person or persons ia behalf of whom the representative acts. Where APPENDIX. 5T there is a departure from this, or where ilie agent exceeds his instruciions, (he represeriUdive charac- ter o( his doings ics destroyed, and becomes void. ''If the agent does what he is antliofiiced to do. and Bomethina? more, it will be good as lar as lie was au- thorized to fjo, and the exc/ei-s only would he void." II. Kent, p. 19. " The princip I cannoi be bound if the ap^ent exceeds his |)ower." Ibid C20. 'Jhis prin- ciple in regard to agency, that the power to act is lounded on " contract either express or icnplied," is abundantly stated in the books that, proless to treat on the subject. I beg leave parti-ularly to read from Kent's commentaries, vol. ii. p. 613, 614, 615, 616, 617: "Agency is lounded upon a contract either express or implieii, by which one of the parties confides to the other the management of some busine^is, to be transacted in his name, or on his account, and by which the other assumes to do the business, and to render an account of it. The autiiority of the agent may be created by deed or writiriii, or verbally with- out writing ; and for the ordinary ' urposes of busi- ness or commerce, the latter is sufficient. The agen- cy may be inferred fiom the relation of the parties, and the nature of the employment, without proof of any express appointment. It is sufficient that there, f be satisfactory evidence that the principal tmpLoyed \ the agent, arid that the agent undertaok the trust. { The extent of ihe authority of an agent will some- ; times be varied or extended on the ground of implied (' authority, according to the pressure of circunistan- ■ cee, connected with the business with which he is entrusted. "The agency must be antecedently given, or sub- sequently adopted ; and in the latter case there must be some act oi recognition. But an acquiescence in the assumed agency of another, when the acts of the agent are brought to the knowledge of the piimipal, is equivalent to an express authority. Thus, where a person sent his servant to a shop-keeper for lioods upon credit, and paid for ihem afterwards, and sent the same servant again to the same place for goods, and with money to pay for them, and the servant em- bezzled till! cash, the master was held answerable for the goods, for he had given credit to his servant^ by adopting his former act. It is the prior conduct of the principal that afl'ords just ground to infer a con- tinuance of the agency in tluit particular business; and the rule is founded on obvious principles of jus- tice and policy." It has been said indeed that a representative may- be appointed to act lor a people, very I'ew of whom concur in his appointment. Thus it is said that " Un- der the British constitution, not a twenty-fifth part uf the people have the right of sutlrage, and yet the 58 APPENDIX. parli:\mfiU is regarded as rcpresenliiig tlie whole na- tion, and their acts binding on all. in France the proportion is elill legs. And in our owncouniry not more than one-sixth of (he people have a voice in the choice of Ihe representatives of the people." Bih. Rep. vii. 333. 3b'4. To Ihis, the re|)ly is obvious. Co7i- grnt, cuHtrdCt ci' some kind is essential to the idea of representation in Enjriand, P'rance, and America alike. Tlie moment a ni;in should claim the rieht of a -ting as reprf senlative without {he proper I'tirni of consent, and contract, his claim would be rpj( cled at once. Furtiier. it is in fact, in ihese cases a roniract not only wilh the parly who may appoint, or (he small number of voters, but it is the consent of the nation who have adopted the constitution that it .*/*«// fie thus eoveriied. FiVery man who chooses to live un- der such a iToveriiment trives his conncvt to this ar- ranirement ; and riiouirh he may have his preferences in regard to individuals, yet he consents that the man who shall be chosen in accordance with the provi- sions of the constitution, shall be/J^^• representative, and consents to be bound by his acts. The moment this doctrine is denied, the idea of representation ceases. If he does not covupiit to be bound by his acts, thoujrh he miirht individu;\lly iirefer another, one of two thinffs would follwiv either he must withdraw from the nation and place himsell beyond its jurisdic- tion, or he must be ree-.irded as rearing the standard of rebellion, and defy its laws. There is a more remote sense in which the word reptesentdtiee is sometimes used, though in a loose and unauthorized manner. It is where it is applied to a g-uardian in law to manage the atikirs of a mi- nor. [Bib. Hep. vii. 334.] But in this case the idea of Vfprtsentation ceases, and it is believed that the term is not applied to the transaction in the hooks wliich treat on the subject. The idea of guardian- ship, not of representation, is that which is conveyed an(i retained in the appointment. Tiie court of chan- cery acting lor the country takes the place ol the natu- ral parent, to do what the natural parent would do, ant] makes the appointment, and as the true idea in relation to m/ parent's acting is not that he is my representative, so is the true idea of a guardian. See II. Kent, 219. Wlio uould think of calling his /o^/jer liis representative ? In what laws, or language of men, is this term used in this relation? In testamen- tary guardianship, where a guardian is appointed by the will ot a father, Ihe euardian might be called the representative of the liiiher, though this language is not in (act used in the courts, but in no conceivable sense as the representative oflhe child. See II Kent 22J. A tffful representative is never an ancestor, a parent, or a guardian, but au hdr is in law called a APPENDIX. 59 leff.ll representative, as he, by a fiction of the old Ro- man law is siip|)os('.(l to represent the pfison of the ancestor, where it was held, as Kent says, " hy a Btranjje feature of law, that the lieir wati tlie same per.son as the ancestor." IV". Kent 279. Ariectcd I may be with i.he loss of character, properly, antiiiy ol all his posterity ; but to call either the one or the other a representative, is a violation of one of the essential principles of such a representation; it stands apart I'rorn the common use of language; from the conmion sense of men ; and from an original, deeply fixed prin- ciple in the human mind ; and in all law this consent or appointment is essential to all proper ideas of agen-. cy, or representation. With great propriety, therefore, and in entire ac- cordance with all the modes of speech and thinking among men, has the Bible — and the Confession of Faitli also — abstained Irom the use of the term repre- sentative as applied to the transaction with Adam. How my neglecting to employ such a term can be construed as heresy, is a question of difficult solution. Our Conlession of Faith wasilrawn up by men ad- 1 mirably skilled in the use of language. The terms / which are employed are, usually at least, employed f with great precision, and with adniirable guards ^ against misconstruction. The men who IV mied it 1 were profoundly acquainted with the English unirue, I and express^■d their ideas with great accurac/. That > the term is found in books of theology is undeniable; but tlie only inquiry ot any moment here is, whether it is to be found in tlie Bible, or the Confession of Faith. The use of the term in the books of theology, 1 have ventured to call a mere " philosjophical speculation." Notes, p. 128. Whether in thus urging the propriety of using language as it is found in common lil'e, in the lexicons, in books of law, the Bilde, and the Confes- sion ot Faith, I have acted erroneously, remains for the Presbytery to judge. 60 APPENDIX. Such was the defence in refrnrd to this charge which [I made before the Presbytery. In that defence, 1 judged it proper, as my trial was to be on the " Notes on the Iluinans" as they were at first pubhslied, to state the reasons wliy ihe sialemenis were made which I did make. On tiiat defence the Presbytery acquiiteil me of holding atiy dangerous error, or here- sy ; or, in other vvords, judged that 1 had not depart- ed materially from the 'system of doctrine taughi in the holy Scripiurcs." Since that time, however, I have made some changes in the exceptionable passa- ges in the Notes on the Romans, which 1 trust will remove all cause o( oH'ence, and produce peace. Those changes I have made for reasons which I have stated in the prefaci' to the corrected edition, and which are briefly i hese : 1. Some ol the expressions in the ibrmer editions had been misunderstood; some 1 have since seen to hive been ambiguous; and some have given oH'ence. 1 have found that without abandoning any principle of interpretation, or any views of doctrine, which 1 wished lo express, I could change them in a manner that would more clearly convey my meaning. 2. A sincere desire to do all in my power to allay ex- citement, and to produce peace, and restore confidence in the churches, has led to the wish to make my work as little exceptionable as possible. Where brethren have been olfended; where the expressions Avere ambiguous, or where a dilferent phraseology would remove the cause of offence, I have lelt it my duty and priviieffe to make a change, and have tlone it. 3. The trial before the Presbytery showed exactly where changes were desirable, il ihey could be made. It made me acquainted with the precise nature and extent of the objections to the book. Belore this trial I could not have made them so well: and after the charges were brought, and while the trial was pend- ing, 1 felt that it would appear iis if I were driven to an abandonment ol principle, if I should make the al- terations. When the trial was complete, and my Presbytery had acquitted me, I then i'eli. that it was a proper time for me to endeavor to allay the excite- ment, and to filence tJie voice of alarm. The. motives which led to those changes, were, a sincere de- sire lo do all in loy power to promote peace, and to make my work better. Both I thought might he done, and the attempt has been sincerely n)ade, with an ex- pectation that the alterations might be satisiactory to all. In the changes which have been made on this sub- iect, I desire it may be distinctly adverted to, that I lave omitted, 1. Ail that has been excepted against, in regard to the use of the words " covenant head," and " representative." In place of the siateaients on this subject vvhicii have given offence, other state- Al'PKNDl^C. 61 tlientB have been introduced, which accord, bo fur as I know, wilh the doctrines e^ery where now held, which express views ihat I I ave always enlertain- ed, but, wliich, 1 admit, were n Jt fully expressed in the former editions. 2. Tlie exception which was taken to the expression in the Confession of Kaitii, " they tinned in him, "[p. H7j has been removed, and in the place of that, the followinj? phraseology has been substituted, viz. [p. 117.] "As his posterity had not then an existence, they could not commit actual trans- .*?ression. Sin is the transirregsion of tiie law by a moral ix^ent; nnd as the interpretalioji 'because all have sinned' meets the argunumt of the apostle, and as the Greek favors that certainly as rauck as it does the other, ii is to be preferred." On this subject, it is Jioped that all cause of ottence is taken away. And as that was the only expression in the Confession of Faith to which exception was for molly taken in the Notes on tlie Romans, the change which is now made Jias removed all cause of otfence on this siibjcct. 3. A similar change has been made in pp. 120, 121, on which the fifth charge is partly based, where it was denied that Adam " was the federal head, or repre- sentative of the race.*' Instead o( this statement, the following has been substituted, in which that de- nial is wholly omiited, viz.: pp. 12u, 121. " The rea- . son is, that Adam was the first of the race; he was (the fountain, the head, the father; and the conse- 7quences of that first act could be seen every where. |By a divine constitution the race was so connected jwitli him that it was made certain, that if he lell, all /would come into the world with a nature depraved, [ and subject to calamity and death, and would be treat- Sed as if fallen, and his sin would thus spread crime, and wo, and death, every where. The evil effects ot Hhe apostacy were every where seen ; and the object of the Apostle was to show that the plan of salvation was adapted to meet and more than countervail 'he evil ellecls of the fall. He argued, &c." 4. In regard to the relation which Adam sustained to his posterity, a very iinportant change has been made in this edition. The 128th page, in which the excep:ionable state- ments were made, on Vv'hich the charge is based, has been entirely cancelled, and the following substituted in its place, viz. : "Tlie following remarks may express the doctrines which are established by this much-contested and difficult passage. I. Adam was created holy; capa- ble of obeying law ; yet free to fall. 2. A law was given him adapted to his condition — simple, plain, easy to be obeyed, and fitted to give human nature a trial in circumstances as favorable as possible. 3. Its violation exposed him to the threatened penalty as 6 62 APPENDIX. he had understood it, and to all the collateral woes which it might carry in its train — involving, as sub- sequent developenients showed, the loss ofGod'e fa- vor; his displeasure; evinced in man's toil, and sweat, and sickness, and death ; in hereditary depravity, and the curse, and tlie pains ot'heil forever. 4. Adam was the head of the ract- ; he was the fountain of bein;sr ; •■and human nature was so far tried in him tiiat it may ( be said he was on trial noi for himself alone., but for [his posterity, inasmuch as his lail would involve SthcHi in ruin. Many have chosen to call this a cove- /nant, and to speak of him as a lederal head; and if ( the above account is the idea involved in these terms, the explanation is not exceptionable. As the wora covenant, however, is not applied in the transaction in the Bible, and as it is liable to be misunderstood, others prefer to speak of it as a /aw given to Adam, and as a divine consi.iiution under which he was pla- ced. 5. His posterity are, in consequence of his sin, subjected tc llie same train of ills as if they hud been personally t'le transo;ressor9. Not that they are re- garded as personally ill-deserving, or criminal for his sin. God reckons thui^s as they are, and not falsely, [see Note ch. iv. 3,] and his iniputations are all ac- cording to trutli. He regarded Adam as standing at the head of tlie race; and regards and treats all his posterity us coming into the world subject to pain, anddeat;;, and depravity, as a consequence of his^ ain. See Note, p. V.IZ. This is the Scriptural idea of imputation; and this is what has been commonly meant when it has been said that " the guilt of his first sin — not ike sin itself — "is imputed to his pos- terity."' 6. There is something antecedent to the , moral action of his posterity, and growing out of the relation which they sustain to him, whicli makes it [Certain that they will sin as soon as they begin to act as moral agents. What this is we may not be able to say; but we may be certain that it is not physical 1 depravity, or any created essence of the soul, or any . thing which prevents the hrst act of sin from being i voluntary. This hereditary tendency lo sin h.is 'leen ''usually called " Original Sin;" and this the apostle evidently teaches. 7. As an infant comes into ihe world with a certainty that he will sin as soon as he becomes a moral ajjent here, there is the same cer- tainty that if he were removed to eternity he would sin there also unless he were changed. There is, therefore, need of the blood of the atonement and of the agency ol the Holy Ghost, that an infimt maj be saved. 8. The/at/s here stated accord with all the analogy in the moral government of God. The drunk- ard secures as a result commonly that his liimily will be reduced to beggary, want, and woe. A pirate, or APPENDIX. 63 a traitor will whelm not himpeif only, but his family in ruin. Such ia the great law or constitution on which society is now organized ; and we are not to be surprised that the same principle occurred in the primary organization of human ad'airs. 9. As this is the fact every where, the analogy di.^arnie all objec- tions which have bceti made against the Scri|)tural statements of the elfer is of the pin of Adam. If just now, it was just thev. If it exists now, it existed then. These passages express my real senlimcnts; and are now a part of the book. So far as I know, they express the doctrine of the Bible; and tlie main or essential doctrine of Calvinism as set forth in the Confession of Faith, and as understood by (he great mass of ministers in the Presbyterian church. All that can be reasonably asked of a man who has in any manner expressed himself so as lo be misapprehend- ed, or so as to give oHence, is that the cause of the offence should be removed. Desirous of doing this, and of stating more clearly what I !iave always be- lieved, I have made the alterations noticed above, and which I believe will be satisfttctory to the great mass of ministers and members of the churches. I may just remark, that those alterations were made before the meeting of th« Synod, and that this state- ment was designed to constitute a part of my defence.] Charge VI. The sixth charge is, " Thai I deny that the first sin of Adam is impu'-od to his posterity." f: Proof 1. p. 10. " A melancholy instance of this [substituting theory for fact] we have in the account which the apostle gives (ch. V.) about the effect of the sin of Adam. The simple fact is stated that that sin was followed by the sin and ruin of all his posterity. Vet he ofTers no explanation of the fact. He leaves it as indubitable; and as not demanding an ex- planation in his argument, perhaps as not r Jmitting it. This 13 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 sm of Adam is imputed, or set over bv aa arbitrary arrangement 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 argu- ment to siate a cause why all died, and not to slate that rnen sinned iri, 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 existc ice then in any sense, they could not then sin. What idea is conveyed to men of common understand- ing, by the expression, 'they sinned in him?' The meaning of the expression, therefore, clearly, is, because all have sin- ned all die." 61 APPENDIX. "I understand it, tlierefore, as referring to the fact, that men sin, sin in. their ownpcrsoris — sin themselves — bs nideod, how can the) sin in any other way? — and that therefore they die." Proo' 3. p. 119. " Tiie diflorence contemplated, Rom. .x. 14, is not that Adam was an, actual einner, and that ihci/ liad sin- ned only by impulation. For (1). The expression to sin by imputation, is unintelligihle and conveys no idea. (2) The apostle makes no such distinction and conveys no such idea. (3) His very object is diliereut. It is to show that they wcra fctual sinners ; tlial they irrinsgrcssid law; and the proof of this is that llicy died. (4.) It is utterly absurd to suppose Qthat mm from the time ot Adam to JMoscs were sinners onlrf T.by imputation." Proof 4. p. 119. "Death reigned; and this proves that they were sinners. If it should be said that the death of infants would prove that they were sinners also, 1 answer— (a) That this was an inference which the apostle does not draw, and for which he is not res^ponsible. li is not aCirmcd by him. (b) If it did refer to infants, whal would it prove? Not that the sin of Adam was imputed, but that ihey were personally guilty and transgressors. For this is tlje only point to which the argument tend*. The apoi-tle says not one 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 philosophy introduced to explain difficulties; but whether true or false ; whether tlse theory explains or em- barrasses the subject, it is not needful here to inquire. (31 The very expression here is against the supposition that iniants are intended,-and thai the sin of AJani is imputed to them. The doctrine of impulation has been, that infants were per- Bonally guilty of Adam's sin ; that they ■ sinned in him ;' that ; there was a personal identity consiitutt'd between them and ; Adam, (see F/lwards on original sin) ; a id that therefore his \tin was thdr-i as really and truly as if committed by them- Welve . Yet here the apostle says that those of whom he was (speaking had noi sinned 'after the similitude of Adam's trans- gression. But if ihedocirine of imputation be true, ii is cer- /tain that they not only had sinned after the similitude of '^ his transaressiijn, but had sinned the very identical sin. It was precisely like him ; it was the very thing itself: and they ^were answerable for thai very sin as their own. This doc- / trine, therefore, cannot be intended here." Proof 5. p. 121. "Nor have we a riyhr to oMW7/ie tiiat this [vcr. 151 teaches the doctrine of the imputation of the sin tf Adam to his poGteri!y. For (I) the apostle says nothing of it. (2) That doctrine is nothing but an effort lo 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 introducinir an add lional d fliculty. 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 addition- al difficulty still n;ore tierplexiug, to ascertuia how such a doctrine can po?silly be just." Proofs, p. 127. ''The word is in no instance used to ex- press the idea of imputing that to one which bclonf^s to another. It here either means, that this was by a constitution (if divine APPENDIX. 65 appointment that they in fact became sinners, or simply de- clares they were so in fact. There is not the slightest inti- mation that It was by imputation." Proof 7. p. 128. As quoted under V. p. 10. How inconsistent all this is with the Standards, will be seen in Con. Chap. VI. iii. iv. Lar. Cat. 22, 25. Sh. Cat. 18. My general reply to this charge is, that it is no where taught in the Coiifes.-ion of Faith that "the first ein of Adam" was " imputed to his ])oslerity ;" or that his sin at all was imputed. The doctrine ia there stated to be that " the guilt of this ein was im- puted, and the same death in sia and corrupted na- ture conveyed to all their posterity descending,' froin them by ordinary generation." Conf. of Faith ch. vi. ^ 3. And Lar. Cat. q. 25. " The sintuiness of that estate whereinto man liill, consisteth in the GuiLTof Adam's first sin," &c. And Sh. Cat. q. 18. This may appear to be a minute distinction, but it is a real - one, au accurate one, and a very material one. To limimt ■milself to a man is one thing ; to impute the [obligation to punishment, is another thing. The lat- / ter is the doctrine of the standards; the former is ^ not. And the fact that the denial of the former, is charged on me as a departure from the standards, shews, with other things, the exceedingly loose and ill-digested manner in which these charges have been ilrawn up. But in order to meet this charge more fully, it is necessary for me to explain a little more at length what I actually meant to deny in the portions of my books which are referred to. In order to this, it is proper to observe that there have been three princi- pal theories defended in regard to the relation whidi we sustain to Adam. The lirst is, that wh'ch may be denominated as the (doctrine of tlie abler Calvinistic writers. It consists in the statement that the posterity of Adam are not condemned for his sin as being the sin of another /charged on them, but as truly and properly theirs ; ]that they are subject to condemnation not as in them- / selves innocent beings made guilty by imputation, (but as being guilty, or ill-deserving, and thus con- demned, for a sin which ^Aey are reckoned to have committed in their head and representative ; that they are regarded as having in fact committed that sin, land as deservedly lo be punished for it. According ]to tills view, God's imputations are according to {truth, and the posterity of Adam are condemned be- y cause they c/ese/'re to be condemned; and are per- iBonally blameworthy for Adam's sin as being one 'with him, so that it is in fact their own. In order to ex- plain and defend this, the advocates of this doctrine resorted to the theory that there is a personal identi- ty constituted between Adam and his posterity, in the 6* 66 APPENDIX. same way as God has " arbitrarily" [Edwards] con- stituted an identity between A. wUen a child, and A. ■when forty years ol a;?e ; l>y uhich A. at I'oriy ia re- ppontible lor tlie acts ol" A. at twelve ; Ix-'cause, hav- ing been constituted the same person he deserves to be BO lield as responsible. In like manner, it was held, that by an " arbitrary" arran^^ement, or constituiion, an identity was constituted between Adam and his posterity, so that they are to be held responsible for his acts. The peculim ity ol' this theory, in contra^ distinction from that which I shall next mention is, that men are condemned not for the sin of another, but for a sin which is truly and properly theirs ; that they are blarncworthy for the sin of Ad;im ; that they are subjected to punishmtat for it on the same prin- ciple fs the murderer of yesterday is punished to day for the crinie; that God s imputations are therefore etriclly according to truth ; that he reckons things as they are; and adjudges those to be guilty only who ^ are guilty. In this tlioory, therefore, when the older / writers speak of impntativn, they mean that God im- \ putes to men only what properly belongs to them; '' when they say we arc guilt;^ of Adam's sin, they mean that we are under obligation to puni -hment strictly for antecedent crime mvI ill-desert; and when they spe;ik of j)unishmont, thty me n those penal ills which are the proper expression of the indignation of .■ a moral governor against personal demerit and cf inie. Every thing in this theory is consistent, and carried out, and language is used iu its obvious and acknow- ledged sense. V It has been denied that this doctrine was that of the older Calvinisis. fSee Bib. Rep. v^. 327—331 ; ii. 43G — 439, &c.] I admit that there ia%onie contusion ol language in the older writers, and that perhaps then- statements are not always consistent. My object is to show, by extracts, that this was a theory that was held. I begin with E hvards, who in a profound treatise on original sin, may be presumed to have exatnined the statements of his predecfessors. His doctrine is in the following words: " I think it would go far towards directing us to the more clear c inception and right statement of tliic? afl'air, v/ere \: steadily to bear this in mind: That God in ever; .lep of Ids proceeding with Adam, in relation to ti-if covenant or constitution established with. him, louhcd on his po.sierity as being onewit't ^ him. And though he dealt more immediately with , Adam, it yet was as the head of the whole body, and £ thereof of the whole tree; and in his proceedings / with him he dealt with all the branches as if they /\. Jiad been then existing in their root. Hi APPENDIX. 67 "From wliicli it. will fullow, (luil lioih guilt, or cx- posednoss lo |uiriisliiiieMl,;uRl .ilso (Ifpr.iviiy oflieart, caine U(joii Ail.un's i)o.e1 at the same time he also asserts : it properly to belong to each individual, proprium \7inicnigue." "And therefore," he continues, "infants ^themselves, as they bring their condemnation into Jthe world \sith them, are rendered obnoxiuus to pun- J ishment by their own sinfuhiess, nut by the siiifulness l^of another y Idem. Stapler, also lays down the doctrine of original sin iin the same manner. " God, in imputing this sin, finds the whole moral person (the human race) al- ready a sinner, and not merely constituted as such." Polem. Theo. ch. xvi. 63. \ Boston [Body of Divinity, vol. 1, p. 308,] says, — "Adam's sin is imputed to us because it is ours. For God doth not reckon a thing to be ours which is not so ; for God's justice doih not punish men lor a Bin which is in no wuy theirs. As, ii a person that has the plirigue infect others, they die by their own plague and not by that of another." •' Turretin held the same doctrine— that we are con- idemncdfor his sin because it is properly 07 they are punished. "' We have been frepuently ask- ed by young men, if we have ever repented ol Adam's sin, and have uniforinly, to their obvious discomfit, answered in the negative. Knowing the sense in which the question was i)ut, it would have confirmed- heir misconceptions, to have answered otherwise. We have never so appropri;^ted that sin as to recog- nise it as properly ann personally our own, or as tho ground ot personal i ei^aorsc. Wc have always con- sidered this question as unreasonable as it would be to ask us, if we ever felt sell approbation and compla- cency for llie imputed righteousness of Christ." 9. It is a doctrine vvl'.ich will, if preached, greatly embarrass a man's mirustry ; produce ease in sin j hinder the progress of the gospel ; and disgast raer» of common understfindinir vvih cJiristianity. Let a minister proclaim that his hearers are one with Adam, and then common sense will revolt at it. Lej them be told that they are personally ill-deservitv^ APPENDIX. 77 for his conduct, committed six ihousand years before they were born, and that they acted then, and the infidel will eniih*. Let them be told that God char- ges on them a sin wiiicli they did not commit, and they will say that his diarges are confessedly not ac- cording totrutii,and that it is absurd ihattliey should be held answerable lor a crime which they know they did not conmiiL, and lor wliich they are told in the same bre;>.tli, ihey oiii^ht not to repent. No man would preach this in a revival ol' religion ; no one to an anxious sinner, when he should ask what he must do to be saved. Our Savior never taught it to his disciples; nor did Peter, or Paul, proclaim it, when men trembled under the consciousness of their own crimes, and when they asked what they must do to be saved. 1 add, (10.) That the doctrine, as so stated, has been long abandoned by a very large portion of the most abl'i, pious, and useful ministers in this country. It is vvel! known that it has not been held for many years eiiUer among the orthodox in New England,^ or by a vory consideriible portion of the ministers of the Preshyterian church. 1 may be permitted here to adduce the testimony of a man of deservedly high reputation; a man never suspected of a departure from ortiiodoxy ; and a man whose authority is high, not only in New England, but in the Presbyterian church — tlieRev.Dr. vVoods, of Andover. Hesays: " Tlie iuipulaiion of sUlain''s sin to his posterity, in (■any sense which those words naturally and properly 1 convey, is a doctrine which we do not believe. In /Scripture, the word impute signifies uniformly, if I ■mistake not, charging or reckoning to a man that which is his own attribute or act. Every attempt which has been made to prove that God ever iin- putes to man any sinful disposition or act, which is not strictly his own, has, in my judgment, failed of ^success." — Letters to Unitarians, pp. 44, 45. In sta- "ting, therefore, my dissent from this doctrine, I did not suppose that I was departing from the Bible ; from the sentiments of the great mass of orthodox divines; / or from the essential doctrines of the Confession of I Faith. For the Conies.sion is explicit. It does not eay that the first sin of Adam is charged to his poste- rity, but that the GUILT of titat sin is so charged on them. And understanding the word ^uilt as an obli- gation to suffer evils which Vv^ere designed to express the Divine displeasure against the sin, i have not de- nied it, and d<> not deny it. The only ither form of doctrine relating to the transaction with Adam, which it is needful to no- tice, is that which 1 have stated under the previous 'charge,' and which it was my design to teach. It t9 APPENDIX. consists in the admission of the simple faclst, as they occur, and in the simple st.itement of the facts in tlie Bible, vviiiiout an attempt to explain them by either tlie theory o^ ■personal oneness with Adam, or ol" charging on m:in that wliich in no sense Froperiy belongs lohim. litiien it be asked whetlier hold that the sin ot Adam is imputed to his poster- ity? 1 answer, tiuit it by the doctrine it be meant that there was a persona! identity between Adam and his posterity, so tiiat his sin became truly and properly theirs, 1 do not hold it; and, in rejeclin;? it. 1 concur with all, or nearly all, tlie ministers ot" the present^ day. If this were so, then the'sin of the posterity of Aaam woidd bo actual, and not oriiiin;il; it would be personal, and not a derived corrupted nature. Again: If by imputation it be meant liiat the per- sonal qualities of Adam were trani-ferred, or set over to hia posterity; or transfued into the essence of the Boul; 1 answer, that I do not hold it. The theory is impossible, and the whole church denies any such transfer. Any transfer of personal qualities is utter- ly impossible, and any such doctrine is absurd. If it be asked, whether men are ill-deserving and blameworthy, for the sin of Adani ; that they are so regarded by God, and so tri-ated, I answer, that I do not believe it ; and in denying it, I concur with the most eminent and orthodox divines in the land; with the Bible, the Confession of Faith, and with common sense. Ifi be asked, then, v/bether I rejnct the doctrine of imputation, I answer no. No doctrine is more com- mon in the Scriptures; and kw words are more fre- quently used than the word impute. Butl hold it as [ a great principle, that is never to be departed from, S and which will shape all a man's views of the divine ' government, that all God's lmputa tigns are accor- , DING TO truth, and none of them unjust or false. He does not reckon that I stretched lortii my hand in Paradise, and plucked and ate the lorbidden fruit, for it was not so; and to reckon it so, would be contrary to the historical fact. But Godreckons, or imputes, things just as lliey are. Step by step, and point by point, he imputes things just as they occur. He reckoned [I ] that Adam was pure and holy when cre- ated; [2. J that he was at the head of the race; and on trial lor human nature; [3.] that if he lell, all would fall ; [4.] that he actually fell, and brought death into the world and all our wo; [5.] that his lall, according to the wise law, or const ituiinn of things which he had ordained, would involve all his posteri- ty in ruin ; [6.] that his posterity are, in consequence ofliissin, born with a nature corrupt, depraved, and prone to sin; [7.] that their first moral acts, and all APPENDIX. 79 their moral acts, in this world or in any other, would be wron:f, iitilesd ihey are renewed ; [8 ] llial man siiould be subjected to a curc;e, and the eartii be eub- jected to a cur.se, and a loiij^ train of woet< be intro- duced a.sa consc'iuence of" the sin liom wliich nothin;? would deliver but an atonement ; 19.J that all this was necessary as a proper expression ot his hatred o( the transijression of Adam ; as evincing his dis- pleasure in the most marked and decided manner in which it was possible; and that these are inflictions ofa righteous lawgiver, descending on men accord- ing to an arrangement wiiicli is wise, and wliich mif^ht have resulted in theeternalleliciryofihe great society of which Adam was the head and lather. In all this God reckons things just as they are, and as ihey ought to be reckoned ; and all his imputations are according to truth. In such a reckoning, or im- putation, I assuredly believe. I may add, thai I have always intended to reject the doctrine of the Pela- gians and Socinians, and wish now to be understood as rejecting them — that men sin only by imitation, and example. On this subject it would be easy to quote largely from my book, and the extracts already re- ferred to are satisfactory. Much has been gained by the discussion on this point during the i'ew years past. It is now conceded en all hands, that it is not to be helil or taught by any class ol theologians, either (1.) . that men are to blmne, or are to be esteemed blame- ( worthy, or ill-deserving, for the sin of Adam ; and I (2.) as a consequence, that they are not to be culled ( on to repent for this sin. In all the statements which i are to be made on this subject, let these points be con- I ceded and kept constantly in view, and all controver- j sy will cease. All that the new school brethren have been struggling lor, is, the doctrine that men are not to be represented as to blame, or as ill-desei'ving, for a sin committed long before they were born, and that they are not to be called on to repent of it. With all the statements of these brethren respecting the/«c^if in the case — the exposure to sin, aud death, ai.d ca- llamity, and wo, in consequence of that sin, they (agree; and, with this understanding, they can labor and act together in harmony and in love. My delence, under this charge, is, (1.) That the Confession of Faith nowhere says, either that the "first SIN of Adam," or any other sin of Adam, was imputed to his posterity, 'f heframersol this confes- sijn used language accurately, and definitely. Had they intended to have conveyed that doctrine, that language would have been used. Buf their l.inguage id definite, and clear. They say that the "guilt of his sin was imputed." Though this diHerence may appear to be small, yet it is as wide as is coBceiva- £0 APPENDIX. ble. To impute a sin to a man which he never com- miited, isone ihiii;?; to impute the guilt of that sin, ihiit is, an obli^^ation or exposfddess to judicial suHer- , insr on account ol'il, i^j another thing. The latter i»- I the doctrine of our Confession, and oJ'the Bible; the (former is nowhere tau! designed to exhibit God's abhorrence of sin, then I have not denied it; but have tau-rht it. That all the sutl'erings to which the posterity of Adam are subjected, in coiisciiuence oi' his sii>, are designed as evilsof a judiciid nature, intended to set i'urth his ab- horrence of the crime, I have no doubt. When the family of Achan was destroyed lor his sin, [ have no doubt that it was intended to exhibit the abhorrence ■- which God h;ui ofiliedeed. When the tiimily ol the drunkard sutler for the sin of iheir ialiier, 1 have no doubt that it is the design of God lo express his abhor- rence in this way of the oll'ence, and to mi'ke ihisaf- lecting appeal to all fathers, to deter them Irotu the crime. vVhen the projjerty ol the traitor is confis- cated, and his blood attainted, and his finiily reduced to poverty and disgrace, 1 have no doulil that it is ail done that the law may express its al)horre:ice of the crime of treason. So lar, it is a judicial indiction; not regarding the sufferers as blameworthy — except the traitor himsell — but makir-.g use of the " social liabil- ities," where other means could not be resorted to, to \ express the deep sense of the crinic, and to deter i from its commission. As this is the only sense in ! which a posterity can be said to be "guilty" of the / Clime of an ancestor, it must be so under.-ilood in the I Confession of Faith. This doctrine, I have never de- ' nied. My only objection has ever been to the use of the woru '' gitill in common discourse, on the ground^ that it is usually understooo to convey the sense of blameworlliiiuss, or ill-deserl. In regard to this charge, the following alterations l>ave been made in the lourlh edition of the Notes on \hi Romans : APPENDIX. 81 P. 121,!?0fnn(l col. line 4tli from the l)Ollom, iiigtetid ol 'For to siiy lliat 1 mim iriiilly ofiiiioihcr in vvliich I had no ae Calvinists, and as the apostle expressly says that liiey had not sinned after the siniiliiude of Adam's transgression, it cannot be intended here. Charsre HI. Tho seventh charge is that I deny " that mankind are puilty i. e. liable to punishment on account of the sin of Adam." Proof 1. p. 123. "There is no reason to believe that they nre condemned to eternal death, or held to be guilty nt'liis eiu, witliuui jjuiiii-iputiun of iheir own, or wiihoul personal sin, any more than there is that they are approved by the work of Christ, or held to be personally deserving, without etiibracing his olTer, and receiving him as a Saviour." 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 eiiher means that this was by a constitution o/ divine appointment that ihcy in fact beeume sinners, or simply de- clares that they were so in fact. There is not the slightest intimation thai it was by imputation. The whole scope of the argument is, moreov(r, against this; for the obj. ct of the apostle is to show not that they were charged with the sin of another, but that they were in fact sinners 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 inercy, so it follows that those who are condenmed, are not condemned for the sin of another without their own concurrence, nor unless they per- sonally deserve it. Sinners. — Transgressors ; those who deserve to be punished. It does not mean those who are condemned for the sin of another; but those who are violators of the law of God. All who are condemned are sinners. They are not innocent per- 6ons condemned for the crime of another. Men may be in- volved in the emscgucnccs of the sine of others without being 82 APPENDIX. to blame. The consequences of the crimes of a murderer, a drunkard, a pirate, may pass over from tliem, and affect thousands, and whelm them in ruin. Bui this does not prove that they are blame worlh>." Proof 3. p. 123. '"Various attempts have been made to ex- plain this. The most common has been that Adam was the representriive of the race; that he was a covenant head, and thai his s'ui was imputed to his posterity, and that they were held liable to punisnmeril for it as if they had cominilied it themselves. But to this there are great and insuptrable objec- tions. *♦♦ (3) It explains nothing. The diflicuity still re- mains. Il is certainly as difhcull to see how, in a just admi- Kistratioii, the sins of the guilty should be charged on the innocent, as to contempldte simply the universal fad that the conduct of one man may involve his family in ihe consequen- ces. (1) It adds anuther difficulty to the subject. Iinotoiily explains nothing, removes no perplexity, but it com.jels us at once to ask the question, how can this be just ? How can it be riifhi 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 ncted long before they had an exist- ence, and of whose ".ci they had no consciousness, and in which they had no participation V " How can it bo right" for a person to advance such doc- trines, who ha? professed to believe the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church? • Kead the fol- lowing passages and then answer. Con. VI. lii. vi. Lar. Cat. 25. 27. Sh. Cai. 18, 19. After the lull exaniiaaliun which I have eubmilted of the preceding charges, it is not necessary tu occupy much time on this. Probably the main facts in the case, in relation to the etiects of thf transgression of Adam on his posterity, would not constitute a point of ditlerence between Dr. Junkin and myself. Our dillerence here relates to terms; and it is idle to waste words in a mere logomachy. Dr. Junkin liolds that we are ' liable to punishment,' on account of the sin of Adam. It is of importance, therofore, that there should be here a correct expla- nati'jn of terms. W he means by the phrase that mankind come into the world with a certainty that they will sin when they become moral agents, I have not denie-- ing guilt and punishment, are used in any other sense. Tliere is no place where it is aflirmed that men are punished for the sins of another ; and were there, it would be such a departure from the common use of language, and from the obvious principle of common justice, as to neutralize no small part of all the proofs that could be brought for )he truth ol a divine revela- tion. I appeal particularly to the doctrine laid down inEze. xviii. 3. 4. 19. 20, as in accordance with all our views jof justice, and as expressly disclaiming the idea ol inflicting punishment on men for the sins of their ancestors. Thus the Latin reus and reutus retain "4 86 APPENDIS^. the idea of a debt which is due, and which a defed- danl is justly bound to pay ; or oi ^uilt or criminality, which deserve to be punished, and which is bo ad- judged in law. Thus in the New Testament the word enochos guilty, retains the idea of binding, or obligation enechomai to punishment. U occurs ten /times. When (Math. xxvi. 66.) the Jews said " he is (guilty of death,'' they meant to say that he deserved \todie; that they had found him criminal lor blas- phemy (v. 65) ; and that therefore he deserved ac- cording to their law to be put to death. They did not intend to express simply an obligation to suffer that which he had not deserved, but to declare in the strongest terms possible that he deserved to die When our Savior, in Mark iii. 29, says of him that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost that "he hath now forgiveness, but is in danf^er of eternal damnation enochos est aioniou kriseoe, he did not not mean to say that he was bound to a punishment which he did not personally deserve, but that for a criminality in the case, he would be justly hable to that punishment. The same sense occurs in 1 Cor. xi. 27 : " Shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," i. e. their conduct at the Lord's table, in the case specified, would be so blameworthy as to consti- tute the crime of despising his body. See also Math. V. 21, 22 ; Mark xiv. 64 ; Heb. ii. 15 ; James ii. 10. — In the same sense is the word used by the Ixx. who employ the term enochos, guilty, for the translation of dom and domini, and in the sense of deserving punishment, in Ex. xxii. 3; Lev. xx. 9, 11. 12, 13, 16, 27; Num. xxxv. 27; Deut. xix. 10; and in the same sense in Jos. ii. 19; Ex. xxxiv. 7; Num. xiv. 18, xxxv. 31, &c. The Scripture use of the word, therefore, is established. - 4. The old Calvinistic writers used the word in the ) same sense as denoting a liability to punishment for personal offence, and not for the sin of another. They saw the common sense, and Scripture use, of lan- guage; they saw the absurdity of speaking oi guilt, where there was no criminality, and oi punishment, where there had been no personal offence, and they therefore adopted the theory of our oneness, or per- sonal identity with Adam, making his sin strictly and properly ours, and predicating the doctrine that we are exposed to punishment on account of it in that doctrine. Their language was consistent with these views, and though their views were erroneous [I, about such an identity with Adam, yet their lan- guage is in accordance with common sense and the Bible. The refinement of modern times seems not to \have occurred to them, to deny that the sin is oura, that we are ill-deserving, and yet to talk of our guilt for the crime of another ; and our liablenett to APPENDIX. 87 jmnishment — for a sin which is not our«. My objec- tion, therefore, to the language in question, is, that the mere fragments of a system are retained, with- out their consistency ; and that thus language is torn from its proper and acknowledged meaning. There was the beauty of consistency in the architecture of ancient frowning castles, hoary and dark as they were — for the work was in keeping ; hut here we have pieces of the wainscoting, and balustrades, and frowning towers, which men insist on atiachingj to modern houses, and with which to grace Corinthian capitals and columns. We have language divested of its proper signification, and in denance of all the well known usages of men in all times. That this charge is not unfounded — that the older writers used the words guilt and punishment as ba^ed upon commonaTrty always, and as implying an obli- fation to suTie^r/or that, I shall now proceed to prove, or the passages, I am indebted to the Biblical Re- f)ertory, and shall take cases which are adduced there or the very opposite purpose. (Vol. ii. p. 440.) Tur- retin (Tom. i. p. 654,) says, " Reatus thcologiee dici- tur obligatio ad poenam ex peccato. Guilt, among theologians, is denned to be obligation to punishment on account of sin.''' Here the fact that it is from sin, and according to it, is expressly stated, in accordance with all that! have said. Owen says, (On Justifica- tion, p. 280,) " Guilt in Scripture is the respect or SIN unto Ike sanction of the law whereby the sinner becomes obnoxious unto punishment. Again: "The guilt of it [sin] is nothing but its respect unto punish- ment from the sanction of the law." Again : (On Justification, p. 280,) he says, " there can be no obli- gation to punishment, where there is no desert of punishment." Again: "The guilt of sin is its de- sert of punishmenL And where is not this, there can be no punishment properly so called." — On Jus, p. 280.— Christian Spect. vol. iii. p. 307. So Turretin says, " The justice of God does not inflict punish- , MENT, except on him that deserves it," So Ridgely i says, (vol. ii. p. 119, "Guilt is an obligation or liable- liess to suffer punishment for sin committed." That there is some variety of expression among the older theological vyriters, and some looseness of expression on this subject, I am not dieinosed to deny. (Conf. Bib. Rep. vol. ii. p. 441, &c.) This fluctuatioa arose, doubtless, from the unsettled views of many of them on the subjeet of imputation — holding at one time the doctrine of the strict identity with Adam ; and at another holding the doctrine of the imputation of his sin without such identity. When they write without reference to ji theory, they use the terras guilt and punishment in the obvious sense. Thus rrotius, in his treatise De Jure, theolo- logical writers— as 1 admit they oltenare — then they are turned aside from their proper signification ; and when so use(^", are exposed to all the inconvenience of being misunderstood, or of being the means of con- veying an erroneous idea. It is exposed to all the inconvenience of technical language; is a departure from the common" use ol" words; tind is uninteUigible to the mass of men. 6. That the common use of the terms guilt and pun- ishment is the true use, is apparent from the tact, that in no other way could a penalty be possible or valuable. If a penalty does not denote tlie pain in- flicted by the Lawgiver as an expression of his sense of the evil of sin, and his abhorrence of It, what would be its use, or how could it be threatened? It not so, on what principle can it be inflicted? How can a just government be sustained, in the eyes of moral agents, if it holds those guilty who are innocent ; and punish- es those who have no ill-desert ? This objection to tfie language is insuperable. Who can go and preach it? Who can appeal for its truth to the reason and common sense of men? Who can appeal in doing it to the Bible? Whose mind will not revolt at a com- mission requiring him to proclaim that men, under the Divine administration, are held to be guilty, who are personally innocent ; and are punished without any ill-desert ? And if it can be proclaimed, who can believe tiiat it will ever commend itself to the con- sciences of men as a system just and equal ? And is APPENDIX. 89 there no danger that men will regard the system which proclaims it, as at variance with all their just conceptions of a righteous grovcrnment, and religion as opposed to the common sense of the world ? My reply, therefore, to this charge is, that on the facts in the case, Dr. J. and myself are agreed. That men suffer most sad evils, in consequence of" the apos- tacy of Adam ; that those evils are certain, and uni- versal ; that they result from the connexion with him; and that they are the appointment of a wise and just moral governor, as an expression of the evil nature and tendency of apostacy, I do not deny. My objec- tion is to an unauthorised theological use of language — to calling that guilt, which is not guilt ; and that punishment, which is uot punishment. He insists on this as essential to orthodoxy ; I doubt its propriety. The following corrections have been made of the exceptionable passages here, in the new edition of the "Notes": (1.) The part from p. 138, has been wholly changed. See the corrections under the 5Lh charge. (2.) On pages 122, 123, the following has been substi- tuted, instead of' the statement, a pan of which ie quoted in the charge, vix : Pp. 122, 123. Though men are indubitably affected by the sin of Adam, as e. g. by being born with a corrupt disposition ; with loss of righteousness; with subjection to pain and wo; and with exposure to eternal death, yet there is reason to be- lieve that ail those who die in infancy are, through the merits of the Lord Jesus, and by an influence which we cannot ex- plain, changed and prepared for heaven. As nearly half the race die in mfancy, therefore, there is reason to think that, in regard to this large portion of the human family, the work of Christ has more than repaired the evils of tlie fall, and intro- duced them into heaven, and that his grace has thus abound- ed unto many. In regard to those who live to the period of moral agency, a scheme has been introduced by which the offers of salvation may be made to them, and by which they may be renewed, and pardoned, and saved. The work of Christ, therefore, may have introduced advantages adapted to meet the evils of the fall; as man conies into the world; and the original applicability of the one be as extensive as the other. In this way the work of Christ was, in its nature, fitted to abound unto the many. Charge VIII. The eighth charge is in the following words, denying "That Christ sufTered the proper penalty of the law, as the vicarious substitute of his people, and thus took away legally their sins and ?iirchased pardon." Proof I. All trie passages quoted under charges 6 and 7 are referred to here. If the sin of the first Adam is not imputed to his seed, and they are not liable to punishment on account of it ; then it inevitably follows, that the 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 90 APPENDIX. substitute mlhe place of sinners; not to endure its precwe penalty, lor his suHerings were not eternal, nor were tney at- tended with remorse of conscience, or by despair, which are the proper pcna/iy of the law; but he endured so much as to accomplish ihe same ends as if ihose 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 suffer- ings; and that it could not be broken with impunity. He showed that he had so great a regard for it, that he would not pardon one sinner without an atonement. And thus he secur- ed the proper honor 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 ot'lheofler of pardon, by Jesus Christ, they must experience in their own souls forever, the pains which tiiis 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 letdown ; no disposition has been evinced to do injustice to the universe, by sutl'ering 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 pardons, as he is when he sends the incor- rigible sinner down to hell. A full compensaiion, an equiva- lent has been provided by the sufl'erings of the Savior, in the sinner's stead, and the sinner may be pardoned." How opposite this to the doctrines of the Church. See Con. chap. viii. 4, 5. xi. 3. Larg. Cat. 49. Shor. Cat. 25. My views there are accurately e.xpre.?sed, and I submit iheiti to the judgment oCmy Presbytery. The charge which is liere alleged is a most strikitij? Specimen ofthe loose and inaccurate manner in which these accusations have been Irarned. It contains ^bwr counts or specifications, one only of which relates to the statetnent in my book, and the three others are m- ferences which Dr. Junkin supposes my doctrine leads 10 ; and which, by a common mode of controversial- ists, he charges me with holding. To this entire pro- ceeding of charging me with holding certain infer- ences which he chooses to draw from my doctrine, I complain, and affirm that in this he has done me and my character material injustice. The specifications are [1.] That I deny " that Christ .suffered the proper penalty of llie law." [2.J That I deny that he was " the vicarious substitute of his peo- ple." [3.] That I deny that he " took away legally their sins." [4.] That I deny that "he purchased pardon." I shall offer a few remarks on each of these counts. The first is, that I deny that Christ suf- fered the proper penalty of the law. In my notes (p. 89) on which this charge is based, I specify precisely what I mean by this. 1 observe there, that according to my view of penalty there are certain thmgs inclu- ded in the penally of the law which Christ did not, and could not stiller. I specify particularly two things [1.] that his sufferings were not eternal j [2.J that he did not endure remorse of conscience. Tltese I sup- APPENDIX. 91 pose to have been a part of the proper penalty of the law; and these 1 then supposed and still suppose, Christ did not and coidd not suH'er. Thi.s seemed to me to he so plain as to i)o inilis|nual)le. 11' Ur. Junkin maintains that Christ did endure the precise penalty of the law, then lie must hold one of two thiri,'^s, either that Christ did endure in fact eternal sufferines, and that his sulieriiiijs vjerc attended wiih remorse of con- science and despair ; or he must hold that the eterni- ty of sud'erin^. and remorse of conscience, and despair, are no part of the proper penalty of the law. II he liolda the first alternative, then he mainiains that which is evidently contrary to truth. Christ did not endure eternal sorrows, nor did he endure remorse of conscience. Remorse arises from the consciousness of personal criminality: but Christ was holy, harmless, and undefiled. Nor is it possible to admit, for a mo- ment that his mind was harassed and burdened with any conviction of past crinnnality. If it be held that remorse of consoience and eternity of sufferings are not a part of the penalty of the lav/, then consequen- ce? will follow, all of which I have not time to specify. A lev/ oidy can be referred to. (I.) A vast amount of suffering: has been introduced by transgression which the law did not threaten, and which it did not contemplate, for by far the most acute and dreadful part ot the suti'erings of simiers arises from remorse of conscience, and the apprehension of eternal punish- ment. (2.) If the law did notappoint and contemplate it, it is unjust to inflict it. It is appointing and exe- cuting that by a post-facto regulation which is a de- parture from all just views of punishment. It is es- sential to all just ideas of penalty or punishment, that the suffering in which an action shall involve a man shall be specified beforehand, and the subject of the government be apprized of it by a reasonable publica- tion of the penalty. The doctrine that a magistrate may introduce into his sentence forms or degrees of sufiering which the law never contemplated and made known as its penalty, is the very definition of tyranny, and would jeopard the rights and liberties of all men. (3.) Eternal death according to this view is no proper penalty of the law. If so, it wdl be unjust to inflict it, and if unjust, it will not be inflicted. Unless it be admitted that the eternity of punishment was contem- plated in the penalty, it would violate all views of jus- tice that it should be inflicted, and the doctrine of universal salvation is inevitable. But if remorse of conscience, and eternal punishment are the penalty of the law, then it follows that Christ did not endure that strict and proper penalty. My defence against this part of the charge is. 1. That the Bible does not affirm that Christ en- dured the proper penalty of the law.. It affirms that 92 APPENDIX. he was " the Lamb of God which taketh away the Bin of the world: John i. 29: thai he save himself for us, an oHering and a sacrifice to God, Eph. v. 2: that he is the pro|)itiaiion for ouroins. 1 John ii. 2: iv. 10: that he miide liis soul an oflering for ein, lesa. liii. 10: that God delivered him up lor us all, Rom. viii. 32: that by him we have received the atonement, Rom. v. 11: that he hue redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse lor us, Gal. iii. 13 — that is, being cursed by hanging on a tree: that he bare our sins in his own body on the tree, 1 Pet. ii, 24; &c., all ol which passages prove that he was an atoning sacri- fice ; that he died in our stead ; that he was a vicari- ous oHcring, and I hat his sufferings were efficacious /to the removal of the penalty from us. But it is neither / affirmed that he endured the exact penalty of the law, \ nor that it was needful that he should, or possible i that he could do it. His suH'erings were strictly and Eroperly a subslilute lor ihesuH'erings of sinners who ut for his atonement would have died forever. And all that was needful was that the same good should result in regard to the law, the moral character, and the government ol God, which would have resulted from the eternal death of the guilty themselves, or, in other words, that his suil'erings should be an equivalent for theirs. 2. That the Conlession of Faith does not declare it. It indeed (Q,ues. Lar. Cat. 49,) says that he felt and bore the weight of God's wrath ; but this must be a figurative expression denoting that he endured sor- rows that were the proper expression of the wrath of God against ein — and this I do not deny. Christ was" innocent and holy; God was well pleased with his work always, even when he died ; Mat. iii. 17 ; Luke ix. 33; 2 Pet. i. 19; John xiii. 28: and it would be lan- guage which the Scriptures do not authorize, and which would be in fact blasphemy, to say that God was angry with his holy Son. The framers of our confession never contemplated such a statement at* that; and if not, then their expression cannot mean that Christ endured the proper, and strict, and full penally of the law. 3. It was impossible, as I have already remarked, that he should endure that proper penalty. It was impossible that the eternity of torment should be en- dured in a limited lime ; impossible that he should endure remorse of conscience. It is not a fact that he suffered forever ; nor is it a fact that he endured re- morse of conscience. 4. If It coiUd have been ; if the Messiah could have Buffered a literal eternity of sufferinsrs, yet it is an abuse of language, and a departure from all the just modes of speech to affirm that substituted suHerings are the proper penalty ol the law. Ou this point we APPENDIX. 93 meet with the same departure from tJie proper use of liui^LUif^e, to which I have iilready adverted. Perudty I is defined to be " the suirerii)ropitiatory olleriiiff in my stead; I have no other announcement to make to men, than that this is the only way in whicli iliey can be saved. The stcond t^pccificaiion in the chaige is, that I deny that Christ " was the vicarious subsiitute of his people." This is an inference— n most unjust one— of Dr. Junkiii. In liis view it seemed to follow that if it was bcld that Christ did not endure the proper pe- nalty of the law, it would follow that therefore the doctrine ot his vicarious sacrifice was denied also. Whether the inference is correct, is not now the ques- tion before us. It is whether I have denied that Christ is the vicarious substitute of his people. And here I protest solemly against the rii^ht of Dr. Junkin or any other man to draw an inference from my statement, and then charge me with holding the inference, and for that of being guilty of heresy. In alf communities, a man has a right to state his views, wnd to be re- garded as holding only those views, and not to be charged with holding what others may choose to draw from them by way of inlerence. It has been conceded every where, that a man is not to be charg- ed as holding that which to others may seem to follow from his doctrine. Even where such inferences may legitimately^ be drawn, they are not to be charged as his belief— for he may not see it, or may expressly disavow it; and he is to be held as answerable only for what he expressly affirms. Inferences or results may be drawn to show what his opinions may lead to, and to prove that they are erroneous; but to charge him with holding them is slander. (3n the principle in which Dr. Junkin has acted in this charge, all that is needful to overwhelm a man with the disgrace of holding any heretical or dangerous opinion, is for some man to draw inferences from wlfat he has stat- ed, to follow out his own reason or fancy into conse- quences which he thiidis follow from the doctrines ad- vanced; to attack any error or false opinion as a con- sequence to what is stated, and then to charge the man with holding that result, or consequence. In this way no man's character would be sale. Justice would be at an end. All kmds and forms of slander would be justified ; and every man would be invited to make out his brother to be a heretic or a dangerous rnan. And it is time that this simple principle of justice should be regarded — that a man shall be held to be resronsible only for what \\& statts io be his behef. It is time that every Presbytery, and every court of jus- tice, and every community in the land, should rebuke with no ambiguous or uncertain voice the reckless- AYPENDtx. 9T nfess and injustice, and cruelty involved in the habit of'drawing wliat inferences Q.ny nuin pleases from the a'.ateinents oC another, and then charcinj? them on him as his belief. The authority of the General As- sembly has once at least been brought to protect, in this way, the reputation of the ministers of the gos- peij and to rebuke the spirit involved in this charge which is now brousjht against me. " Here," say they, " it will be important to remark, that a man cannot be fairly convicted of heresy, lor using expressions which may be so interpreted as to involve heretical doctrines, if they also admit of a more favorable con- struction. Because no one can tell in what sense an ambiguous expression is used but the speaker or wri- ter, and he has a ri^ht to explain himself; and in such cases, candor requires, that a court should favor the accused, by putting on his words the more faverable, rather than the less favorable construction. " Another principle is, that no man can be i-iehll'if convicted of heresy by inference or implication ; that is, we must not charge an accused person with hold- ing those consequences which may legitimately flow from his assertions." — Minutes of the Assembly, vol. V. p. 220. I will just add here, that in any court o justice, an action of slander would lie against the au- thor of this charge. It is a mere inference of his own; it is wholly unfounded; it is fitted most deeply to atTect my character and influence as a minister and as a man ; and I call upon the Presbytery to throw the shield of justice before me, and to vindicate my character from this deeply injurious charge. In relation to this specification, I declare that I have ^^^^'^.eve.r denied that Christ was the vicarious substitute ■^^I of his people. In the very passage under considera- ^^ ■''"tion, I have taught that he was their substitute iii express words. " In the plan of salvation," I say, " he has shown a regard to the law by appointing his Son to be a substitute in the place of sinners." p. 89. And throughout these ' Notes,' and in all my wri- tings. I have maintained it with ail the talent' w'hich God has given me, and with a constancy that neither in fact nor in form has ever wavered. With no slight degree of earnestness do I, therefore, complain of Dr. Junkin for charging me wuth the denial of a doctrine which, in the very place to which he refers, I express- ly maintain. I Would observe further, that the views which I -Ijere express really affirm the doctrine of substitution f and vicariousness to an extent much greater than \ can be held by those who maintain that Christ endu- / red the proper penalty of the law. They hold to a I substituted person only, and to literal punishment ; I / hold to a substituted person, and substituted suffer- \ ings, retaining the idea ol vicariotis7iess, or sabstitu- \ tion throughout hie entire work. 9 98 APPENDIX. The third specification under this charge is, that I deny that Christ " took away legally" the " sins" of his people. This is also an inference of Dr. Junkin. I reply to this, that I have never taught it ; nor any thing that can be construed into this accusation. I have always taught that the sins of christians arer«- moved by the work of Christ legally by justification, and really by sanctification. The fourth count is, that I deny that Christ " pur- chased" the "pardon" of his people. This is also an inference j and this I have not denied. 1 have so re- peatedly, in the very book under consideration, stated that the blood of Christ was the price paid, the ground of acceptance, &c. : that it is matter of amazement that the author of these charges could have found it possible, in his head or liis heart, to charge me with this denial. " Christ died for us. In our stead ; to save us from death. He took our place ; and by dying himself on the cross, saved us from dying eternally in hell."— p. 110. " By his blood. By his death. The fact that we are purcha.sed by his blood, and sanctifi- ed by it, renders us sacred in the eye of God ; bestows a value on us proportionate to the worth of the price of our redemption; and is a pledge that he will keep that which has been so dearly bought." — ib. " Tridy (Note inch. iii. 24). it does not mean that it [justification] has been obtained, however, without any price or merit from any one, for the Lord Jesus has PURCHASED it with his own blood, and to him it becomes a matter of justice that those who were giv- en to him should be justified." — p. 86. " Through the redenij)tion, «fcc. The word here used occurs but ten times in the New Testament. Its root (lutron) properly denotes the price which is paid for a prison- er of war; the ransom, a stipulated purchase money, which being paid, the captive is set free. The word is there employed to denote liberation from bondage, captivity, or evil of any kind, usually keeping up the idea of a price, or ransom paid in consequence of which the delivery is effected. It is sometimes used in a large sense, to denote simple deliverance by any means without reference to a price paid, as in Luke xxi. 28; Rom. viii. 23; Eph. i, 14. That this is not the sense here, however, is apparent. For the apos- tle in the next verse proceeds to specily the price which has been paid, or the means by which the re- demption has been effected. The word here denotes that deliverance from sin and from, the evil conse- quences of sin which has been effected by the offering of Jesus Christ as a propitiation." — ib. " When the blood of Christ is spoken of in the New Testa- ment, it means the offering of his life as a sacrifice, or his death as an expiation. His life was given to make atonement. By faith in his death as a sacrifice for sin ; by believing that he took our sins ; that he APPENDIX. 99 tdied in our place ; by thus, in some sense, making hia offering ours; by approving it, loving it, embracing it, trusting it, our sins become pardoned, and our sou^ made pure." — p. 88. After these plain, positive, and repeated declarations in regard to my belief that Christ purchased the pardon of his people, il is a matter of moat dillicult solution lO understand why Dr. Junkia haa accused me of denying it. Can it be that he has not read the book on vviiich he bases the.se charges? or can it be that his mind was intent on finding cer- tain things held or denied in the book that would con- stitute the foundation of serious accusations against a minister of the gospel I Would it be possible for Dr. Junkin, or any other man, to frame expressions that more positively and unequivocally convey the idea that Christ did " purchase" the "pardon" of menl And is it to be tolerated in the churches that a man may frame charges ad libitum against a brother, and proclaim them to the world in this manner? 11 this is done Avho is safe ? And where is there a man whose character can stand before a proceeding of this kind, or whose reputation is secure f On the whole, I regard tke three last specifications in this charge as deeply injurious to my character and influence; as utterly unfounded; as without the shadow or semblance of proof; and complain to my peers that Dr. Junkin has done me injustice — injus- tice which should be repaired. I complain of the loose and inaccurate manner in which the charge is couch- ed. I complain of his manner of drawing inferences, and then charging me with holding them. I complain of his formally charging me with holding opinions which are fitted to injure my character, and useful- ness, when I had expressly stated the reverse. I com- plain of the right of a minister of the gospel to accuse his brother in a matter so deeply affecting him in this loose, inaccurate, and unfounded manner. Charge JX. •^.1 The ninth charge is in the following words, viz. "That the riffliteoueness, L e. the active obedience of Christ to ihe law, is imputed to his people for their justification ; so that they are righteous in the eye of the law, and therefore justified." Proofl. p. 28. (3.) The phrase righteousness of God, it equivalent to God's plan oj" justifying men ; his scheme of de- claring Ihem just in the sight of the law ; or oj acquitting them from punitkment, and admitting them to favor. In this sense it stands opposed to man's plan of justification, t. e. by his own wurks. God's plan is by faith." " The word to justify, dikaio, means properly to be just, to be innocent, to he righteous. It then means to declare, or treat as righteous, as when a man is charged with an offence, and is acquitted. If the crime alleged is not proved against him, he is declared by the law to be innocent. Il then means to treat as if inno- ^eentf to regard as innocent ; that is, to pardon, to forgive, and 100 APPENDIX. consequently to treat as if the olTence had not occurredF. i-f does not mean that the man did not commit the oflence, or that the law might not have held him answerable for it ; but that the ofienceis forgiven ; and it is consistent to receive the offender into favor, and treat him as if he had not commit- ted it." " In regard to this plan, it may be observed. (1.) That i* not to declare that men are innocent and pure. That would not Le true. The truth isjiist the reverse : and God does noi esteem men to be diJliireni from what they are. (2.) It is not to talic part with tiie sinner, and to niiiigatc his offences. It admits them to their full extent, and makes liim feel them also. (3.) It is not that vy-e become partakers of the essen- tial righteousness of God. That is impossible. (4.) It is not' that /us righteousness becomes ours. This is not true; and there is no intelligible sense in whiclx that can be understood. But it is God's plan tor pardaning sin, and tor treating us as if we had not committed it ; that is, adopting us as his cliild- ren, and admitting us to heaven, on the ground of what the Lord Jesus has done in our stead. This is God's plan. Men seek to save themselves by their own works. God's plan is to save them by the merits of Jesus Christ." Proof 2. p. 84, 85. '' Kven the righteeusness of God. The apostle, having stated that the design of the Gospel was to '^ reveal a new plan of becoming just in the sight of God, pro- '^ ceeds here more fully to explain it. The explanation which •• he offers, makes it plain that the phrase so often used by him, " righteousness of Ciud," does not refer to an attribute of God. but to bis plan of making men righteous. Pferelie says,.that . \it is by laiih in Jesus Christ ;, but suiely an attribute of Goci is not produced by faith in Jesus Christ. It means God'f mode of regarding men as righteous through their belief iA Jesus Christ. "God has promised that ihey who believe in Christ, shall be pardoned and saved. This is his plan in distinction from the plan of those who seek to be justified by works." " Being justijied. — Being treated as if righteous, tliat is^ being regarded and treated as if they had kepi tlie law. The apostle has shown that they eould not be so regarded and treated by any merit of their own, or bit personal obedience to the law. He now aflirms that if they were so treated, it must be by mere favor, and as a matter, not of right, bu» 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 justi- fied, he judges not as if they were puie. or as if they had a claim I but tie regards tliem aa united by faith to 'he Lord ^ Jesus, and in this relation he judges thatlhey should belreated as his friends, though they have bccii, are, and always will be personally undeserving. But if the doctrine of the Scripture.^ was, that the entire righteousness of Christ was set over to them, was really and truly theirs, and was transferred to- them in any sunse, with what propriety could the apostle say, that God justified the ungodly '2 If they have all the right-, eousness 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 (jrace, but of debt, to the very highest rewards of heaveo." p. APPENDIX. lOl t)7. Unto'whom God imputelh righteouanesa. — Whom God treats as righteous, or as entitled to his favor in a way dif- ferent from his conformity to the law. This is found in Psalms xxxii. And ihe 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 due to his sins. Being thus pardoned, he is treat- ed as a righteous man." Proof 4. p. 127. By the obedience of one.— Of Christ. Thii stands opposed to the dinebcdience of Adam, and evidently includes the eniire work of the Redeemer which has a beanng on the salvation of men. Phil. ii. 8. "He - - - - bteame obedient unto death." P. 21. " Of God! a righteouaneas. Not of the personal holiness of God, but of God^s plan oj juatifying m*n, or of declaring them righteous by faith in his Son. Here God'« plan stands opposed to their efforts to make themselves righteous by their own works." How irreconcileable this is to our standards, is seen. Con. XI. i, ii, iii. Lar. Cat. 70, 71, 72, Sh. Cat. 33. On this charge, I do not think it necessary to dwell. My general plea is, that the charge is not sustained bv the passages which are quoted Irotn my book. The charge is, that I have denied that " the active obedi- ence of Christ is imputed to his people for their justi- fication;" and is foJlowed by an inference of Dr. Jun- kin from this, that I also deny that they " are right- eous in the siirht of the law, and therefore justified." in regard to this, I observe (1.) that the charge is not that 1 denied that the benefits of the work of Christ are imputed to men, or that they were justified on ac- count of what he had done. So explicit were my re- peated declarations on the subject, that it was not possible to allege that I denied this. (2.) I have not denied that the active obedience of Christ is imputed to his people. 1 have affirmed nothing on the subject. 1 have not any where in my book reierred to the dis- tinction between his active and passive obedience. There does not any where occur an expression in ra- Sardto the distinction ; and of course there can be no enial of the doctrine. And I confess that I have not thought it necessary in my preaching, or in my wri- ting, to refer distinctly to that distinction which is made in the books of theology. I have uniformly re- presented the doctrine as near as possible, in the Ian- - guage of the Scriptures ; that it was, by his blood, his obedience unto death, his merits, his atoning sacri- fice, his substituted sufferings, his work alone that men could be justified and saved. I have alway* taught that men have no merits by nature, that they have done nothing, and can do nothing to deserve eter- nal life ; that they are lost and helpless ard ruined j and that if ever saved it must be by the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ alone. And that this has been the strain of ray preaching, I may appeal boldly to all who ha\ e 102 APPENDli. ever heard me, and to aU mj^. writings. No mair ercr heard me utter a sentiment in the pulpit or elsewhere that contravened this great ceninii triuh of Chris- tianity ; no man can find in any oJmy writings an ex- pression that is contrary to the doctrine. The charge^ thereiore, that I have " etenied that the acti've obedi- ence of Christ is imputed," &c. is whoHy gratuitotis and unfounded. It is neither contained in the pas- sages which are quoted by the prosecutor from my book, nor is it to be found any where in what I have said 01 written. (3.) I have not denied that his peo- ple are " righteous in the sight of the law, and there- fore justified," This is another oi the injurious and imfounded inferences which Dr. Junki'n has felt him- self at liberty to charge me with holding. In the very yasdages wliich he has quoted^ 1 have affirmed the very contrary. Thus [p. 85 J I expressly eay that they are " treated as if righteous, that is, are regarded and treated as if they had kept the law." And thus [p. 28] 1 fsay, of the plan of jusiificaiion by faith, that " it is God's plan (or pardoning sin, and for treating us as if we had not committed itv that is, adopting Ud as his fiiildren, and admitting us.to heaven,, on the ground of what the Lord Jesus has done in our stead. Mer» seek to save themselves- by their own works : God's plan is to save them by liie merits of, Jesus Christ." 4. My views on the subject of justification arc stated often in the Notes, and with such clearness, I supposed, that their meaning could not be mistaken- All that I have now to do, is, to submit those views to the Presbytery, as bein^-, so far as appears to me, in strict accordance with the Confession of Faith, and the Bible, Tims on p. 85, I say, in the words " bein^ justiji- f ci ;" " being treated as if righteous; that is, being regarded and treated as if ihey had kept the law." I have no other view of justification than that. Again : p. 28. " The phrase, righteousness of God, is equiva- lent to God's plan of justifying men ; his scheme of declaring them just in the sight ol the law) or of ac- quitting them from punishnjent, and admitting them to favor. In this sense, it stands opposed to.mon's pjan of justification, i. e. by his ovvn works'. God's plan is by failh. The way in which that is done, is revealed in the gospel. The object contemplated to be done, is to treat men as if they were righteous. Man attempted to accomplish this by obedience to the law. The plan of God was to arrive at it by faith. Here the two schemes difler ; and the great design of this epistle is, to show that man cannot be justifi- ed on his own plan, that is, by works; and that the plan of God is the only way, and a wise and glorious way, of making man just in the eye of the law," &c. Again: p. 29. "But it (the plan ol justification by «N APF.EMDIX. 103 faith) is God's plan of.pardoning sin, and for treatinsf us if we had not comn)iued it; that is, adopting us aa his cliildren, and admitting us to iieaven on the ground of what the Lord Jesug has done in our stead. Thii is God's plan. Men eeekto save themselves by their own works. God's plan is to save them by the me- rits of. Jesus Christ." Also, pp. 90, 97, 95,213, 20. In all this, I suppose that the good principle is still , maintained, that God reckons things as they are, and that all his impulatiuns are avcordimj to truth, and are not false. Paul, for illustration, was justifi- \ ed by faith in the atoning blood of Christ. God did : not reckon, or impute, that Paul was put to death on the crops; that he was, arraigned and mocked ; that /«> hands were pierced, and his temples pressed with the crown of thorns, and that /i^ was nailed to N the tree. So to iinj)ute, or reckon, would have been ; contrary to historical fact. It was not so, and could not be so reckoned, or imputed. But God's impula- ' tions were according to truth; and not otherwise. • [1-1 lie reckoned Paul to be a lost and ruined sinner — undone, and helpless ; and condemned, in the sight of justice and of law. He im|juted to him a charae- j. ter which rendered salvation by his own doings ira- \ possible ; and this was according: to truth. [2.] He ' reckopeu or judged his Son to be a sacrifice in the place of Paul. Himself innocent, yet he was willing , to die to redeem him. God regarded his Son aa j such a sacrifice, as dying to make atonement; as / rising, that man might be justified. All his work he regarded or reckoned to have been undertaken and accomplished in the place of sinners. This was to reckon the thing just as it wr,s. [3.] Paul was ena- bled by the Holy Spirit to repent, and believe the gospel. He so judged of him as a penitent, and a be- liever. And he judged tha,t it would be consistent for him to pardon and save a penitent, on account of what Christ had done in his stead. The law had been magnified and made honorble. Justice had been satisfied. Theanger of God had been appeased. His own character would be regarded as pure ; his ha- tred of sin had been evinced; his authoriiy would be maintained, and his mercy manifest, it he should then forgive him. God judged, or reckoned, that it could be done consistently, and it was done ; and the judg- ment was in strict accordance with truth. [4.] It was consistent for God to treat Paul an if he had not sinned ; to treat him, in fact, as a pardoned and jus- tifiedtman. The benefits, or results of the work of Christ were thus made available to his pardon, and acceptance ; and were thus reckoned, or imputed to him in the eye of the law. so that he could be consist- ently treated in this manner. All God's judicial reckonings or imputations are thus according to 104 APPENDIX. truth, or 88 things actually are. He reckons nothinft falsely; but just as he sees them to be. Truth and justice are thus maint lined ; his character is unsulli- ed; and the happiness of man secure. A chan<(e has been made in the "Notes," which removes an aiiibjo^uity in the former edition, in a pas- sage which failed to convey my meaning. The change occurs on p. 96, where the Ibllowing pas- sages have been substituted for those which there occur: viz. /■ P. 96. "It is not meant that the righteousness of Christ ia / transferred lo them, so as to become personally meirs— for \ moral character cannot be transferred ; — nor that it ie infused I into them, making them personally meritorious — for then \^ they could not be spoken ot as ungodly ; but that Christ died • in their stead, to atone for their sins, and is regaided and esteemed by God to have died ; and that the results or bene- fits of his death are so reckoned ei imputed to believers, as to make it proper for God to regard and treat them as if thi y had themselves obeyed the law; that is, as righteous in his sight." Charge X. The tenth charge is in the following words : viz. •' Mr. Barnes also teaches, in opposition to the standards, that justification is simply pardon. Proof 1, pp. 2y, 29 (already quoted). "The phrase rig-^i- cousness of God is equivalent to God's plan of justifying men ; his schtne of dtclaring them just in the sight of the law ; or of acquiiting them from punishment, and admitting them, to favor." 2. " in regard to this plan, it may be observed, (4.) It is not that Afi- righteousness becomes ours. This is not true ; and there is no intelligible sense in which that can be under- stood. But ii is God's plan for pardoning sin, and for treat- ing us as if we had not committed it." 3. p. 110. '■^ Being now justified. Pardoned; accepted as his friends." 4. p. 124. " Unto justification. The work of Christ is de- signed to have relerence to many offences, so as to produce pardon or justificntion 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, p. 127, 128. " The sense of the verse is this; 'As in consequence of the sin of one, the many became sinners, without explaining tho mode in which it is done; so the many became righteous in the mode and on the terms which arc explained J Righteous. Justified. Free from condemnation.' " 5. p. 182. " It is God that juslifieth. That is, who has pardoned them, and admitted them to his favor; and pro- nounced iht:m just in his sight." 6. p. 217. " riie moment a sinner believes, therefore, he is justified; his sins are pardoned; and he is introduced into the favor of God." The inconsistency of this with Standards is evident. Con. XI. i. ii. lii. Lar. Cat. 70, 71, 72, Sh. 33. See Scripturw quoted.under IX. and Rom. vL 16—18, 19. 1 Pel. i. 14-22. APPENDIX r03 In regard to tliiai charge, I have few wordu to ofler. My general reply is, that 1 have woMaught what is here charged on me, but the very reverse. So far irom teaching that justification is merely pardon, I liave, in the very passages under cotiBiileration, taught that God regards and treats the sinner who believes in Christ as_ il he was rigiileous, and that solely on account of the merits* ofChrict, irrct^peclive ofany good deeds, or desert ofthe sinner, whatsoever,, The main dili'ei once between patihm and justifiea- tion, I have supposed, respects the sinner contempla- ted in respect to his past conduct, or to God's future dealings with him. Pardon is a free forgivenee^s ol past onences. It simply has reference to those sins as forgiven, and blotted out. It is an act o( remission on tlie part of God. Justification has respect to the law, and to God's \>\iy\)Oscs oi' fuliLre treaivient. It is an. act by which the sinner becomes righteous in the sight of the law ; or by which God determines to treat him hereafter as a righteous man, or as if he had not sinned. It is true iha,t pardon, in the divine arrangement, implies ju.«tification as certainl); to ex- ist. But it is because God has so arranged it ; and not because pardon is the same thing as justification. Thus under the English law, in the case of treason, where the blood is corrupted by attainder, the cor-, ruption is of such a character that a mere act of par. . ikin cannot fully remove it, but ii can be "absolutely, salved and restored but by act of Parliament." "And it is a general rule, that having respect to all those whose blood was corrupted at the time of the attain- der, the pardon doth not remove the corruption of blood neither upward nor downward." III. Coke upon Littleton, pp. 614, 615. in like manner, in re- gard to the case of a rebel against heaven, a. pardon has reference to past offences, but there is need, of the solemn act of God, resolving that ai/ the eti'ects of hissin shall be removed, and tliat he shall be hence- forward treated as if he had not fallen ; that is, be wholly restored to favor, and adopted as his child. On this charge, I have not taught the doctrine with which I am accused ; nor do the passages alleged prove It. In the very passages adduced by the pro- secutor on this charge, I have taught thai God ad s mits the sinner to favor, and treats him as if he had not sinned, or were righteous. Lam now through with the consideration of these, wearisome and troublesome charges. I rejoice that J am drawing near the conclusion of this trial, and that I can commit the cause to my Presbytery. I have gone over the charges at length. A part of the doctrines charged on me I do hold ; but have endear vored to show that they are neither contrary to tlie Bible, nor to tlip Coafeesiort of Eaith. A part^of, 106 APPENDIX. them I do not hold ; the passages which have been adduced from my book to prove them, 1 have shown do not prove them ; and I reject them with as deep abhorrence as my prosecutor can do. A part of them are inferences which the prosecutor has drawn from what he has conceived to be my meaning, and which, in violation, as it seems to me, of all the principles of equity, he has accused me of holding. A large part ol the charges pertain to abstract and metaphysical subjects, which do not aHect the vitality of Christian doctrine, which are unintellif^ible, or uninteresting lo the great mass of men ; and m which men may differ, and yet hold to the great facts of the Christian reve- lation. None o( the points on which 1 differ from the prosecutor, can be regarded as fundamental ; and, on all of them, difference of opinion has been allowed hitherto in the Presbyterian church. In reference to these charges, the Presbytery ia now to give their verdict. While I am accused in this manner, 1 beg that it will be borne in mind, that on the great and vital doctrines of the Christian reli- gion, even my prosecutor has dared to frame no ac- cusation. While I am arraigned on these charges, not aflecting the vitality of Christian doctrine, not a charge has been brought, and not a syllable ha.s lall- en from his lips, that I am suspected of unsoundness or heresy, in regard to the divine origin, and plenary inspiration o( the Holy Scriptures; to the unity, spi- rituality, and perfections of Grod ; to the nature of his moral government, and the claims and equity of his law ; to the divinity of Jesus Christ ; to the tact that he made an atonement for sinners ; that he died and rose from the (.ead and ascended to heaven ; to the doctrine, that man is^ fallen, lost, corrupted, and to- tally ruined in himself; that he is entirely depraved, and is condemned by the law ; to the necessity of a change of heart, radical, and entire, and totally transforming ; to the doctrine that this is produced solely by the agency of the Holy Spirit, and that it never is, nor can be accomplished but by him ; to the doctrine that man' is justified by the merits solely of the Lord Jesus; to the doctrme that God is a sov^e- reign, and bestows his blessings when and vvhere fie pleases; that he has a plan that is good and wise, and that men are saved according to his eternal coun- sels, and his electing love; to the doctrine that Christians should lead a holy life, and should culti- vate a spirit of humility, and love, and purity, and prayer ; to the doctrine of the perseverance ol the saints, and to the great truth that the righteous shall be saved forever, and wicked destroyea eternally in h«ll. Now, on these, and the great kmdred doctrines of religion, my prosecutor has alleged in me no de- parture from the faith once delivered to the saints. APPENDIX. 107 On minor points, on points of metaphysical difference and speculfition, he has arraigned me, has sought to embarrass me, and has spread my name abroad as charged with heresy, and ac unworthy the confidence ol'the churches of the Redeemer. Having gone through wiilian examination of these charges, at s-uch length, I now commit the cause to my Presbytery. My happiness, my usefulness, my peace, and my reputation, are in no small degree in your hands. I commit the cause with confidence to my brethren, and to God, not doubting that justice will be done. Deeply affected as all my in'.erests must be in this decision, I have no apprehension as to the result of this investigation; for 1 have shown, I think, thai I hold no doctrines contrary to the holy Scriptures ; that I accord with the great, main, and essential truths slated in the Confession which we all have professed to receive; and that where the prosecutor and myself differ in opinion, it is only in ihose abstruse and metaphysical points which in all ages have been considered debateable ground, which do not affect the vitality of Christian doctrine ; on which the Presbyterian church in the United States, always imbued hitherto with a large and catholic epirit, has iiilowed its ministers and members to dif- fer ; and in reference to which they may differ, and still be the warm friends of truth and order ; the ad- vocates of revivals o( religion ; and fellow laborers in the great work of bearing the gospel around the world. I have only to add, that I cherish no unkind feel- ings towards my prosecutor. I charge on him no im- proper motives. 1 accuse him of no unchristian or vindictive spirit. I have no reason to doubt that he has, in all this proceeding, been actuated by consci- entious motives. I delight to add my humble testi- mony, in accordance with the feelings of all who have witnessed this trial, to his Christian spirit ; and re- joice to close, by saying that my conviction of the piety, and the Christian temper of my prosecu- tor, has been augmenting throughout the entire pro- fiecution. With these remarks, I submit the cause to the Presbytery; and these documents, to be pre- served, with the consent rf ilf Pre ^ytery, as a part of their records, as the e vidcxjce wluch 1 adduce on my part, and as my defence. Albert Barnes. THE APPEAL OF MR. BARNES. Philadelphia, Nov. 10, 1835. To the Rev. William M £ngles, Mudereilor of the Synod of Philadelphia : Rev. Sir,— You are hereby otficially inlbrmed that I intend to appeal to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of Ameri- ca, to meet in the city of Pittsburg, on the third Thursday of May, 1836, from the decision of the Sy- nod of Philadelphia, made at their session in York, in my case, and to complain ol iheir doing:8 in regard to the same. The appeal is from the definite sen- tence suspending me Irom " the exercise of all the functions proper to the gospel ministry," and the Complaint and appeal relate to the various steps by which the Synod were led to the sentence which the/ have passed. The general grounds ol the appeal and complaint, are those which are stated in our Book of Discipline, [ch. vii. s^ iii. sub. sect. 3j, to wit: " irre- gularity in the proceedings of the inferior judica- tory ;" "a refusal of reasonable indulgence ;" " de- clining to receive important testimony ;" "hurrying to a decision before the testimony was fully before hem ;" " a manifestation of prejudice in the case," nd " injustice in the decision." In particular, I appeal from this decision, 1. Because the Synod proceeded to try and issue the case in express violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. The Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, in the exercise, as they judged, of their constitutional rights, had laid in a plea against the jurisdiction of the Synod over any cause which had been before them prior to the 28th day of October, 1835, when, by the act of the Assem- bly, the two Synods were to be united; and had re- solved, in connection with each ol" the other Presby- teries of the late Svnod of Delaware, to withhold heir records from the Synod of Philadel phia. The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church expressly declares, that in conducting an appeal, the third step chall be, " to read the whole record of the proceed- THE APPEAL Of 109 ings of tlic inferior judicatory in the case, includingf all the testimony, and the reasons of their decision:'" Book of Disciphne, oh. vii. § iii. sub. sect, viii. Yet, although those records were not in full before the Synod, and could not be obtained, tiic Synod re- solved to proceed and issue the case without. Ofthis I complain, as a violation of the Constitution ol the Presbyterian Church; as contrary to the uniform proceedings in all ecclesiastical courts; as contrary to the proceedings in all courts of justice; and an manifestly unjust, and leading to an erroneous deci- sion; as depriving me of a right which all persons have in a trial of appeal, that the whole record of the court below, and the reasons ol" its decisions should be fairly placed before the superior judicatory. I com- plain of it, because, if this were acted on every where, the interests of no man Avould be safe, and the cause of justice, and of right, would be every where violated. 2. Because the Synod proceeded to ' authenticate' by parole testimony, certain papers which were said by the prosecutor to be a part of the records of the Presbytery in the case. Of this 1 complain, and from the decision to do this 1 appeal, because it is unknown to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church ; and a departure from its express provisions : and because it was not even pretended that tlie whole of the records of the Presbytery were produced by the prosecutor, and authenticated by the testimony of the single wit- ness who was examined. 3. Because it Avas in evidence before the Synod on the testimony of the Rev. Mr. Steel, that in the trial before the Presbytery, I did adduce passages from my book, which he understood to be evidence designed to rebut that which was adduced by the Rev. Dr. Junkin. That evidence was a part of the record of the Pres- bytery ; and this evidence, with my explanation and defence, went materially, as I have reason to believe, to produce the decision of the Presbytery acquitting me from holding dangerous errors. Yet while the Synod were apprised by the witness before them that this was the fact, and while it must have been mani- fest that injustice would be done without the evidence and defence, they proceeded as if it had had no exis- tence. 4. Because the Synod heard but one party in the (rial of the appeal. The Book of Discipline [ch. vil. § iii. sub. sect, viii.] expressly declares that ihe fourth Ktep shall be, "to hear the original parties." Yet hut one party was heard. After I had expressed in writing, in a respectful manner, the reasons why I could not appear before them, and submit to a trial Tvhile the records of the Presbytery were wanting, the 10 110 MR. BARNES. Synodinevertheleas proceeded to hear my accu.=er at length ; and him only. They issued the case without any of the evidence which I had adduced in the court below; without any defence on my part ; without hav- ino^ heard the ' original parties ;' and wholly on ex par/e testimony, and e.r pa/'^e argument. Of lliis I complain as a violation otthe Constitution, and of the rights and privileges which every man has in a land offreedom and equity ; and especially of the rights which are guaranteed to every man by the principles of common justice, and by the word of God. Though I had said before the Synod that so far as I was per- sonally concerned, I was prepared for trial: though I had expressed a willingness to be tried by any compe- tant tribunal ; and though, without injustice to any of the parties, the whole subject might have been re- lerred to the General Assembly ; yet the Synod pro- ceeded to issue the case in a manner that evidently must lead to a partial and unjust decision, and in a manner that violates all the rights which God has given me as a Christian, as a minister, and as a mem- ber of the community. 5. Because, in express violation of the constitution, the Synod proceeded to issue the case without ha- ving heard the members of the Presbytery in defence of their decision. The Book ef Discipline (ch. vii. §iii. sub. sect, viii.) expre.-sly ordains that the fifth step in conducting an appeal shall be to " hear any of the members of the inferior judicatory in explanation ot their decision, or ot" their dissent from it." The Pre.sbytery had formally, and in writing, objected to the jurisdiction of the Synod in this case, and in all cases before them prior to the 28th day of October, 1835. Whatever might be the propriety, or impropri- ety of this plea, it was such that they could not ap- pear before the Synod in defence of their decision, and they were not in fact heard. Of the course pur- sued by the Synod in proceeding to issue the case without their haying been heard, I complain, not only as in violation of the constitution, but as deciding the case when I was deprived of the benefit which must have resulted had they stated to the Synod the rea- sons of their decision. The grounds on which they acted ; the evidence which Avent to influence their minds in acquitting me ; the considerations which led to their decision, it is to be presumed, would have constituted a material argument in my lavor in influ- encing the minds of the Synod in the case. It ia a right which an accused man has, under our church government, that the judicatory that has acquitted him from charges materially all'ecting his character, his influence, his peace, and his usefulness, should be heard in defence of their decision. But the Synod THE APPEAL OF III proceeded to issue this cause when I was deprived of even this defence ; when I had nciilier the advan- tage of defending my own sentiments, nor the ad- vantage of the deience of those who, hefore their own bar, had heard meat great length, when confronted with my accuser, and when the whole testimony was before them. 6. Because the Synod proceeded to i-ssuc the case in this unconstitutional manner, when I had informed them, that, in order to silence the alarms, and re- move the apprehensions of my brethren in regard to certain expressions and passages in my 'Notes on the Romans,' I had carefully revised the book, had endeavored, as far as practicable, to remove the ex- ceptionable expressions, had changed the phraseolo- gy which had been objected to, where it was ambigu- ous, or where it had been misunderstood, or did not fully and clearly expresss my meaning ; and had thus endeavored to do all that I cuidd do to promote the peace and harmony of the churches. Though I ad- mit that the trial strictly must have been on the . book as it was at first published, yet I humbly con- ceive that it was a privilege which should liave been conceded by Cliristian men to an accused brother, that those alterations should have been examined, and if such as to remove all reasonable grounds of offence, that they should have been allowed to influ- ence the decision. All that can be asked of a minis- ter of the gospel who is charged with error, is, that he should remove all reasonable grounds of offence ; and in a trial that must materially affect his cliarac- ter and influence, this indulgence, before a Christian tribunal, should not be denied. Yet while the Synod were apprised of my desire to do this, tiiey proceed- ed to decide the case without reference to any such effort on my part, and as if no such changes had been made. Of this I complain, as manifesting prejudice in the case, and as evincing a disposition to pass a sentence whether the accused was, or was not heard; and whether he was or was not willing to make any effort to allay die apprehension of his fathers and brethren. Most conscientiously did I believe that I had done all that could be reasonably required of me to silence the voice of alarm; and I complain that this my effort was disregarded, and that the reason- able indulgence which every man has a right to ex- pect, was not allowed me. 7. I appeal and complain because of injustice in the decision. This injustice consists, in part, in attribu- ting to me sentiments and doctrines which I have not taught, and which I do not hold ; and in part, in con-