THE VINDICATION 
 
 BY THE 
 
 ilEY. irEORCE JUNKIN, D.D 
 
\ L I B R. -^ K. "52" 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 The Stephen Collins Donaticni.^ 
 
 BX 9193 .B3 J9 1836 
 Junkin, George, 1790-1868. 
 The vindication, containing 
 a history of the trial of 
 
\ ■ 
 V 
 
 (. 
 
THE 
 
 VINDICATION, 
 
 CONTAINING ^ "^ j( , 
 
 A HISTORY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 TRIAL OF THE REV. ALBERT BARNES, 
 
 BY THE SECOND PRESBYTERY, 
 
 AND 
 
 BY THE SYNOD OF PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 TO WHICH ARE APPENDED, 
 
 NEW SCHOOLISM IN THE SEVENTEENTH COMPARED WITH NEW 
 8CH00LISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 BY REV. GEORGE JUNKIN, D.D. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 PRINTED BY WM. S. MARTIEN. 
 
 1836.- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Page 
 
 Ability and Inability, 40, 48, 50 
 
 Accuser, opprobrium of ----- - 5 
 
 reasons for ----- - 6 
 
 right denied 7 
 
 not a publisher of slander - - . - 9 
 
 special reason for - - - - - 10 
 
 objections to, answered . - - - H 
 
 Adam, his ignorance, - 39 
 
 covenant with 64 
 
 Adopting act of 1729, 23 
 
 Appeal to Synod, _-.... xx 
 
 to which ib 
 
 Argument begins, 3 
 
 Baxter, Richard, on guilt and punishment, - - 102 
 
 Bradford, Esq. Thomas, urges trial, _ - . xiv 
 
 Calvin, on imputation, misstated, - - - - 81 
 Charges, I. 34. II. 37. III. 39. IV. 54. V. 60. VI. 72. VII. 95. VIII. 
 
 112. IX. 122. X. 132. 
 
 Constitution of church, what"? . - . . 22 
 
 Covenant of works denied, ----- 38, 60 
 
 proved, ----- 64 
 
 equality not necessary, * - - 69 
 
 non-consent, . - - - 71 
 
 Bort, Synod, its doctrines and the contrary, - - 145 
 
 Edwards' doctrine of ability, 46 
 
 opposes Arminian free will, - - - 50 
 
 views perverted, ----- 79 
 
 repenting of Adam's sin, - - - - 91 
 
 Ely, Dr., denies any citation, . . - - xii 
 
 wishes to proceed with trial, - - - xvi 
 
 Equivocal terms, ------- 135 
 
 Errors, systematic ------ 31 
 
 Explanation, right of, denied, - - - - 37 
 
 Faith, an act only, ------ 54, 58 
 
 Free-will, -------- 50 
 
 leads to Antinominianism, - - - 52 
 
 Fundamentals, no difference in them, - - - 154 
 
 Grotius, a semi-Socinian, 107 
 
 Guilt of Adam's sin, imputed, — - - . 95, 103 
 
 Heresy, terms, why not in charges, - . - 14 
 
iv INDEX. 
 
 Pagre 
 
 Imputation, denied, 72, 85 
 
 in Confession, . . . - - 78 
 
 doctrine misrepresented, - - - 79, 83 
 
 objections against it, - - - 85, 124, 125 
 
 Infants, argument from case of - - - - 100 
 
 Judgment of 2d Presbytery. ... - xvii 
 
 ofSynotl, xxyi 
 
 state of vote on, ib 
 
 Letters — Mr. Barnes to Dr. Junkin, - - - v 
 
 Dr. Junkin to Mr. Barnes, - - - iv 
 
 to 2d Presbytery, - . - vi 
 
 to Mr. Grant, . - _ x 
 
 Mr. Eustace to Dr. Junkin, . - . xi 
 
 Presbytery refuses charges, . - - viii 
 Presbytery apprising of time of Presbytery 
 
 meeting, ------ xi 
 
 Mason, Dr. J. M., on imputation, - - - - 84 
 
 New-schoolism in the 17th compared with New- 
 
 schoolism in 19th century, - . . - 145 
 
 Original sin, denied, — Synod of Dort, - - - 95, 103 
 
 0\Ven's views, misrepresented, - - - - 109 
 
 Peace prevailed before innovation, . . - 145 
 
 disturbed by it, 146 
 
 Penalty, Christ's endurance of it denied, - - 112 
 
 proved, 113 
 
 Pelagius' views and character, - - - - 35, 53, 102 
 
 Policy in the I7th and 19th centuries, - - - 152 
 
 Presbytery, 2d, special meeting of, - - - xii 
 
 stated meeting, - - . . iii 
 
 refuses charges, - - - - viii 
 
 adjourned, 2d April, - - - xi 
 
 adjourned June 30th for trial, - - xiv 
 
 refuses to proceed, - - - - ib 
 
 Repentance for Adam's sin, . - - - 91 
 
 Representation, consent not necessary to - - 71 
 
 Romans v. 12 — 22, opened, 1 - - - - 98 
 
 Satisfaction, full affinity with - - - . 120 
 Subscription to Confession refused by Arminius, - 156 
 System, theological, a Presbyterian bound by it, - 17 
 Mr. Barnes writes under its in- 
 fluence, . - - - 20 
 Taylor, Dr., agrees with Mr. Barnes, - - - 93, m 
 Terms, vague, used, ------ 105 
 
 Toleration claimed by Arminius, - - - - 157 
 
 Trial, daring one and then drawing back, - - xiv, 155 
 
 Wilson, Dr. J. P., faith a principle — its object Christ, 58 
 
 on covenant of works, - - 67 
 
 on righteousness, - - - 125 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE HISTORY FREFARATORY TO THE ACTUAL COMMENCEMENT OF 
 
 THE TRIAD. 
 
 In February, 1835, I was in Philadelphia on business, and 
 whilst there, had my attention called to the new work of Rev. 
 Albert Barnes, on the Epistle to the Romans. This arrest of at- 
 tention was by an unknown correspondent of the Presbyterian, 
 over the signature of Veritas, who presented a number of extracts 
 from the work, accompanied by very judicious and forcible re- 
 marks; pointing out the errors of the Notes, and their opposition 
 to the Standards of the Presbyterian Church. The new book, as 
 from these notices might well be expected, was a subject of fre-- 
 quent conversation : and among other places, at the table of my 
 friend and host. Rev. John Chambers, who stepped up to his study, 
 and brought the book itself. I read a few pages in it, aad was induced 
 to procure a copy to examine at my leisure. This examination; 
 resulted in the conviction, right or wrong, tliat, as no other 
 person appeared disposed to do it, it would be proper for me to 
 comply with the order of the General Assembly, and endeavour t<> 
 procure an ultimate decision on these controverted subjects.- 
 After this determination, the next question was as to the manner: 
 and here, too, it appeared to me the Assembly was correct ; the 
 only proper way w^as to bring charges against the author. Before 
 I could arrive at this conclusion, it was early in March; and it ap- 
 peared exceedingly desirable to have the whole matter embraced 
 v/ithin as short a space of time as^ practicable : so as to give occasion^ 
 to the least possible amount of agitation, with its evils. Hence the 
 plan proposed in n^y letter below, of making the case what, in civil 
 matters, is called an amicable sait. Ignorant of it, I dropped a 
 line to brotiier Steel, requesting him to let me know when the- 
 Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, of which brother Barnes is a 
 member, held its stated meeting, and whether it would be practi^ 
 cable to accomplish the object as proposed. He informed me by 
 letter, dated the 12th March, that the stated meeting in question 
 was to have been late in April, but that a special meeting was 
 about to be called, viz. on Friday, the 20th, for the purpose of 
 changing the time of holding the stated meeting: and advised to 
 prepare and send forward to him my paper, and promised to have 
 it presented, &c. Or, if Mr. Barnesrefused the request to waive his 
 right of ten day-s, or if the said stated meeting should be fixed too 
 far on in April, to receive the charges, and allow the ten days for 
 preparation, which our Book guarantees to prosecuted persons, 
 and to finish the trial before the Assembly, then he would endea- 
 
 A 
 
IV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 vour to procure a jnu re nata meeting- to receive the charges, so 
 that they miglit come up at the stated meeting. Agreeably to 
 this arrangement, 1 wrote to Mr. Barnes as follows: 
 
 Lafayette College, March IGth, 1835. 
 Rev. and Dear Sir. — In your Notes on the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans, there are doctrines set forth, which, in my humble opinion, 
 are contrary to tlie Standards of the Presbyterian Church and to 
 the word of God. 
 
 It a 'so appears to me, and has long so appeared, that these, and 
 certain affiliated doctrines, have been the chief causes of the un- 
 happy distraction over which we all mourn. 
 
 A third opinion, operating to the production of this communica- 
 tion, is, that peace and union in evangelical effort cannot take 
 place, so long as these important doctrinal points remain unsettled; 
 and that, therefore, all the friends of such union and peace ought 
 to desire their final adjustment by the proper judicatories of the 
 Church. It is certainly true that many have wished to see them 
 brought up, fairly and legally, before the proper tribunals, uncon- 
 nected with mere questions of ecclesiastical policy, and without 
 anyadmixture of personal or congregational feelings. Regret has 
 often been expressed by many, and by myself among others, that 
 the Presbytery of Philadelphia, had not, at the outset, instituted 
 process against yourself, instead of the course they pursued. I am 
 sure, however, they did what they thought for the best. It is 
 much easier to find fault atler a measure has been put into opera- 
 tion, than to foresee its defects and prevent them. 
 
 Now, dear Brother, your recent publication has re-opened the 
 door, and, unworthy as I am, and incompetent to the solemn duty, 
 yet duty 1 feel it to be to enter it; and by an 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. 1 
 therefore intend, Deo volente, to prefer charges against you, 
 founded solely upon your Notes on Romanf, and referring to no 
 other evidence for their support, than what shall be deduced from 
 that book. 
 
 In prosecuting these charges, I hope I shall be enabled to act 
 with gravity, solemnity, brotherly affection, and all the respect due 
 to a court of Jesus Christ. The object is peace through union in 
 the Truth; and I hope the God of Truth and Peace will direct us 
 to a happy issue. Most conscientiously do I believe that you have 
 fallen into dangerous error. I feel that yoiir doctrine shakes the 
 foundation of my personal hopes for eternity. If it be true, then 
 I cannot " read my title clear, to mansions in the skies." 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 bodies, 
 where principles of minor consequence acquire exciting power 
 from adventitious circumstances. 
 
INTRODUCTION. V 
 
 May I now ask of you the favour to transmit to Mr. Henry 
 McKeen's, No. 142 Market street, a note with responses to the 
 following queries, viz: — 1. Will you admit the Notes on Romans, 
 bearing- your name, to be your own production, and save me the 
 trouble of proving it I 2. Will you waive the constitutional right 
 often days, &.C., [Book pp. 396-402,] and so 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 1 
 
 To these postulates I can see no reasonable objection on your 
 part, and presume there will be none. 
 
 A friend of mine will receive your reply and dispose of it agreea- 
 bly to arrangements already made; and will also inform me of the 
 time and place of the Presbytery's meeting. Your brother in the 
 Lord, , GEO. JUNKIN. 
 
 To this letter was returned the following answer : 
 
 Philadelphia, March 18th, 1835. 
 Rev. Sir: — Your letter of the 16th inst. came to hand to-day. 
 In regard to the " postulates" which you have submitted to my 
 attention in your letter, I remark that the Notes on the Romans 
 are my production, and that I trust I shall never so far forget my- 
 self as to put any one to the " trouble of proving it." On those 
 Note^ I have bestowed many an anxious, a prayerful, and a plea- 
 sant hour. They are the result of much deliberate attention ; and 
 of all the research which my circumstances, and my time permit- 
 ted, I commenced, and continued them with the humble hope of 
 extending my usefulness beyond the immediate sphere of my la- 
 boursin the pulpit; nor have I any reason to doubt that, in this, I 
 was under the governance and direction of that sacred Teacher, 
 by whom the Scriptures were inspired. If others icould make a 
 better book on the important epistle in question, 1 should heartily 
 rejoice in their doing it. I have never been so vam as to think 
 that in the exposition of a book like the Epistle to the Romans — 
 so intrinsically difficult — so profound — so often the subject of com- 
 mentary and controversy, my work was infallible; or that there 
 might not be room tor much honest difference of opinion and ex- 
 position. Nor am I conscious of any such stubborn attachment to 
 my own views there expressed, as to be unwilling to be convinced 
 of their error if they are incorrect, or to retract them if I am con- 
 vinced of their error. Whether the act of charging a minister 
 with heresy ; of arraigning him for a high crime, without a friend- 
 ly note, without a Christian interview, without any attempt to 
 convince of erroneous interpretation, be the Scripture mode, or 
 most likely to secure the desired end, belongs to others, not to me, 
 to determine. I would just say, that I have not so learned Mat- 
 thew xviii. 15 — 17. I have no reason to dread a trial or its result. 
 I mourn only that your time and mine, and that perhaps of some 
 hundreds of others, should betaken from the direct work of saving 
 
VI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 men, and wasted in irritating strifes and contentions. On otherg, 
 however, not on myself, will be the responsibility. 
 
 fn reo^ard to the "postulate" in your letter, that I "would 
 ■waive the constitutional right of ten days," &,c., I have only to 
 say, that if any man feel it his duty to arraign me before my Pres- 
 bytery, I presume it would be best in the end, and most satisfac- 
 tory to all parties concerned, that the principles and rules of the 
 bojk of discipline be formally adhered to, and that it is not wy pur- 
 pose to make any further concessions. 
 
 As I have no acquaintance with the gentleman whom yon refer 
 to in Market street; as he has given me no occasion to address a 
 letter to him ; and as it is evidently not necessary that our corres- 
 pondence on the subject should be conducted, like that of duellists, 
 through the intervention of " a friend,'' I thought it best not to 
 address him, unless he shall make it proper, but to answer your- 
 self without delay. I am yours, &c 
 
 Rev. G. Junkin, D. D, ALBERT BARNES. 
 
 On the I8th I forwai-ded, through Mr. Steel, a letter, as follows : 
 
 To the Rev. Moderator and Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, 
 
 Brethren. — To you belongs the solemn and responsible duty 
 *^'of condemning erroneous opinions which injure the purity and 
 peace of the Church — of removing and judging minister's- — of 
 watching over the personal and professional conduct of all your 
 members," 
 
 Now ono of your members has, as appears to me, published in 
 a recent work, certain erroneous opinions, of a dangerous tendency 
 to the peace and purity of the Church, and to the souls of its mem- 
 bers. In that publication he has observed, "he who holds an opi- 
 nion oji the subject of religion, will not be ashamed to avow it," 
 As, therefore, he appears willing to let his opinions be known, and 
 to abide their consequences, and as to me they appear dan- 
 gerous, (in the absence of a more suitable advocate of the opposite 
 truths) I ask of your Reverend body the privilege of preferring 
 Charges against the Rev. Albert Barnes. 
 
 As I have stated in a letter to that brother^ "the object is peace, 
 through UNION in the truth ; and I hope the God of truth and 
 peace will direct us to a happy issue. Most conscientiously do I 
 believe that you have fallen into dangerous error, I feel that your 
 doctrine shakes the foundation of my hope for eternity. If it be 
 true, then I cannot ' read my title clear, to mansions in the skies.' 
 
 Around the discussion of a subject so solenm, 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 eccle- 
 siastical bodies, when principles of minor consequence acquire ex- 
 citing power from adventitious circumstances. " 
 
 I have also stated in that letter, the opinion" that peace and union 
 in ev&ngelical efforts cannot take place so long as these important 
 .doctrinal points remain unsettled." Hence this measure. It is de- 
 signed to produce a legal decision, and put an end to the distractions 
 
INTRODUCTION. vii 
 
 consequent upon present fluctuations. I do therefore piay and be- 
 seech the Presbytery to take order in the premises, and to facilitate 
 the issue with the least possible delay. I have no witnesses to cite 
 but brother Barnes himself, and shall be confined to his testimonv 
 contained in his Notes on Romans. These are referred to in part 
 in connexion with the charoes, and other portions will be read on 
 the trial for further proof and illustration. Your brother in the 
 Lord, GEORGE JUNKIN. 
 
 This letter brother Steel was requested not to hand over to the 
 Presbytery, provided brother Barnes would accede to my proposi- 
 tion of an amicable suit, by waiving- his right often days after the 
 tabling of charges, givmg- him, however, that much time before 
 trial ; and in case he would so agree, to hand the charges therein 
 specified to him; but if he, Mr. Barnes, would not so agree, then 
 to lay the letter and charges before the Presbytery. 
 
 Here it is proper to remark, that my letter to Mr. Barnes was 
 written and mailed on Monday, the IBth. He received it, and 
 wrote his answer on the 18th ; the answer, however, was not 
 mailed until Saturday, the 21st: meanwhile, the Presbytery met, 
 (on Friday): brother Steel called at Mr. McKeen's, where brother 
 Barnes had been requested to leave his answer to me, and not 
 finding any, attended the special meeting of Presbytery. They 
 resolved tj hold their stated meeting— when alone any and every 
 business can come up — on Monday, the 23d; so that it was per- 
 fectly impossible I could know of the meeting and be there. Let 
 me here ask, Why did Mr. Barnes hold his answer to me from 
 Wednesday until Saturday, so that it could not reach me until 
 Monday? And why d\d he not drop it at Mr. McKeen's, 142 
 Market street? Did he wish to keep me ignorant of his decision 
 as to the "postulates," until it would be too late for me to meet 
 the Presbytery! Did he suspect that if he should leave his an- 
 swer where 1 requested, it might enable brother Steel, or some 
 one else, to meet the Presbytery, and present the charges? Why 
 did the Presbytery, on Friday, change their stated meeting until 
 Monday? Did they wish to throw out the charges, of which 
 brother Barnes had intimation? These queries are important, as 
 they direct the reader's mind to the evidence of a disposition to 
 shun a trial. "Charity thinketh no evil:" she, however, " re- 
 joiceth in the truth." 
 
 Let us proceed with tiie narrative. On Monday, 23d, the Second 
 Presbytery met, and Mr. Steel presented my letter above with the 
 charges, of v;hich Mr. Barnes then obtained a copy. This letter 
 produced some sensation, and drew forth some unkind remarks 
 and insinuations. There was secret collusion — there had been a 
 caucus, and the proposed prosecutor was but the loolofthnt caucus — 
 preconcert there surely must have been — Dr. .Tunkin could not 
 prosecute, for he had signed the Act and Testiinon}'^, and could not 
 acknowledge the legality of this court — whv was he not present 
 
 A '^ '- 
 
yiii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 in person? &c. &c. Thoy were as<5nretl tliat the suspicion of a 
 conspiracy was as groundless as it was unkind— that Or. .Tunkin 
 liad not read the " Notes" when last in the city— that Ih^ only 
 i)reconcert was the arrangement, hy which an opportunity vva^ se- 
 cured of presenting these charges— that the reason why he was 
 not here is ohvious; vou have tixed the time so tliat he could not 
 possibly know of your meeting; hut let a time be appointed for 
 the trial, and he will attend, &c. &.c. 
 
 The result was the adoption of the following minute, of which 
 oiticial notice was communicated thus: 
 
 >> To the Rev. George .Tunkin, D. D. 
 *' Extract from the minutes of the Second Presbytery of Phila- 
 delphia. 
 
 " In Presbytery, March 23d, 183.5. A letter was received from 
 the Rev. Robert Steel, purporting to have been addressed by the 
 Rev. George Junkin, D. D., of Easton, Penn., to this Presbytery, 
 which was read. 
 
 " After recess the Presbytery resumed the consideration of Dr. 
 Junkin's letter; whereupon it was 
 
 ." Resolved, That this Presbytery cannot regard any letter from 
 an absent person, as aufficient to constitute the commencement of 
 a process against a gospel ministc;'. 
 
 " Resolved, That the said letter be preserved on the files of this 
 judicatory. 
 
 "Ordered, That the Stated Clerk send the Rev. Dr. Junkin an 
 attested copy of the minutes in the case of his letter. 
 '•Attest. THOiM AS EUSTACE, 
 
 >♦ Stated Clerk of the Second Presbytery of Philadelpliio," 
 
 Appended to this was a private note, which. I here record with 
 great pleasure. 
 
 " Brother Junkin will perceive that official duty has made the 
 accompanying communication necessary on my part. I deeply 
 regret that your sense of duty has made you think this step ne- 
 cessary, but would desire to cherish the best feelings toward you 
 personally, and have those feelings reciprocated. Praying that 
 all miy bo overruled for the good of the church purchased with 
 blood, and with the best wishes for you and yours, 
 I remain yours truly. 
 
 THOMAS EUSTACE.*' 
 
 Here again, let it be remembered, is evidence of reluctance — 
 strong reluctance to entering upon the trial. The Presbytery, as 
 such, and Mr. Barnes and many others individually did manifest 
 no little disinclination, and display no little ingenuity to avoid a 
 trial. There is moreover some inaccuracy in their minute. The 
 letter addressed to them did T\ot purport to be from me. It was 
 from me, and had my name appended to it in the ordinary manner. 
 It was not a letter from Mr. Steel, but only through his hands. 
 
INTRODUCTION. iX 
 
 The Presbytery did not, as Mr. Steel on my behalf requested 
 them to do, fix a day for meeting on the business, but adjourned 
 to meet at the call of the Moderator. Thus it was made practi- 
 cable to come together from time to time, on short notice privately 
 given by the Moderator, and to transact their necessary and or- 
 dinary business, without its being possible for me to know. 
 
 Believing then, as I do to this hour, that the design was to 
 thwart my purpose, to evade a trial, and prevent a decision of the 
 doctrinal questions, I determined to prevent its accomplishment, 
 by taking a complaint, which " brings the whole proceedings" up 
 to the superior judicatory : and for aught we can yet see, it might 
 have been as well, had it gone up thus to the General Asseuibly. 
 
 The following paper was therefore addressed to the Moderator. 
 
 " To the Rev. Moderator of the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia : 
 
 " Rev. Sir, 
 
 " I hereby give constitutional notice, that I intend to cowplain 
 to the next General Assembly against the proceedings of the Se^ 
 cond Presbytery of Philadelphia, in relation to the charges which 
 I preferred against the Rev. Albert Barnes — for the toiiowing 
 reasons : viz. 
 
 " 1. Because the reason alleged for not regarding my charges 
 as sufficient to constitute the commencement of process against 
 a gospel minister ; viz. that they [the charges] were contained in 
 a letter and presented in my absence — has no foundation in the 
 constitution of the Church. There is nothing in the Book of Dis- 
 cipline from which such a reason can fairly be inferred, but the 
 contrary. The Book says, " they must be reduced to writing." 
 p. 401. 
 
 " 2, Because the Presbytery have given me no notice when 
 they will again meet, that I may appear before them ; but although 
 they were respectfully asked to appoint a day, they adjourned to 
 meet at the call of the Moderator, thus precluding the possibility 
 of my being present. 
 
 " 3. Because, although they retained and filed the charges, 
 they have virtually and substantially refused to permit Mr. Barnes 
 to be tried on them. 
 
 " 4. Because such virtual refusal is a violation of the constitution, 
 which makes it the duty of the Presbytery " to condemn errone- 
 ous opinions," p. 359; and which implies, p. 401, that when 
 "some person or persons — undertake to make out the charges" — 
 and " to reduce them to writing," the duty of the Presbytery is 
 to afford a fair, open and candid trial. 
 
 "5. Because such virtual refusal is directly in opposition to the 
 repeated injunction of the last General Assembly, which has said, 
 Minutes p. 26, "and should any already in office, be known to be 
 fundamentally erroneous in doctrine, it is not only the privilege, 
 but the duty of Presbyteries, constitutionally to arraign, condemn 
 and depose them." And again, " Our excellent constitution makes 
 ample provision for redressing all 'such grievances; and this As- 
 
X INTRODUCTION. 
 
 sembly enjoins, in nil cases, a faithful compliance, in meekness 
 and biutluTly love, with its reciuiriitions." Again, •' the tair and 
 unquestionable mode of ))rocedure, is, if the author [of a book 
 deemed heretical,] be alive, and known to be of our communion, 
 to institute process against him; and give him a lair and constitu- 
 tional trial." 
 
 "6. Because, according to Book, chap. V. 8, the Presbytery 
 was bound ((jrthwitli to cite the parties, (viz. Mr. Barnes and my- 
 self) to appear [which seems to imply their absence] and be heard 
 at the next meeting, which meeting shall not be sooner than ten 
 days after such citation." 
 
 Yours, very respectfully. 
 
 GEO. JUNKIN. 
 Easlon, March 28, 1835. 
 
 Appended to this was a kind of semi-official note to the Mode- 
 rator, thus: " Brother Grant may perhaps have seen the complaint 
 on the enclosed half sheet before. Since writing that copy [it was 
 addressed to brother Eustace, I not knowing, when it was written, 
 who was Moderator,] I have learned that you are Moderator of the 
 Second Presbytery, and looking at the copy hastily taken, I am 
 apprehensive I neglected to date the one sont to brother Eustace. 
 To obviate all doubt and make the thing constitutionally safe, I 
 address you directly. 
 
 May I not hope that the Presbytery will throw no obstacle in 
 the way 7 Brother Barnes says " I have no reason to dread a 
 trial or its result. I mourn only that your time and mine, and that 
 perhaps of some hundreds of others should be taken from the 
 direct work of saving men." 
 
 Now, my dear brother, will not the true time-savino' expedient 
 here be, to come right up to the point "? Will not putting off and 
 standing upon doubtful points of order, be the very way to make 
 a protracted and a perplexing business of if? My deliberate 
 opinion is, that with the right spirit, the whole matter may pass 
 through in a single day. Assuredly all I mean to read and say on 
 the trial, if permitted to take my course, will not exceed three 
 hours.* Should you call a meeting about the 7t.h April, I will 
 have all the charges written out, and the testimony adduced in 
 their support transcribed from the book, and lay a copy on your 
 table, so that your clerk will have no trouble writing it, and you 
 no delay. Brother Barnes surely needs no time almost to prepare. 
 The whole testimony is already in his mind. He says, " On these 
 Notes I have bestowed many an anxious, a prayerful, and a plea- 
 sant hour." He assuredly has not to labour, as I liave, in arriving 
 
 * Noto, after having spent fourteen hours speaking in Presbytery and 
 six in Synod, I am of the same opinion. Had the case been met at first 
 and promptly, I still think a single day would have finished in Presby- 
 tery ; so marvellously does delay and discussion extend a matter. 
 
INTRODUCTION, XI 
 
 at their meaning-, a« a preparation to its discussion. He has not 
 liis opinions to form. He has counted the cost. He believes the 
 doctrines he has taught to be truth. If he and the Presbytery, 
 after the proposed examination, shall still be of that opinion, I am 
 sure they will say so. I may misunderstand his language. Let 
 its true meaning appear. Can the brethren of the Presbytery 
 give a good reason why the trial should not go on forthwith, ac- 
 cording to the book 1 Of course, your humble servant thinks not. 
 Should a meeting be appointed for the trial, as above requested, 
 you will let me know. Or should it be thought necessary to have 
 me present before the charges will be admitted to lie, let me know. 
 Only remember, our public examinations, &c. &c., are on Monday, 
 Tuesday, and Wednesday of next week. For my presence, 1 
 must confess, I see no colour of reason ; if obliged to go 1 shall 
 feel that I am put to trouble and expense, without necessity and 
 ■without law ; yet I will go any time after Thursday next. 
 
 " Now may I not hope Mr. Grant's influence will go to gratify 
 my wishes and meet my sense of duty 1 Allow me to add, when 
 I began this note, it was designed to be private. It may be viewed 
 ■as almost semi-official. Its substance seems so to require. 
 Very respectfullv, your brother in the Lord, 
 
 GEOEGE JUJNKIN." 
 
 This complainl; was not carried to the Assembly, because the 
 ground of it was removed by the Presbytery's opening the jdoor 
 for trial. In my note accompanying it, as first sent to brother 
 Eustace, on the 26lh, I had observed '* should the spirit of my 
 letters to brother Barnes and to the Presbytery be fairly met, then 
 you will call a meeting to try the case-^say between the second 
 -and tenth of April." 
 
 On the 30th March I received the following i 
 
 ''Philadelphia, March 28, X835, 
 " To the Rev. George Junkin, D. D. 
 ^' Dear Brother, 
 
 " I have been desired officially to inform you that the Second 
 Presbytery of Philadelphia will meet by adjournment at the call 
 of the Moderator on Thursday the second day of April, 1835, at 
 nine o'clock, A. M. in the Lecture Room of the First Presbyterian 
 Church on Washington Square: this being an adjourned meeting. 
 Presbytery is competent to the transaction of any business that 
 mav come before them, 
 
 " Attest. THOMAS EUSTACE, 
 
 Stated Clerk-'* 
 
 On the opposite page was the following private note : 
 
 " Dear Brother, 
 " You will see by the above, that your wish has been promptly 
 complied with. I believe there is no desire to shrink frorn an in- 
 vestigation on the part of Mr. Barnes-or the Presbvtery. 
 
 " Yours truly, THOMAS EUSTACE.** 
 
XII INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Thus, although I had written "between tlie 2(1 and lOlh April,'* 
 and stated to the Moderator, " Only remember our |)ub]ic exan»i- 
 nations, &.c. <liLC., are on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of 
 next week," and "any time after Thursday^ I could attend ; the 
 meeting was appointed on the 2d, (Thursday) at 9 o'clock, A. M. 
 so rendering it imperative on me to travel great part of the night 
 or to afford opportunity to fail in procuring a trial. 
 
 The reader will please to look at these facts, and ask himself 
 how far the apprehension of a complaint operated in procm-ing 
 this prompt meeting of my wishes. Would a hearing have beea 
 afforded, if it could have been avoided ] 
 
 Let us follow the thread of history. After finishing my labours 
 in the examinations, on Wednesday the 1st April 1 sot out, and 
 by travelling in the night was enabled to be in Piiiladelphia about 
 9 o'clock on the morning of the 2d, and about fifteen minutes 
 after 9, entered the Lecture Room. At that moment the clerk 
 was reading the complaint above, although the minutes had not 
 yet been read. After the reading was over, I and some otiiers 
 were kindly invited to seats as corresponding members. The Pres- 
 bytery attended to various business, at every hiatus in which I 
 looked for an introduction of my own. But finally, about five 
 o'clock P. M. seeing no disposition in the house to take it up, I 
 invited the Presbytery's attention to it myself— stated, that as T 
 had tabled charges and had received official notice that the Pres- 
 bytery were to meet to day, and as the ten days stay were up, I 
 had reason to suppose the trial would now proceed. Dr. Ely said 
 there was no authoritative notice issued — if the clerk had sent 
 such a paper, it was from not knowing his duty. I then read 
 the letter of the clerk; but was assured it was not designed 
 as a citation, as the Presbytery had no charges before them — 
 was asked whether I had now any charges to table. I replied in 
 the negative — I had not now any charges to table — they were 
 already tabled, and more than this, they were taken possession of 
 by the court, and ordered by a formal, recorded resolution " to be 
 preserved on the files of this judicatory," and therefore it appeared 
 strange indeed, to ask me now, for a paper which you yourselves 
 put on file ten days ago. Had this Presbytery returned the paper 
 to me by the hands of the original bearer or any other, it would 
 be reasonable to ask me whether I would now present cbartres. 
 But being a document of the court, I presume the next step is to 
 proceed in the use of it according to its obvious intent and moaning. 
 
 It was then resolved, to ask me whether I now proforreJ these 
 charges and designed to sustain them. 
 
 My answer was, that some ten days since I had presented 
 them, and had now come prepared to prove their truth and rele- 
 vancy. 
 
 Objection was here made to the charges, because the term 
 heresy was omitted. This was introduced, I think, by brother 
 Duffield, then sitting as a corresponding member. Others seemed 
 pleased with it. But Dr. Ely made some judicious remarks which 
 
INTRODUCTION. XIU 
 
 appeared to satisfy the court that the charges were sufficiently 
 spr.cific. The prosecutor alleged his reasons for the omission, 
 which are embodied in the introduction to the argument.(8). 
 There the reader will find them, and it will be necessary to cor- 
 rect a remark in jelation to them. It seems expressed, that the 
 objection was not thought of at all until the trial was about ac- 
 tually to commence. This impression from reading the remark 
 tliere is incorrect. The objection was raised — it was answered 
 by myself and by Dr. Ely, and appeared then to have been satis- 
 factorily refuted. 
 
 A resolution was then passed, to admonish m.e of the conse- 
 quences of failure to prove charges brought against a gospel mi- 
 nister. Whereupon I stood up, and the Moderator, in all due 
 form, administered the admonition. 
 
 A resolution was next passed, to put a copy of the charges into 
 Mr. Barnes' hands. He stated that he had, by permission of the 
 clerk, taken a copy, when the paper was first presented, [March 
 23d.] He was then asked whether he was ready for trial. He 
 made a short address, in which he presented some difficulties. 
 1. The rule. Matt, xviii. 15, 16, " If thy brother," &c. has not 
 been complied with. 2. Dr. Junkin's name 1 find affixed to a 
 document which I hold in my hand, called the Act and Testimony, 
 and I cannot see how he can consistently prosecute before a court 
 whose constitutional organization he calls in question, &c. 3. 
 The case, he said, wps one of most fearful solemnity, and ought 
 not to be gone through hastily. Great deliberation was necessary. 
 4. His health had been in such a state as to compel him to omit 
 some of iiis ordinary duties — he could not, without unjustifiably 
 pressing himself, be prepared in less than ten days, nor even 
 then. 5. At the end of the ten days, Dr. Ely would be absent. 
 Brother Grant and brother Patterson would be absent. Brother 
 Dashiel was now absent. Without any unkind insinuations 
 against other members, he felt unwilling that so weighty a busi- 
 ness shouU be determined in the absence of these four influential 
 members ; ami he felt assured the other brethren would not like 
 to take the resjK^nsibility. 6. Another reason was that, orderly, 
 the appeal, for he had no thought the business would end in 
 Presbytery, should go mthe Synod of Delaware. If it did not, the 
 Assembly would probabl)' send it back. He could not account 
 for the haste with which this \\ung was pressed. He declined im- 
 mediate action, and claimed posrdvely the ten days, and hoped the 
 trial would be postponed until June, 
 
 In reply to these remarks, the proaecutor said, the rule Matt, 
 xviii. has no reference to such a case as ibis — it relates to private, 
 personal, injuries only. Now, there is no private or personal 
 offence between us — no wounded feelings — no fault — it is a pub- 
 lic concern that cannot possibly be hushed up by private explana- 
 tion. 2, That his signature of the Act and Testimony had nothing 
 to do with this case. He was willing to prosecute before this 
 
XIV INTRODUCTION^ 
 
 court — that was a sufficient recognition of its jurisdiction, but said 
 nothing about its organization, A foreigner who prosecutes be- 
 fore a court of tiie United States, only acknowledges its jurisdic- 
 tion in the case; he expresses no opinion as to tiie constitutional- 
 ity or correctness of its original organization. 3. The importance 
 of the matter was a reason wliy there should be no unnecessary 
 delay. The object wa^ peace through union in the truth, and 
 delay would only keep the community the longer in agitation — 
 had he not hoped tho case would be brought to an issue before 
 the Assembly, he would probably not have brought the matter up 
 at all; certainly not at this time. He deprecated a whole year 
 of paper war, which must follow, if the case is not now tried. 
 
 Mr. Bradford argued strongly in favour of immediate action — 
 but in vain. After some desultory conversation the trial was 
 postponed until the 3()th of June,, at 9 o'clock. 
 
 In th« course of his remarks, Mr. Barnes had read from the 
 Assembly's minutes of 1824, p. 219, and had intimated his desig» 
 to avail himself of an incidental observation about the definiteness 
 of charges — alleging it to be a constitutional rule. Lest he might 
 do so, I transmitted by mail a full series of references to the pages 
 of his book that would be quoted, and of the parts of the constitu- 
 tion violated by them. Thus the indictment was made to contain 
 not only the ofiences charged, but also the proof and the law ; yet 
 it appeared to me that he and some of the court thought it ought 
 to contain the argument also. This letter was dated April 11. 
 
 Thus we have the history of this case to the period when the 
 day of trial was appointed; by which it appears that Mr, Barnes 
 had a copy of the cliarges and the chief references to proof, three 
 months and eight days before trial ; and that the errors alleged 
 against iiim were pointed out. the law laid down, and the proof 
 presented eighty days before trial. What more could have been 
 done to favour a dcfeiice ] 
 
 Thus we have traced the history to the period when the trial 
 should commence, A short time previously to this, I as\:ertaincd 
 that it was highly probable no trial would take place — that (it 
 was believed,)- there was a great anxiety, especially since the 
 doings of the last Assembly, and the triumph of Act and Testi- 
 mony principles, to avoid a decision altoge'^^er — that to this end 
 there would be a resurrection of the objection against the charges 
 for tl>e omission of the word heresy ; and an efibrt to dismiss the 
 cause on the ground of informalitj — that thus, Mr, Barnes would 
 stand professedly ready for tria-i, and eager to defend himself; the 
 Presbytery would present the aspect of a court, open, free, and 
 ready to proceed; but because of informality utterly hindered — 
 that this informality, bcmg in the charges themselves as drawn 
 up by me, the fault nnd failure would lie upon myself — the won- 
 der was with some mdustry circulated, that a man of Dr. Junkin's 
 acuteness of n>ind, should have committed so great a blunder, and 
 it was charitdbly imputed to inadvertence. 
 
 1 
 
INTRODUCTION. XV 
 
 Now of all this I was apprised before the Presbytery met, and 
 was fiot at all surprised when the facts revealed the accuracy of 
 the information received and of the inferences deduced from it. 
 The historic detail it is not necessary to state. Suffice it to say, 
 the objection was renewed, Mr. Barnes uniting in such renewal, 
 and repeating in strong language his reasons. Great complaints 
 were made against the charges for want of precision — no crime 
 was charged, &c. &c. Especially brother Patterson felt it ex- 
 tremely hard to try a man for nothing — no specific charges were 
 made, &.c. <Sic. But if brother Barnes was willing to go on at 
 such a great disadvantage, he would throw no obstacle in the 
 way. This remark threw Mr. Barnes into a great strait. It was 
 manifest Mr. Patterson iiad not seen the drift of it. Mr. Barnes, 
 however, felt it, and experienced no little difficulty in extricating 
 himself from the awkward position it placed him in. He was 
 thus obliged openly to say, whether or not he was willing to go 
 on to meet the ciiarges as they h^.d been drawn up, presented, and 
 accepted. His reply was, that this was a question for the brethren 
 of the Presbytery; he threw himseJf upon them; if they thought it 
 was fair and just for him to be tried without any specific charge 
 of crime or heresy — the only two things, he contended, for which 
 a minister could be tried, he was ready. These remarks were 
 understood, and a motion was ma'de by Mr. Patterson to permit 
 the prosecutor to take back his charges and amend them, or other- 
 wise the Presbytery vvould not go on to the trial ; this motion was 
 carried; and upon being requested to comply, I declined, know- 
 ing that then it would be a new bill, and Mr. Barnes would be 
 entitled to his ten days again ; and stating at the same time my 
 objections against the term ; and that, in my view of its meaning, 
 the things charged amounted to heresy; yet, doubtless, others 
 would think differently. Thus the case was about to be arrested, 
 agreeably to my previous information. The Presbytery were 
 proceeding to other business, and the intended prosecutor rolled 
 up his papers to take leave of the court. Before going out, how- 
 ever, he thought he would propose a query, and wrote it on a slip 
 of paper, viz. After charges are received, admitted to lie, and a 
 day appointed for trial, is it competent for the court to compel the 
 prosecutor to change his bill of charges, and to dismiss the case if 
 he refuse] He handed this to Dr. Ely, He wrote " I think not," 
 and ha^ided it back. It was handed to Mr. Boardman — he nodded 
 assent ; — to Mr. Bradford — he did the same, and in a few minutes 
 arose and invited the attention of the Presbytery to the position 
 they had placed themselves and brother Barnes in, by the resolu- 
 tion just passed. Dr. Junkin, some three months since, tabled 
 charges — the churches know it — the world knows it. He has 
 come to attend to the prosecution and proof of them — he is just 
 about to depart without a trial — has he shrunk from them? — No, 
 he desires to go on — yet there is no trial. Why? On whom 
 rests the blame of failure! This question will be asked. It must 
 
 B 
 
XVI INTRODUCTIOM. 
 
 be answered. Who prevented the trial! Not Dr. Junkin. He 
 stands ready to prove, as he says, the charges he made. The pub- 
 lic will think either the Presbytery, or brother Barnes, or both, 
 arrested the trial. Did Mr. Barnes, it will be asked, demand a 
 trial, and the Presbytery refuse? What position does this place 
 the Presbytery in? Or, why did not Mr. Barnes insist on a triall 
 Ought any man to consent to lie under the imputations of these 
 charges? If 1 were in Mr. Barnes' place, I would demand a trial; 
 if there should be none, I should dread the impressions upon the 
 public mind, &c. Dr. Ely presented the same views, and the re- 
 sult was a resolution to reconsider, and a farther resolution to go 
 on with the trial. 
 
 Thus, after spending the chief part of a day in attempts, as I 
 then thought, and still think, to evade a trial, and the odium of its 
 evasion^ the court found itself on Friday, at 3 o'clock, P. M. just 
 where it started, and the case was then opened. 
 
 After the arguments of the parties had been heard at length, 
 and the court nad, upon a call of the roll, individually expressed 
 their opinions, so that the result was known, a committee was 
 appointed to prepare a minute containing their judgment, the 
 Presbytery had a recess until 3 o'clock, when other business was 
 expected to come up. A few minutes before that hour, I met the 
 Moderator on his way to the church, at the North West corner of 
 Walnut and Sixth streets, and observed to him that I wanted to 
 be certain to which Synod I should appeal — or, in other words, 
 whether the Synod of Delaware would ever meet. He said it 
 never would, because the time to which it stood adjourned was 
 later than that to which the Synod of Philadelphia stood adjourned ; 
 of this he was satisfied — for father Patterson had a memorandum 
 of it m his pocket-book. I also proposed the query, whether it would 
 not be better, on all accounts, for me to carry the appeal direct to 
 the Assembly? In the affirmative of this he promptly acquiesced 
 with me. I said, no doubt, if the parties and the Presbytery agree 
 harmoniously in carrying it direct to the Assembly, they will not 
 remit it to the Synod. In this we perfectly agreed, and he pro- 
 mised to further this course in Presbytery. 
 
 After having attended to some business I went up to the house, 
 and upon an opportunity presenting, proposed to take the appeal 
 direct to the Assembly, stating the reasons as in the conversation 
 with the Moderator. Whereupon, immediately Mr. Barnes arose 
 and objected — he had said from the beginning, and he now repeat- 
 ed, he wished this business to take the regular constitutional 
 course — if it went to the Assembly in any other way, they would 
 probably remand it to tlie Synod. I then asked to"^ be informed 
 whether the appeal could go to the Synod of Delaware — would 
 that body ever meet again ? To this inquiry a number of voices 
 responded — No, it can't meet — its time of meeting is after the 
 time to vvhich the Synod of Philadelphia stands adjourned, and of 
 course it cannot meet. Then said T, the appeal must be to the 
 
INTRODUCTION. XVll 
 
 Synod of Philadelphia, and to this there was not an official, for- 
 mally expressed assent — but a real, well understood and fully ex- 
 pressed and general assent. In this part of the narrative I am 
 minute, because subsequent events require it. Brother Barnes 
 and some others have not a distinct recollection. My memory here 
 is transparent — its conceptions are vivid — it directs me to the 
 very spot where Mr, Barnes sat, when I made the proposition to 
 appeal to the Assembly and the inquiry about the Synod of Dela- 
 ware, viz. OR the second seat to the right of the Moderator, and a 
 little farther off than the middle of the seat. Accordingly a few 
 days after I prepared my appeal to the Synod of Philadelphia. 
 Confident I am, neither brother Barnes, nor any other brother 
 will deny the accuracy of the above statement. They may say 
 " I have no distinct recollection," which doubtless is the fact of the 
 case, but which is no proof. Brother Grant, however, will not 
 say even this : his recollection of the above circumstances must 
 be secured by their associations. 
 
 Decision of the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, in the case of 
 the Rev. Albert Barnes, done in Presbytery, July 10, A. D. 1835. 
 Extract from the Minutes. 
 
 The Presbytery having heard the prosecutor at great length, in 
 support of his charges, and the accused in defence of himself, and 
 having duly considered the testimony submitted in the case, judge 
 the Rev. Albert Barnes not to be guilty of teaching or holding any 
 heresy or erroneous doctrine, contrary to the word of God and our 
 Standards. 
 
 1st. Because it has not been proved, that Mr. Barnes has taught 
 that all sin consists in voluntary action. He has taught, in the 
 passages cited, that men are not compelled by any physical neces- 
 sity, or fatal necessity of nature, but affirmed, agreeably to the 
 Confession of Faith, chap. ix. sec. 1., that they are voluntary 
 agents in the commission of sin. 
 
 2. Because Mr. Barnes has not denied, that Adam was acquaint- 
 ed with his existing moral relations, but has taught that there is 
 no reason from the Mosaic History of the creation and of the life 
 of Adam, to believe, either that he possessed all the scientific 
 knowledge attributed to him by the Rabbins, or that he was as 
 well acquainted with the consequences of sin before, as he was 
 after the fall. 
 
 3. Because the passages cited from Mr. Barnes' Notes on the 
 Romans, teach nothing one way or the other on the subject of 
 man's ability or inability ; nor is there any evidence whatever, 
 direct or implied, that he has affirmed or taught, that the unre- 
 generate man can convert himself to God. He has indeed taught, 
 in accordance with the Bible and Standards, that the sinner acts 
 most voluntarily, when he turns to God, that he is regenerated by 
 the Spirit of God, and that his turning is his own act. But he 
 has not denied, that in so turning, he is acted on and efficiently 
 determined by God, the Spirit; the contrary he has taught. 
 
XV 111 IXTRODXJCTION. 
 
 4. Because Mr. Barnrs lias in exact accordance with our Stand- 
 ards, and the Bible, tauj^ht that savincr faith is in every case, an 
 influential act of the mind. In denying- that it is a principle^ he 
 does not mean that a Christian is not a man of principle, nor 
 his reliirion that of principle, nor that the mind of the sinner, 
 who accredits the testimony of God, is brought into a state 
 in which it readily perceives the force of evidence furnished 
 in that testimony, and thus may be said to be a habit of 
 mind; but simply, that saving faith is not any thing- indepen- 
 dent of the actings of the mind, nor any created or conceiv- 
 able essence of the soul, back of the act of believing. This ex- 
 ercise of mind and heart, the Apostle says, was imputed to Abra- 
 ham for righteousness. Mr. Barnes has affirmed the same, but 
 has not taught, in so doing, that faith is regarded as a justifying 
 righteousness. He has, on the contrary, explicitly affirmed, that 
 the righteousness of Christ is the only ground of the justification 
 of the sinner before God. 
 
 5. Because, while Mr. Barnes has preferred not to use certain 
 theological technicalities, such as Covenant of Works, Federal 
 Headship, Representation, &c., and for reasons which he has as- 
 signed, he has not denied the facts in the case, as made known to 
 our faith in the sacred Scriptures. The Confession of Faith speaks 
 of the Covenant of Works, as a commandment, or the law of God 
 given to man, of obedience to which, abstinence from the fruit of 
 the tree of knowledge, was the test and evidence. It does not 
 intimate, that independent of and subsequent to the enactment of 
 the moral law, God entered into a special compact with man, 
 about his obedience, but that He was pleased to promise eternal 
 life, not only for himself, but for his posterity, on condition of 
 Adam's obedience to that law, to be proved by his observance of 
 the prohibition from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. To illus- 
 trate the great, prime, elementary transaction of God with our 
 race, as its moral governor, upon strict principles of commercial 
 iaw, Mr. Barnes has objected, as being inconsistent with the dig- 
 nity of the Divine Being, and the nature of moral relations. 
 According to the strict idea of a covenant, he conceives that the 
 parties, previously to its being made, are at liberty to decline the 
 agreement, and because our first parents were not at such liberty 
 to object against or decline that constitution which God ordained 
 with them, as the Head and Representative of our race, he thinks 
 that the Confession of Faith, by using the words law and com- 
 mandment as synonymous with covenant, did not mean to teach, 
 tliat the parallel is complete between the moral law, as originally 
 given by God to our first parents, and a covenant in the strict 
 meaning of the word, but has left it optional, whether to explain 
 it by the one phrase or the other. Mr. Barnes has preferred ex- 
 plaining it as a law or commandment; but he has denied that our 
 first parents were tried for themselves and for the race, see page 
 122. He has denied that in the strict legal sense of the term, 
 Adam was the representative of the race, because he conceives 
 
INTRODUCTION. XlX 
 
 the idea of consent or appointment by those represented, as always 
 implied in such representation. Yet has he not denied, that in a 
 more vague and general sense, our first parents were the repre- 
 sentatives of their race; but he has objected to attempts to explain 
 the nature and character of the Divine transactions with Adam, 
 which are not made in the Bible or in the Confession of Faith, but 
 found only in human treatises on systematic Theoloj^y, as mere 
 philosophical theories, suggested by the forms and usages of com- 
 mercial law among men, for the purpose of explaining those facts 
 in the moral government of God, which God himself has left un- 
 explained. In so doing, M;. Barnes has not denied, that such a 
 connexion was establisiied by God between Adam and his race, 
 that, in consequence of his sin, they are subjected to the same 
 train of ills, as if they had themselves personally been the trans- 
 gressors. 
 
 6. Because while Mr. Barnes has denied that the sin of our first 
 parents is reckoned or accounted in the sight of God, as the crime 
 of their descendants, either by virtue of any alleged personal 
 identity between them, agreeably to the views of some old CaJ- 
 vinists, or by virtue of such a legal connexion between them, that, 
 on the principles of commercial law, that is reckoned to them, 
 which is not truly and properly theirs, and for which they are per- 
 sonally blame-worthy, and ill-deserving, agreeably to the views of 
 some at the present day, he has not taught that we have no more 
 to do with the sin of Adam, than with the sins of any other pa- 
 rents, nor that our relation to him is not very peculiar, nor that 
 the consequences or results of his sin, deeply and seriously affect 
 us. 
 
 7. Because Mr, Barnes has not denied that we suffer many and 
 direful ills, in consequence of the sin of Adam, that those ills 
 are certain and universal, growing out of the connexion between 
 Adam and his race, and are appointed by God, as a wise, just and 
 holy mora^l governor, as an expression of the evil nature and ten- 
 dency of apostacy. He has only objected to the use of the words 
 guilt and punishment, according to certain theological definitions, 
 which by not implying personal criminality, conflict with the sense 
 in which they are used in common language — Guilt, according to 
 Mr. Barnes, implying obnoxiousness to punishment because of 
 personal blame worthiness of crime; aiid punishment, any pain 
 or suffering inflicted on a person for this crime or offence. 
 
 8. Because the prosecutor did not attempt to show in what the 
 proper penalty of the law consisted, nor whether spiritual and 
 eternal death constituted a part of it, nor whether the Standards 
 of our Church teach that Christ endured the identical penalty of 
 the law, which according to some old Calvinisticai writers, con- 
 sisted in temporal, spiritual, and eternal death ; or only an equi- 
 valent anriount of suffering. Mr. Barnes has not denied that 
 Christ is the " vicarious substitute" of his people, nor that He has 
 " purchased pardon," but has explicitly affirmed and taught these 
 
 B* 
 
XX INTRODUCTION. 
 
 thinj^s. In denying' that Christ did endure the penalty of the law, 
 he has explained ijiniselt' to mean, that llenior.sc, l^espair, Cor- 
 ruptioa, and otiier things, which lie supposed to be implied in the 
 idea of spiritual deatii, as well as eternal sufTerings, all of which 
 he understands to be a part of the proper penalty of the law, were 
 not inflicted on Christ, and not to deny that his sufferinfro find 
 death, were substituted as a sacrifice, to satisfy divine justice, 
 fully equivalent with the penalty denounced against transgression. 
 
 9. Because Mr. Barnes has taught nothing in regard to the 
 active obedience of Christ, as distinguished from his passive; so 
 far from having taught, that justificaiijn is simply pardon — he has 
 taught the very rever.se, niamtaining that God regards and treats 
 the sinner who believes in (^hrist, as if he were righteous, and 
 that solely on the ground of the merits of Christ, irrespective of 
 any good deeds or desert of the sinner whatever. 
 
 10 Because the evidence submitted on the part of the prosecu- 
 tion, in respect to the charges of erroneous doctrine, was that of 
 inferences drawn from Mr. Barnes' language, which in the judg- 
 Kient of the Presbytery, were not legitimate, but which even 
 if they were, ought not, and cannot, agreeably to the decision of 
 the General Assembly of 1824, be used to convict of heresy or 
 dangerous error, afTecting the foundation of a sinner's hope, or 
 the Christian's title to eternal life. 
 
 The Presbytery therefore judge, that the charges have not been 
 maintained, and ought to be dismissed, and do acquit Mr. Barnes 
 of having taught in his Notes on the Romans, any dangerous er- 
 rors or heresies, contrary to the word of God and our Standards. 
 And they do moreover judge, that the Christian spirit manifested 
 by the prosecutor, during the progress of the trial, renders it in- 
 expedient to inflict any censure on him, and the Presbytery would 
 express the hope that the result of all will be to promote the peace 
 of the Church, and further the Gospel of Christ. 
 
 Attest, THOMAS EUSTACE, 
 
 Stated Clerk of Second Presbytery of Phiadelphia. 
 
 DR. JUNKIN'S APPEAL. 
 
 Lofayplte College, Juhj 16/A, 1835. 
 To Rev. John L. Grant, Moderator, and to the Rev. Second 
 Presbytery of Philadelphia. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Brethren, — You are hereby officially inft)rmed 
 that I intend to appeal to the Synod of Philadelphia at its next 
 meeting to be held in the borough of York, on the last Wednesday 
 of October next, against your recent decision in the case of the 
 Rev. Albert Barnes. This appeal is from the " definitive sentence." 
 Its general ground is "a manifestation of prejudice in the case, 
 and mistake" and consequent "injustice in the decision." 
 
 Allow me, before proceeding to specify the reasons which shut 
 me up to the belief that the Court was prejudiced, and did err in 
 judgment, to say that I impeach no motives — I charge no corrupt 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXI 
 
 prejudice; no intentional mistake or error upon any man. Men 
 do often err under the purest motives, and are often powerfully 
 prejudiced, whilst perfectly unconscious of it. With this single 
 remark, I proceed to detail the reasons why I appeal on the above 
 named grounds, viz. 
 
 1. Because the Presbytery, nearly tliree months after the charges 
 had been received, and ihe day fixed for trial, attempted to con- 
 strain the prosecutor to change them, by prefixing the general 
 charge of heresy; and did actually pass a resolution refusing to 
 hear the parties, merely because this term was absent; and upon 
 the prosecutor saying, in answer to a question put to him, that in 
 his opinion, the. errors charged amounted to heresy, the Presby- 
 tery made a record which amounted virtually to a change of the 
 indictment to a general charge of heresy. The prosecutor, now 
 appellant, had stated his objections to the use of this term. First, 
 It is a vague term, not defined, in our books ; no two, perhaps of 
 the Presbytery themselves, would agree in what constitutes here- 
 sy. Its use therefore could only create confusion and throw a 
 character of indefiniteness around charges of error, which he had 
 laboured to make definite and precise. Secondly, This term is 
 a bugbear, and is often used to excite popular commotion of an 
 unpleasant character, and may therefore greatly prejudice the 
 mind against the one who accuses another of error, and in favour 
 of the accused. 
 
 Thus the Presbytery manifested favour toward Mr. Barnes, in 
 giving him and his friends the opportunity of exciting odium against 
 the accuser, by allusions and references to persecution, and to 
 " the inquisitorial toils" of the prosecutor. Accordingly this last 
 phraseology was actually used by one of the judges, (Rev. John 
 Smith) and not without effect. 
 
 Thus also the Presbytery changed substantially the ground and 
 nature of the prosecution, and led themselves into error. In their 
 final verdict, they assumed heresy d.s the general charge. And in 
 giving their opinions, some members had their eye constantly on 
 that fearful term, the meaning of which the court did not define. 
 So the Rev. Mr. Barbour opened his remarks — "I never can give 
 my verdict," said he, " that brother Barnes has been guilty of 
 heresy.^'' And again, " The Confession vvas not made for a trap 
 to catch heretics.'^ — And more of the same kind. So the Rev. 
 John Smith, and ihe Rev. N. S. Smith, rung the changes on the 
 word heresy, and evidently were engrossed with that undefined 
 idea. So Elder Hinckle said, "the prosecutor has failed in es- 
 tablishing the charge o^ heresy against the defendant." So Elder 
 Darrach, "I would not say Mr. Barnes was guilty of heresy. ''"' 
 And thus the court was carried off the ground of the charges, and 
 decided on a case not before them. Heresy with many is some 
 horrible thing for which a uian must be burnt. Thus lost in a 
 term undefined and undefinablo, the court, as appears to me, erred 
 ill judgment. They shuddered at tlie idea of burning Mr. Barnes. 
 
 2. Because the accused was not called upon by the court to put 
 
XXII INTRODI'CTION. 
 
 in a plea to each charge specifically. Dis. V. 10. " The chargea 
 shall be read to him, and he shall be called upon to say whether he 
 is guilty or not." Now cases may occur, wherein an accused 
 person may plead guilty to one and not to another of the charges, 
 and unless the question be distinctly put, "do you admit the truth 
 of this first charge, or not ]" and so of the rest, it cannot be known 
 what the plea is; and if no special plea be put to each count of 
 the indictment, the prosecutor and the court arc put to unneces- 
 sary trouble, and kept in ignorance of what they are called upon 
 to do; whether to prove the truth, or only the relevancy of the 
 charge. This violation of rule is the more censurable, because a 
 Presbytery is a court of conscience, and every person arraigned 
 ought to have it put to his conscience to say whether the things 
 charged are true or not. But the 12th section settles this question. 
 ■"If the minister, when he appears, will not confess, but denies the 
 facts alleged against him," &c. Clearly this contemplates an ex- 
 plicit acknowledgment or denial of the things charged. Now 
 Mr. Barnes, in the plea he put in, admitted some of the charges, 
 and denied others; but the Presbytery did not require him to 
 specify which he admitted, and which he denied ; so that the plea 
 amounted to nothing. He says, " I neither have taught, nor do I 
 teach any thing, according to my best judgment, contrary to the 
 word of God ; nor do I deny any truths taught in the word of God, 
 as is alleged that I do in the indictment now before the Presby- 
 tery," Can any candid man read this plea against charges of 
 holding doctrines contrary to the word of God, and Confession of 
 Faith, without feeling that the accused admits teaching doctrines 
 contrary to the Confession of Faitiil And is this plea any thing 
 more than any errorist in every age has put in? Who does not 
 know that all errorists that have troubled the Church, and do trou- 
 ble her, always profess to found their doctrines on the Bible 1 In re- 
 ference to the Confession of Faith there is absolutely no plea at all. 
 The prosecutor has always been of opinion, and by the admissions 
 of Mr. Barnes, now more than ever, that had he been put to a spe- 
 cial plea, he would have acknowledged the truth of at least a ma- 
 jority of the charges, as he has done of the principal ones, so far as 
 the Standards are concerned; and would have justified himself on 
 the ground of Scripture. Thus, it is believed, prejudice was mani- 
 fested in favour of the accused. For by this course he was left to 
 all the benefit of a denial, where he could do it with a clear con- 
 science; whilst he had all the advantage of silence, where he 
 could not have denied. By this, too, the trial was greatly pro- 
 tracted. 
 
 Thus, also, the appellant and the court are left still in doubt 
 whether Mr, Barnes admits or denies certain points. Dr. Ely in 
 his paper said Mr. Barnes included Christ's active obedience in the 
 matter of the believer's justification, and did not teach that justifi- 
 cation is simply pardon. On the contrary. Rev. Mr. Patterson 
 said he believed Mr. Barnes held the common doctrine of the New 
 
INTRODUCTION. KXltl 
 
 England divines, and the doctrine of Dr. Dwight; which is, that 
 justification is simply and only pardon. Thus justice in this state 
 of the case could not be expected. This incipient error led on to 
 others. 
 
 3. Another reason for thinking that there was some little bias in 
 the court, is the high estimate in which, deservedly, some at least 
 of the members held Mr. Barnes as to talents, and his congrega- 
 tion as to respectability and influence. It will be remembered 
 that the Presbytery held its meetings in the lecture room where 
 the accused had usually met his people, and many of them were 
 present during the trial. It is hardly conceivable that the good 
 brethren should not be insensibly influenced. Accordingly, one in 
 closing his remarks said, "Never let me be found condemning a 
 man to whom God has given such mighty powers of mind, and a 
 congregation so dignified and influential." 
 
 4. My fourth reason for appealing on the ground of prejudice 
 leading to error, is, that the Presbytery have in their decision en- 
 dorsed some of Mr. Barnes' alleged errors, and having made them 
 their own, could not be presumed altogether impartial in their 
 judgment. Ex. gr. " This exercise of mind and heart," (Abra- 
 ham's) say they, " the Apostle says was imputed to Abraham for 
 righteousness." See 4th reason. And again, under 5th reason, 
 "It (the Confession of Faith) does not intimate that independent 
 of and subsequent to the enactment of the moral law, God entered 
 into a special compact with man about his obedience ; but that he 
 was pleased to promise eternal life, not only for himself, but for 
 his posterity, on condition of Adam's obedience to that law, to be 
 proved by his observance of the prohibition from the fruit of the 
 tree of knowledge." 
 
 Now, on the contrary, the very doctrine of the Confession and 
 Catechism is, that man was created having "the law of God writ- 
 ten in his heart," and " when God had created man he entered 
 into a covenant of life with him." The covenant was subsequent 
 to the enactment of the law. Thus the Presbytery sanctions the 
 error charged, and therefore may well be supposed favourable to 
 the accused. 
 
 5. Because on the 5th, 6th, and 7th charges, it is very difficult 
 to say whether the Presbytery admit, as Mr. Barnes did, that he 
 denied the doctrine of the Standards. It is painfully difficult to 
 know what their decision is under these heads; and particularly 
 on the 7th, they certainly do not tell us whether Mr. Barnes de- 
 nied or acknowledged the doctrine that Adam's posterity are 
 guilty, i. e. liable to punishment on account of Adam's sin. Why- 
 did not the Presbytery give an unequivocal sentence here? On 
 these three charges, where every attentive hearer of his defence 
 must know that Mr. Barnes admitted his denial and rejection of 
 the doctrine of our Standards, and where he set up his defence on 
 the ground of Scripture and his own metaphysics, in opposition to 
 them, I am constrained to think, the main efforts of the Presbytery 
 
XXIV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 have been expended in throwing darkness and obscurity around 
 the subject, and " so they wrap it up." 
 
 This reason I may extend to each one of the charges, and the 
 Presbytery's action on them. 
 
 Three questions naturally arose on each. 1. Is the thing 
 charged proved by the testimony 1 2. Ts it contrary to the Stand- 
 ards .' 3. Is it contrary to the Bible? Now the prosecutor 
 humbly conceives he had a right to a decision on each of them. 
 This he respectfully requested in a letter addressed to the Pres- 
 bytery, but was refused. 
 
 6. Because an inaccurate statement in the 8th reason of the 
 decision, was, perhaps, partly the ground of said decision, viz : 
 *' Because the prosecutor did not attempt to show in what the 
 proper penalty of the law consisted." Now the prosecutor did 
 show, from the Confession and the Bible, that the proper penalty 
 of the law consisted in death. " Thou shalt surely die" — that it 
 consisted in the curse — the wrath of God — which things include 
 sorrows, anguish, and woes unutterable, inflicted upon the Saviour 
 by the righteous judgment of God the Father, because his own 
 Son bare the sins of the people (by legal imputation) in his own 
 body on the tree. 
 
 7. Because of a similar inaccuracy in the 10th reason, viz: that 
 *' the evidence submitted on the part of the prosecution, was that 
 of inferences drawn from Mr. Barnes' language." Now the ap- 
 pellant humbly conceives that he submitted the language itself of 
 Mr. Barnes, as the testimony and the evidence in the case. He 
 submitted all the passages read, and their adjoining contexts re- 
 spectively. These were the evidence, and it is believed they 
 contain proof. 
 
 8. Because one member of the court, at least, distinctly rejected 
 the Standards of the Church, as a rule of judgment in the case. 
 He said the Confession had been twisted into a wrong place. It 
 was not a trap to catch heretics. He had as good a right to bring 
 charges against a man for holding doctrines contrary lo Ridgley's 
 Body of Divinity, and the Bible, or contrary to the Christian Al- 
 manac, and the Bible, as the present prosecutor had to charge Mr. 
 Barnes with holding doctrines contrary to the Confession of Faith 
 and the Bible. It is true, he next day apologised, by saying he 
 did not mean to disparage the Confession of Faith. But then his 
 speech was at least partly written. It was deliberately and strongly 
 expressed ; whereas the apology was obviously a lame effort, for 
 popular effect. Now, how many more of the judges were of this 
 sentiment, I cannot say. I believe, however, there be some even 
 newer Presbyterians, than this anti-confession brother. But one 
 thing is obvious, viz. that such doctrine effectually precludes a 
 fair and impartial trial. 
 
 9. Because the Presbytery took Mr. Barnes' present declara- 
 tions as expository of the meaning of his language adduced in 
 proof. I think this will be evident upon a simple reading of the 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXV 
 
 passages of his book quoted as testimony, and the decision of the 
 court. During the whole trial, it appeared plain to me, that he 
 was by the court viewed as the legitimate, and the only legiti- 
 mate expounder of his own printed words; and in support of this 
 it was alleged, that he knew best what was his own meaning. 
 
 Now the appellant believes that the court itself was the only 
 authorised expositor. They had no right to take the present views 
 of the party at the bar ; nor his present gloss upon his own words, 
 formerly uttered, as their correct meaning. They were bound 
 simply to weigh the words according to their obvious meaning in 
 their connexion, and according to the usages of the language. 
 The question before them was not (or ought not to have been) 
 What does Mr. Barnes now teach or deny 1 Not, what does he 
 now say he taught then ? But simply, what has he taught here 
 in this book .' 
 
 Every candid mind must perceive, that if a man shall be per- 
 mitted to give his own explanation to his own words, no man can 
 ever be convicted of holding error, unless he be so stupid as to 
 be unable to distinguish between truth and error, and to fetter 
 down and explain away his own terms. A very small portion of 
 talent for mystification can gloss over the most obnoxious terms. 
 For example: An action of slander is brought against me, for 
 uttering the words — '1 saw O. P. Q. in a state of intoxication, at 
 a public dinner on the 4th of July.' It is proved that I pronounced 
 these words, and that I am not on friendly terms with O. P. Q. 
 I put in a plea of justification, and claim the privilege of explain- 
 ing. I show both from my habits of speaking and writing, that I 
 have used the term intoxication, in application to high mental ex- 
 citement. The man was intoxicated with joy. This is all I 
 meant. It was a compliment. I was simply representing the 
 strong patriotic feeling of O. P. Q.; he was intoxicated with joy 
 upon a reminiscence of the glorious transactions this day com- 
 memorates. Or, I show that 1 have been in the habit of abusing 
 Pennsylvania as a drunken state — the whiskey insurrection state 
 — the state of intoxication. I meant nothing more than that I 
 saw O. P. Q. in Pennsylvania that day. Will the court and jury 
 take my explanation, and find me a verdict 1 or will they judge 
 for themselves what my language means? Will they receive as 
 authority, my present testimony, in my own favour; or will they 
 ascertain by other scales, the weight of the words proved "J 
 
 This, I take it, is the grand error of the Presbytery, as to the 
 ground of their decision. They made Mr. Barnes both witness 
 and judge in his own case, by a gratuitous assumption of his pre- 
 sent views, and his present exposition of his language formerly 
 uttered, and now adduced in proof, as being undoubtedly the true 
 and proper sense of that language ; and of his doctrines there pub- 
 lished. Accordingly, notwithstanding he had said in his defence, 
 " the doctrine of all sinning in Adam, and falling with him, I 
 mean to reject," the Presbytery acquitted him on the ground of 
 
XXVI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 his oft-repeated declavation, that he agreed with his accuser in 
 the substantial facts of the case. 
 
 All these considerations, and some others, conspire to sustain 
 me in the conviction, that my tenth and last, and principal reason 
 of appeal is just and' true, viz. : 
 
 10. Because the decision of the Presbytery is not in accordance 
 with the facts of the case, as exhibited in the charges, and the 
 Testimony and the law. It is not a righteous decision. 
 All which is respectfully submitted, by 
 Your unworthy brother in the Lord, 
 
 GEO. JUNKIN. 
 
 Decision of the Synod of Philadeljihia on the above Appeal. 
 
 Resolved, 1. That in view of the proof presented to Synod, and 
 of the whole case, the decision of the (Assembly's) 2d Presbytery 
 of Philadelphia, in the case of the cjiargcs of the said Geo. Junkin 
 against the said Albert Barnes, be and the same hereby is reversed, 
 as contrary to truth and righteousness, and the Appeal declared 
 to be sustained. 
 
 2. That some of the errors alleged in the charges to be held 
 by the said Albert Barnes are fundamental; and all of them con- 
 trary to the standards of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States; and that they do contravene the system of truth therein 
 taught, and set forth in the word of God. 
 
 3. That the said Albert Barnes be, and he hereby is suspended 
 from the exercise of all the functions proper to the gospel minis- 
 try, until he shall retract the errors hereby condemned, and give 
 satisfactory evidence of repentance." 
 
 On the general resolution to sustain the appeal and reverse the 
 decision of the Presbytery, the vote stood — Ai/es, 73 Ministers, 69 
 Elders. Noes, 14 Ministers, 2 Elders. Non liquets— 17. Ex- 
 cused — 1. On the final vote adopting the minute closing with the 
 above three resolutions, the vote stood — Ayes, 58 Ministers, 58 
 Elders — 116. JSarjs, 29 Ministers, 2 Elders. Non liquets and 
 excused, 8. 
 
 Thus, for sustaining the appeal, by parliamentary rule, there 
 were 159 to 16 — nearly teji to one ; and but two Elders in the 
 whole Synod were found ready to vote in favour of the New side. 
 So true is it, that the hope of orthodoxy lies in the popular branch 
 of our ecclesiastical organization. It takes long and hard labour 
 to corrupt the Eldership by false philosophy. 
 
THE ARGUMENT OF THE PROSECUTOR 
 
 IN THE 
 
 Case of the Rev. Albert Barnes. 
 
 Thb understanding of man h that facility of the mind or soul 
 by which he judges. Judging is that opera f ion in which the un- 
 derstanding compares tlioughts or ideas and marks their agree-" 
 ment or difference or both. To the mind's performing this ope- 
 ration dit a.\\, the possession of thoughts is indispensable: to the 
 accuracy of the performance and of the results of the operation^ 
 ^recmo?i of thought is necessary, and the latter musft be in pro- 
 portion to the former. If a man have not the precise materials 
 detached from all others to place inr the balances of a just judg- 
 ment, he cannot weigh them and tell their relative value. Know 
 ledge therefore of the whole" case is essential to a' right decisioiT 
 by our judging faculty.- Scales, however, of perfect equipoise,' 
 and a beam accurately divided into two equal parts, and a pivot 
 under its centre, are not all the requisites to absolute precision in 
 the result?.- The pivot of truth, on which the intellectual balance 
 turns, must be brought to a point and kept free from the rust of 
 envy, or the rancid dust-thick:ened oil of prejudice ; this is best af*' 
 fected by suitable cleansing' and a little droj) of the pure oil of 
 charity. With such precautions we may hope a right and equaf 
 judgment. H«nce in all litigated questions between man and man- 
 the importance of the judging power being kept free from partial' 
 views, calculated to throw the beam off its centre, the scales off a 
 true equipoise, or to clot the pivot with the rust of prejudice. 
 
 In tlie case of the Rev. Albert Barnes, f was applied to by a 
 publisher, just about the close of the trial ill July, for my notes 
 for publication. Mr. Barnes had consented to give his and 
 seemed desirous that I should do the same. I declined for two 
 reasons. 1. Because rrty argument was made from very 
 
 I 
 
brief notes constituting mere heads of doctrine and reference* 
 to proof. 2. And principally as it never was intended from the 
 first, that the case should stop short of the General Assembly, 
 (the grand design being to procure a ilnai adjudication and settle- 
 ment of the litigated points,) I thought, and stated it, that it would 
 be best to leave the higher courts free from all prejudice of our 
 creating, and let them come up to their solemn and important 
 work, without any bias of judgment; and for this end also, I was 
 very desirous to have liad the case brought up to the Assembly 
 of last year, before the whole land should be excited into preju- 
 dice. I therefore declined the publication, and have still perse- 
 vered in the belief that this is the correct course. It appears to 
 me, that, as in civil affairs, it is criminal to prejudice the court, it 
 cannot be altogether innocent in ecclesiastical matter. There is 
 indeed a difference in the cases. Ours relate to matters of doc- 
 trinal belief, and admit free discussion on the general principles; 
 but still where personal interests are allied to doetrinal opinion, 
 and official character is at stake, prudence should teach parties 
 to stand back. We, the parties, stand at the judicial bar; to 
 that we have appealed; and I conceive we have no right, during 
 the pending of our own cause there^ to litigate at another bar; 
 ■we have no right, and we can have no right in the very nature of 
 rights to a trial at two different tribunals at the same time,^and 
 for the same thing. 
 
 This is my doctrine. Why then, you will say, does your prac- 
 tice contradict it ] Why do you publish your argument in the 
 case of Mr. Barnes! I answer, because, new rights result from 
 new wrongs. I have no right to thrust with violence a man out 
 of my house who comes in peaceably and lawfully : but if a man 
 enter for villainous and unlawful purposes, I have a right to eject 
 him by force if need be. Mr. Barnes has committed what I sup- 
 pose a imrong in refusing to plead before the bar of his own choice, 
 and then preferring his plea before a tribunal unknown to our ec- 
 clesiastical constitution : and out of his wrong my right grows. 
 He ha^ arraigned me at the tribunal^ of the people : not, you will 
 observe, of God's people only ; but of the world at large. His 
 " Defence" is made at a bar where no bill had been preferred 
 against him, until after he there appeared. Not satisfied with 
 the legitimate courts of Christ's house, he has actually spread be- 
 
fore the world in tens of thousands of copies, his entire written ar- 
 gument. Will not the reader justify me in sending- my argument 
 for the truth, after this " Z)e/ewce," though it should lag far behind? 
 Justice, wherever her throne be, is the same in her essential cha- 
 racters and indispensable requisites. Whether in the popular bo- 
 som or on the supreme bench ; she must have her balances and 
 her facts. In the premature effort of my brother, she has had her 
 scales thrown indeed into a very forbidding attitude, one hung to 
 the ground by its ponderous load, the other empty. This however 
 will soon be rectified. Her hand is even now lowering to restore 
 the empty scale to its just equipoise, and receive my argument; 
 when this is fairly in, let her hand rise, and the Church of God, 
 yea, the world itself judge where abides eternal truth. 
 
 It needs scarcely be added here, that the argument before the 
 Synod of Philadelphia, was a hasty sketch, and the report iia the 
 New York Observer a mere skeleton of that sketch. 
 
 Here presented, it is written as if for the Assembly : it has 
 been prepared at intervals of time picked up, chiefly whilst from 
 home on a collecting agency. There is no time to me for re- 
 vision : it must therefore appear from the original rough draft, 
 aad if attacked on the score of literature, it will find in me no 
 defender. An apology for its inaccuracies, may be found in the fact, 
 that I did not expect it to be published entire, until I should have 
 had^time to write it over: but the emission of some thousands of 
 extra Philadelphians, with t'le "Defence" of Mr. Barnes, seems 
 to render an earlier emission proper ; and, having public appoint- 
 ments in various parts of the country, I must let it go even as it 
 is. It may appear hereafter in another form. 
 
 George Junkin, 
 
 Philadelphia^ March 3, 1836. 
 
 Mr. Moderator, 
 
 Deep and solemn are the responsibilities of a gospel minister. 
 He is the servant of the Most High, and to his own Master he 
 must render an account of the service he may perform, of that 
 which he may neglect, and of the manner and spirit of both his 
 action and his inaction. The precise period, particular form, and 
 all the circumstances of this account conspire to fill the mind with 
 conceptions awful as eternity, and emotions agitating as the 
 convulsions of dissolvincr nature. 
 
The precise period fixed upon for this account is none other tl:iaja 
 that set forth in the sacred voUnie as the c^onsummation of all 
 things — when the Son of Man shall be revealed in his glory, and 
 all flesh shall see him together. 
 
 The particular form of this account is tliat which belongs to olH.- 
 cial rank. Tipe minister of God must, as an individual sinner, ip- 
 common with other men, respond to the interrogations of the final 
 Judge as to the manner in which he spent his brief day upon earth. 
 But besides this, he must answer to him who called him to take 
 part of this ministry, for the substance of its duties and the manner 
 pf their performance, or the reasons of their neglect. As a subr 
 prdiiiate officer— ^a^ steward — he must give his official account. 
 
 AH the circumstances are of peculiar solemnity. He will stand 
 in that day before an assembled universe. There will be the people 
 Jo whom he ministered, or should have ministered, in holy things. 
 Spectators they shall be and witnesses for or against hirn. Souls of 
 immortal mould, lost by his neglect, or saved through his instru- 
 mentality, clustering round will encircle the dread tribunal to 
 mark the accuracy of his statements. The omniscient eye pf his 
 Judge sliall be upon him and upon them — that eye which now 
 boams mercy and compassiqn, will then as now look through his 
 being. But then, ao it doth not now, will it expose to naked gaze 
 the totality of that being, its attributes and its entire actings — 
 especially, however, its official actings. These may be summed 
 up under the two heads of doctrinal instruction and pastoral vigi- 
 lance. "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue 
 in them ; for in doing this thou shalt both snve thyself and them 
 that hear thee." (1 Tim. iv. i6.) And with increasing solemnity 
 he says, ♦' 1 charge thee, before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 who shall jud^e the quick and the dead at his appe^rin^ and king- 
 dom ; preach the word ; be iijstant in season out of season ; re- 
 prove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine." 2 
 Tim. iy, 1, 2. 
 
 Agreeably to these serious charges, the man of God is bound to 
 give himself to reading, to meditation, to prayer, and all those la- 
 bours of intellect \vhich may enable him to come forUi to his people 
 Weil furnished with doctrinal truth. A witness for God, he is laid 
 under sacred obligations to know the truth and to speak it alt 
 in its proper order, time and place. He may not exhibit his own 
 opinions, but God's. He may not plunge into the dark mist ot 
 metaphysical and philosophical speculatit)n, and detail the results 
 of his groping research-~^his rude abstractions, in room of simple 
 gospel truth. His it is to reason out of the Scriptures. These 
 are to be the limit and the rule of all his doctrinal instruction, 
 and its practical application. 
 
 But even more laborious and awfully responsible, if more can 
 be, are the duties of his pastoral vigilance. His it is to go fortlj, 
 especially "in the dark and cloudy day," into the defiles of the 
 mountains and the waste and clesolate places of th^ \md^ ^^:hitheif 
 
the flock of his Master may be scattered, and to seek and to search 
 them out ; to collect them into the fold of tlie Good Sliepherd, to 
 go in and out before them and lead them upon the mountains of 
 Israel. And as " the Great Shepherd of the sheep" knows his 
 own sheep, and is known of them, so the under-shepherd is bound 
 to know his own, and peculiarly to watch over and guard those 
 who may he feeble or wayward, so that for every one he may ren- 
 der a satisfactory account " when the Chief Sheplicrd shall ap- 
 pear." In view of tfiese exhausting- labours and consuming cares 
 and soul-burdening responsibilities, well may the man of God, 
 compassed as he is with infirmities, exclaim " Who is sufficient for 
 these things V 
 
 To all thie, Mr. Moderator, I know your heart most cordially 
 responds. Deeply have you felt these responsibilities, and earnest- 
 ly have your desires gone forth after that grace whereby alone any 
 man can be sustained under a realising sense of their magnitud-e. 
 Why then, you will say to me, why harass a christian brother 1 
 — why increase the heavy bard'^'nsof a minister of God by such a 
 prosecution as this ? Has not this brother sufficient cares and la- 
 bours already for any one man to sustain? Wherefore then add 
 the spirit-chafing and patience-exhausting efibrts necessary in de- 
 fending against charges like these ? 
 
 These interrogations are exceedingly natural, and very spe- 
 cious. And I am not wholly unapprised of the peculiar difficul- 
 ties to which he is exposed who voluntarily steps forward to be 
 a public prosecutor of a christian brother, eminent for talents and 
 occupyinga distinguished station in the Presbyterian church. The 
 simple fact creatas as it were instinctively, a feeling of disgust 
 towards the individual and of indignation agahist his conduct. 
 Any person can, and almost every person will, apply to such dis- 
 turbers of the peace, the language which John applies to Satan 
 himself. Accordingly I have already been branded by not a few^ 
 " the accuser of the brethren," and motives have been attributed 
 to me which are not mine, either by original conception or by legal 
 imputation. ^ Hence, sir, it becomes proper and necessary and just, 
 to premise a few remarks in reference to my present posture. 
 
 1, Not all the duties of men and of ministers are pleasant. 
 Doubtless, to have embraced his brother Peter in all the warmth 
 of fraternal feeling, would have been exceedingly gratifying to 
 the heart of Paul, and most congenial witfi the spirit of love 
 which breathed through his whole conduct: but yet he felt him- 
 self constrained to meet him with the power of displeasure on his 
 brow, and the language of stern rebuke upon his tongue. He 
 withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. And thus 
 it often happens. The course most agreeable to our feelings is not 
 the course of duty. Who that desires to preserve a conscience 
 void of offence toward God and toward man, has never been con- 
 strained to meet duties, even of friendship and love, very trying to 
 bothi 
 
 1* 
 
•2. Among duties of this kind, is the very one in qneetion : as iii 
 the case of Paul against Pctor ; and as contemplated in the cons.k- 
 tution of the Presbyterian church, (Dis. v. 5.) where we are told, 
 that "Process against a gospel minister, shall not be commenced, 
 unless some person or persons, undertake to make out thq 
 charge.'' It is perfectly obvious, that if a minister may and can 
 ever be lawfully prosecuted, some person or persons must do it. 
 Yea, tliat prosecution for error is in some cases right, is evident. 
 (Dis. V. 13) "Heresy and schism, may be of such a nature as to in- 
 fer deposition : but errors ought to be fully considered." It may 
 therefore, according to the Bible and tiie constitution, be the 
 duty sometimes of some 'person to prosecute a Christian minister. 
 Do you demand the reasons why i think this time is come, and 
 this person is before you ! 
 
 3. This demand I shall meet, not however to justify my motives, 
 but simply to exhibit reasons for my conduct. Motives uneX" 
 pressed, it is God's to judge. All iaipoachmcnt of these, I leave 
 witli him. No man has a right to judge motives, only so far as 
 they are exhibited in conduct. If by look, word, or act, I should 
 violate the law of love, then condemn me; but not upon the evi- 
 dence of evil motives, merely suspected and surmised. It is the 
 purpose of my heart iu all this business, to be guided by that 
 charity which thinketh noevil ; and if I be found to err from this 
 purpose, it will be through an inhrmity of nature, and not through 
 unchristian wilfulness. On this point, Mr. Moderator, you will 
 please to keep jn mind, that neither quickness of reply, nor ele- 
 vation of voicCj becoming disagreeably shrill as it rises, or even 
 vehenience of manner in action, are infallible evidences of bad 
 temper in a speaker. By reason of these defects, I have been 
 frequently misunderstood in public discussion, and bad feeling 
 has been imputed to me, where there was every thing the re- 
 verse. In the late General Assembly, some of my warmest 
 friends of recent acquaintance, fell into this wrong inference, and 
 spoke to me on this subject; I assured them they were mistaken — 
 there was no feeling such as they supposed. Astowarmlhofmanner, 
 approaching sometimes to vehemence, you will bear with it. You 
 l^ve to see it in the pulpit, and why not in a deliberative, or even 
 in a judicial assojiibly, when the occasion calls for iti If defect it 
 is, it is one which 1 am not very anxious to correct. My soul 
 desires not alliance with him who can speak on ttie most serious 
 and important subjects without emotion. If unable to preserve 
 the happy medium in this thing, let me rather be found among the 
 enthusiasts than among the phlegmatics. 
 
 4. The great reason why I am before you in the odious characr 
 ter of a volunteer accuser, is this, that eternal truth is at stake. 
 Brother Barnes has in those "Notes on Romans," impugned 
 ^ome of the leading doctrines of Christianity. To me it appears, 
 that he has uttered sentiments directly at variance witli. the 
 standards of our church, and with the Bible : and these, not of 
 
comparative insignificance, but of vital importance. There are 
 doctrines set forth in this volume, as I su^Tpose, fwulamentalbj 
 erroneous. Nor am I alone in this opinion. That you may be 
 convinced of this, and thereby disposed to give a more patient 
 hearing-, let me present the opinions of the gentlemen who con- 
 duct the Biblical Repertory. In vol. ii. p. 92, they say, "It is 
 now, by many who would be esteemed orthodox, and Calvanistic 
 too, considered so absurd to hold the doctrine of the imputation of 
 Adam's sin to his posterity, that they will not even condescend to 
 argue the point and demonstrate its falsehood. If these be correct 
 in their views of the subject, it must create some surprise, tliat all 
 theologians, from the days of Augustine, who were not ;uknow- 
 ledged heretics, believed firmly in this doctrine and considered 
 it as fundamental in the Christian system. Is it certainly the 
 fact, that these modern impugners of the ancient doctrine of the 
 church, understand the Scriptures better than all who have gone 
 before themT Or is it undoubted, that they are endowed with a 
 perspicuity so much superior to that of Augustine, Calvin, Owen, 
 and Edwards, that what these thought, after profound considera- 
 tion, might be defended as reasonable, is so absurd as not to merit 
 a refutation ? Now we confess ourselves to be of the nunjber of 
 •tiiose who believe, whatever reproach it may bring upon us from 
 a certain quarter, that if the doctrine of imputation be given up, 
 the whole doctrine of original sin must be abandoned. And if 
 this doctrine be relinquished, then the whole doctrine of redemp- 
 tion must fall, and what may then be left of Christianity, they 
 may contend for that will ; but for ourselves, we shall be of 
 opinion, that what remains will not be worth a serious struggle." 
 Other men then, it seems, and men whose opinions are wont to 
 be treated with respect, coincide with me in opinion. They 
 think the doctrine of original sin, including imputation, viz. the 
 imputation of Adam's sin, and necessarily drawing along with it 
 the imputation of Christ's righteousness — the very doctrines, 
 whose rejection constitutes the leading error of this Book or 
 Notes — these are fitncltiinental. Deny these, and "what remains 
 will not be worth a serious struggle." Reject the covenants — 
 as this book does most explicitly, and you take away the founda- 
 tion of a sinner's hope for eternity. Thus you perceive good 
 reasons exist why some person at least should " make out the 
 charges," and prosecute to a final issue, and procure a sentence 
 of condemnation upon errors so fatal to the Christian system. 
 
 5. But, Mr. Moderator, the right of securing such a deci- 
 sion by prosecuting an individual minister, is peremptorily denied 
 by the accused in this case. " I utterly deny the right,''^ says he 
 "of any^ man to arraign me before a court, merely to make me the 
 occasion for a discussion of an abstract doctrine, in theology, poli- 
 tics, or morals." Now if the ground taken by the Brother here 
 be correct, I want to know how, and in what form, any man sus- 
 taining a fair moral character, can be tried and convicted of error 1 
 
8 
 
 Is it in any case right to try a man for teaciiing error ! What 
 is the desig-n in every such trial ? Is it to wreak vengeance upon 
 the man ? Is iiis punishment the object ! or is it the vindication 
 of the truth/ Duubtless the latter is the great aim of all disci- 
 pline and all censure. To remove the oflence of teaching error, 
 and to bring back the wanderer from his erratic course into the 
 paths of truth, are the only legitimate objects. But Brother Barnes 
 would have you believe that my object must be to see him pu- 
 nished, his character ruined, his usefulness cut short. Oh ! Mr. 
 Moderator, how I would rejoice to see his usefulness increased 
 tenfold, his character for consistency as a Presbtyerian minister, 
 shine forth, and his person and life escape censure and punishment 
 from all but the known enemies of the truth, and thus our beloved 
 Zion relieved from the agonies she endures in consequence of the 
 errors in this book and elsewhere published to the world. These are 
 among the important objects in view. But the Brother says then, 
 " A proposition should have been submitted to the Presbytery, to 
 organize itself into a court of judges, on a trial of skill in contro- 
 versy, and the propositions should have been submitted for discus- 
 sion ; and charges should not have been brought against a minis- 
 ter of the g'ospel." Surely this was written for public amuse- 
 ment and diversion : that the minds of men might not dwell upon 
 the merits of this case ; but be lashed into a foam of indignation 
 against the wanton murderer of ministerial reputation. In reply, 
 let me ask, suppose such a proposition had been made to the 2d 
 Presbytery, what would they have saidi They would have said, 
 Sir, you are mistaken. This is not a court of abstract casuistry. 
 We cannot engage in such trifles. W^here is your authority 
 in the Constitution of the Church for demanding such a trial ? — 
 Show us the authority by which we are bound to sit and judge 
 in such a case. On the contrary, the last General Assembly 
 marked out the true constitutional course. True, the Assembly of 
 1831, did say in reference to these very questions, " If they be 
 answered, they had better be discussed and decided in thesi, 
 separate from the case of Mr. Barnes." (Minutes p. 180.) But 
 then there is no authority in our Standards, by which a church 
 court can be compelled to judge on abstract questions. They 
 may do it if they choose, but there is no obligation, and we 
 choose to decline. The last Assembly prescribed the proper 
 course, — (see Minutes, p. 26.) " the fair and unquestionable mode 
 of procedure is, if the author [of a book alleged to contain error] 
 be alive, and known to be of our communion, to institute process 
 against him ; and give him a fair and constitutional trial." If 
 therefore you desire a legal decision on these points, we say, with 
 that wise Assembly, "institute process against him; and give 
 him a fiiir and constitutional trial. And until you do this, we beg 
 leave to decline all action in the case." Such, Mr. Moderator, 
 would have been your answer. Such it must have been agreea- 
 bly to the principles of common sense, as they are embodied in 
 
9 
 
 tb^ laws, <;ivil and ecclesiastical, and the practices of 'Courts hi 
 both. 
 
 6. But ill pressing this point of abstract and moral process, Mr. • 
 Barnes gives occasion to me for another remark, viz : That in 
 bringing- these charges, I do not originally publish him as an 
 errorist, and thereby assail his character. For he very adroitly 
 assumes the singular position as true, that, until these charges 
 were made out, nobody in all the world had ever heard that he 
 was suspected of maintaining doctrines contrary to our standards ! 
 •" Suppose," says he, "that Dr. Junkiu had arraigned me before a 
 court having' competent jurisdiction, on a charge of adultery, — 
 Suppose that the fact u'as proclaimed abroad, and suspicions were 
 excited, and counsel was employed, and a jury empannelled. 
 Suppose the public mind had had time to be agitated on the sub- 
 ject, and a strong bias should set against my character, q.nd peace 
 should flee from my family, and my public work should be closed.—^ 
 And then suppose that the public should be gravely told, that all 
 this was not designed to injure me, but to settle some mooted 
 points about the crime in question ; and that all this array of in^- 
 dictment, and of testimony, and of trial, had been merely to bring 
 up the subject before the tribunal in order to obtain a decision on 
 ^he law. And would it be possible for the community to repress 
 its indignation against conduct like this 1" Now, Mr. Moderator, 
 4et me anticipate the obvious tendency and design of this illustra- 
 tion, and prevent the rising of yours, and the public's indignatiiMi, 
 by stating, that the cases are about as dissimilar as they can well 
 be imagined. (1.) The Brother has never been arraigned before 
 the public law for the crime of adultery : but all the world knows 
 that for many years he has been, not secretly suspected, but publio- 
 ly accused of holding the errors here charged. For six years the 
 religious press, and in some degree the secular press, have groaned 
 under the weight of this controversy. The charge of corruption in 
 •the Post Office Department was not more public and ^j^flg-rawf, than 
 was the charge ofhis holding and teaching error, before these ch^xges 
 were written. It is therefore all idle and worse than idle, to insinu- 
 ate that I have given origin to these matters — have " published 
 them abroad" — liave " excited suspicions;" to destroy ministerial 
 character." No, Sir, 1 never drew a pen — never published a line 
 of the volumes that have been poured out upon the public, 
 within tiie last six years: and therefore I feel it to be unkind in 
 Brother Barnes, to attempt to represent me as an agitator, cominif 
 in after " the agitations of that time had died somewhat away/* 
 and opening afresh the bleeding wounds of a convalescent church. 
 ."The agitations of that time had died somewhat away," when 
 these charges were brought. Had they indeed ! What ! in March 
 1835 ! Why, Mr. Moderator, how was it in the preceding Gene- 
 ral Assembly 1 Were there no " agitations" there 1 No, not a 
 mountain wave ! — No, not a roiling billow and a sweeping tem^* 
 pest ! Why then does my Brother throw out so unkind an insinu- 
 
10 
 
 atlon 1 Why does he seem to wish it understood that I intruded, 
 like an evil ang^el, into the peaceful paradise of the Presbyterian 
 church, and threw all into agitation and angry strife 1 But (2.) 
 The hypothesis he presents illustrates tije correctness of the re- 
 marks 1 made about abstract judicial process and its absurdity, 
 whilst it differs from the present case in another most material 
 point; viz: That a charge of adultery directly impoachos moral 
 character, but a charge of teaching error docs not A (^d) point of 
 dissimilarity is, that the one offence exposes to civil pains and penal- 
 ties: tiie other does not. ]jet me however pass upon your notice 
 the (1.) as the chief point here. In preferring these charges I 
 proclaimed nothing new. It was universally known that Brother 
 Barnes was supposed by many to hold those opinions. Indeed he 
 himself has stated it. " Charges," he says, " similar to those had 
 been alleged against me. Those accusations had been laid before 
 the General Assembly." Why then — for I repeat a question : 
 why insinuate that the prosecutor has raised this storm ? On the 
 contrary, let me propose a query now, which I meant to press home 
 hereafter, viz : Who intruded this controversy into the Presbytery 
 of Philadelphia, and the Synod too? Did the skies lower and the 
 lightnings play and the thunders roar and the rains descend and 
 the floods beat upon this city of brotherly love, prior to the intro- 
 duction of Brother Barnes' " Way of Salvation ]" 
 
 7. There are special reasons inducing me to undertake this un- 
 pleasant service for the church. (1.) 1 once belonged to the 
 same Presbytery with Mr. Barnes; had lived in the midst of the 
 agitations growing, as I always supposed, out of his peculiar 
 opinions; had many opportunities of marking the origin and 
 spread of the leaven at work in the mass, and had some little 
 knowledge of the brethren in and around Philadelphia — their pe- 
 culiar temperament and talents. (2.) I do not now belong to 
 that Synod. For more than two years I had ceased to mingle in 
 the deliberations of any of its Presbyteries. This, it appeared to 
 me, was a favourable circumstance. Removed to a distarice, not 
 too great to prevent accurate observation of passing events ; nor 
 too small to keep me in the whirl of excitement caused by the 
 new theology, I really thought I could look calmly on the scene, 
 and form a tolerably correct estimate of passing events. There- 
 fore, (3.) I had observed one of the necessary practical effects of 
 the protraction of these great controversies, viz. a waning of the 
 cause of Presbyterian ism in this city. Grieved to see such a 
 practical result of the controversy, it occurred to me that the 
 cause must be removed, or the evil must increase. Convinced, 
 as I still am, that the true answer to the church's complaint, 
 "Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable, ivhich re- 
 fuseth to be healed ?" (Jer. xv. 18,) is found in the fact stated by 
 the same prophet, (vi. 14.) '* They have healed also the hurt of 
 the: daughter of my people slightly, saying, peace, peace, when 
 there ia no peace," J would not avoid the opinion, that the man 
 
11 
 
 who would seize the probe, run it deep into the festering wound, 
 and open up the secret springs of its irritation ; though he must 
 first expect the maledictions of the patient, would nevertheless 
 do her the highest service, and ultimately win her gratitude and 
 love. (4.) I had been thrown occasionally into the agitations of 
 ecclesiastical strife, and though naturally excitable and quick in 
 temperament, it really appeared to me that prudence and grace 
 might carry me through this storm, as well as others. Or, to 
 change the figure, I had seen the probe applied, the patient and 
 the operator both writhe, and yet the happiest results follow. 
 (5.) I had been a pastor, and. knew something of a pastor's cares, 
 and toils, and joys, and sorrows ; and therefore was of opinion, 
 that my sympathies stood ready to shield the brother from any 
 severity which truth might drop from my tongue. (6.) The 
 republication of the old doctrines of " The Way of Salvation," 
 of which the General Assembly of 1831, had said it " contains 
 a number of unguarded and objectionable passages; yet is the 
 Assembly of ophiion, that especially after the explanations which 
 are given by him (Mr. B.) of those passages, the Presbytery 
 ought to have suffered the whole to pass without further notice." 
 This republication of the same doctrines, in a form more objec- 
 tionable than before, and freed from the gloss of explanations, has 
 fairly opened the door, and invited a prosecution, which stands 
 entirely detached from the former collisions. (7.) The general in- 
 terests of the church, in her charitable enterprises, have been long 
 paralyzed by these agitations. Brethren have been compelled to 
 stand in an attitude of resistance against innovation, and to ex- 
 pend much force in this way, which they might, and doubtless 
 would, have expended in the noble enterprises of the day, but 
 for the necessity under which they were laid of defending their 
 own firesides against the intrusions of a new theology. Now, I 
 say, let us come up and discuss and decide, once for all, the whole 
 matters at issue. Let the old landmarks of truth be sought for, 
 and the lines be well ascertained, that every man may know his 
 own territory, and the spot where he is to stand or fall. 
 
 These are the leading reasons why this process is begun. But 
 brother Barnes has a variety of objections to the present prosecutor 
 ia particular. (1.) He belongs to a different Presbytery from him- 
 self. This is my (2.) reason above stated, and 1 think it a good 
 and substantial one, why I may lawfully prosecute. (2.) The 
 brother himself was of good and fair standing with his own 
 Presbytery and churcli. Answer.(a). That he stood fair with his 
 people, if he was known to teach dangerous doctrine, is a good 
 reason why some person should make out the charges. For if 
 his own people were dissatisfied with his doctrine, it would be 
 evidence that they were not in danger of being drawn away from 
 the true Presbyterian standards. (6).That his standing with his 
 Presbytery was fair, was to have been expected ; because it was 
 created explicitly and expressly fof his protection, and all were 
 
12 
 
 excluded from it, who might be strpposed in danger of disturbing' 
 him for his belief. Hence the indispensable necessity of his prosecu- 
 tor being of another Presbytery. (3.) Mr. Barnes seems to object, 
 because he '* was pursuing peacefully the duties of a most arduous 
 pastoral charge, requiring all my time and strength; and, indeed, 
 exhausting the vigour of life, and rapidly undermining my consti- 
 tution, by arduous and incessant duties." Oh ! Sir, if Mr. B. had 
 met the requirement of his " most arduous pastoral charge" — 
 had he devoted "all his time and strength," "the vigour of his 
 life," and " his constitution," sacredly to pastoral duties, you had 
 never heard of this prosecution : for then these "Notes" had never 
 been written; and hundreds of thousands of Presbyterian youth, 
 and hoary heads too, had never becrt endangered by the alarming 
 doctrmes of this book. No, Sir, this brother did not devote "all 
 his time and strength, and vigour of life" to pastoral labours. He 
 must extend, what I must think, the baleful influence of "a num- 
 ber of unguarded and objectionable" doctrines over the length and 
 breadth of the land. He must needs write a book, containing the 
 most " objectionable" doctrines of his celebrated sermon, and 
 thrust it forth among our Sunday schools and Bible classes, and 
 churches and people, that thus he may teach to tens of thousands 
 sentiments subversive of our entire system of doctrines. Thus, 
 the fire which was smothered under, by the slightly healing poli- 
 cy of the Assembly of 1831, is, by the breath of this peaceful 
 brother, blown into a flame that sweeps across the continent. 
 Then from the meekness of his peaceful retreat he looks forth 
 upon tliis tempest of fire, and placidly complains that the uproar 
 produced by the efl:brts to extinguish it, has disturbed the quiet- 
 ness of his retreat. Oh ! that Ire had paused but a little for reflec- 
 tion—that he had considered the possibility of the refluent flame 
 sweeping through the branches of his own olive tree, and there 
 drinking up the oil of his own consolations. (4.) These charges 
 are substantially the same with those once before the Assembly. 
 So they are, and the Aissembly condemned the sermon on "The 
 Way of Salvation," as "containing a number of unguarded and 
 objectionable passages," (Min. p. 180;) but exeuljiyated the writer 
 on the ground of explanations given ; and yet now in this book of 
 Notes, we have similar expressions without an attempt to disguise 
 by explanations. (5.) Personal injury I had never sustained at the 
 hand of brother Barnes^ and hence, he infers, I could not properly 
 be an accuser. "To Dr. Junkin," says he, " I had done no injury." 
 And again, "By bringing these charges. Dr. Junkin alleges, im- 
 pliedly, that he has been injured, either personally, or as one of 
 the Christian community. If not injured in one of these senses, 
 there could have been no justifiable pretence for bringing them." 
 On the contrary, if the accused had injured me particularly, it 
 would have been a constitutional bar against my prosecuting; 
 for our book says, that " Great caufion ougli* to be exercised 
 in receiving accusations from any person who is known to indulge 
 
13 
 
 & malignant spirit toward the accused— or who is deeply inte- 
 rested, in any respect, in the conviction of the accused." Now, 
 injury received, atibrds some ground at least to suspect " a malig- 
 nant spirit toward the accused/' and an interest m his convic- 
 tion. (6.) Another reason why I should not prosecute is thus 
 stated: "His opinions I have not attacked." How this obser- 
 vation escaped the writer, it is difficult to surmise. My opinions 
 are contained in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, and 
 these are most unceremoniously attacked in this book. The very 
 language of the Catechism is quoted in derision on page 117, 
 thus, " What idea is conveyed to men of common m>derstanding 
 by the expression they sinned in him !" And on page 10 and page 
 128, the leading doctrines of the Confession are stated and rejec- 
 ted with indignity. How then could it be said " His opinions I 
 had not attacked J" (7.) I am President of a College; and there- 
 foie ought not to bring charges. "Why should Dr. JunJdn 
 feel himself called on to stand forth as the defender of orthodoxy, 
 and as the accuser of his brethren .' Why should the president 
 of a literary institution feel himself called on to bring solemn 
 and grave charges of error against a pastor in another Presby- 
 tery f" In replying to this item in brother Barnes' "Defence," al- 
 low me to observe, that I never could see just reasons why Presi- 
 dents of Colleges, many of whom have charges vastly more im- 
 portant to the church at large, than any mere pastoral charge 
 can be, should, because of their office, be deprived of any minis- 
 terial right. VVhy should men, who certainly need as much deci- 
 sion of character as any other class of citizens, be shut up to the 
 necessity and degradation of everlasting fluctuation I Is it come 
 to this, in a country that glories in free discussion, and in a state 
 where '* the free communication of tho-ughts and opinions" is de- 
 clared to be "one of the inalienable rights of man," that, however 
 general the right of opinion and the privilege of publishing it, the 
 entire class who conduct literary institutions, are put under the 
 ban of proscription 1 Must presidents of colleges necessarily be 
 men of indecision in all matters of doctrinal belief] Or if they 
 may be permitted to entertain opinions upon questions of great 
 interest to the church and the country, mitst they be excessively 
 cautious and reserved in their publication? On the contrary, is 
 it not entirely befitting those who are entrusted with the govern- 
 ment of youth, with especial regard to the development of their 
 faculties and the training of their minds to habits of decided and 
 independent action, to form for themselves, cautiously and pru- 
 dently, and to express on all proper occasions, explicitly, openly, 
 and honestly, the moral and religious principles by which them- 
 selves and their institutions are governed '.' Is there a class of 
 men in the whole community, whose opinions that community 
 have a deeper interest and a better right to know? 
 
 Now it may be proper here to state that some friends did ad- 
 vise me, in reference to these agitations of the church, to be quiet, 
 
 2 
 
14 
 
 and take no part in them: and I confeiss the advice seemed very plau- 
 sible; and when the tirst trial of Mr. Barnes in the Presbytery of 
 Philadelphia came on, it providentially turned up, that a prior en- 
 gagement called me to a distance from the scene, and 1 was glad 
 of it: and should still have been pleased to escape the unliappi- 
 ness of this position. But then every minister has come under 
 solemn obligation to maintain the doctrines of our standards 
 against all opposition, and wherever and whenever the God of 
 providence shall present opportunity : and titerefore, though often 
 tempted to stand afar off and witness the noble strife for truth, I 
 still met my ordination vows. They forbade shrinking. They 
 told me of claims upon conscience, prior to those of any literary 
 institution, and of more fearful import. The peculiar official re- 
 lation to a literary institution, docs not appear to cancel the obliga- 
 tions officially borne to the church, nor constitute a barrier in- 
 superable to enduring the odium of prosecution. Some think 
 otherwise, however; and I could name the Presbyterian minister 
 who sent his daughter to a Roman Catholic seminary, and his son 
 to Lafayette college : and who removed the former because her 
 Bible wa;s taken from her, and the latter, because the president 
 had prosecuted Mr. Barnes. A similar spirit appears to have 
 moved the brother to make this objection to his prosecutor. On 
 the Monday preceding the publication of the " Defence," brother 
 Barnes and I met in Broadway, and had some conversation : in the 
 course of which he inquired, whether I had come on with a view 
 to do something for the college : I frankly replied, that that was 
 my sole business in New York. On Saturday his Defence ap- 
 peared, modijied, you will observe, and amendtd for the peculiar 
 benefit of the college. Whether the giving of this blow had any 
 influence upon the mind of the brother and of the editors, in hurry- 
 ing forth the Defence so many weeks before a word of argument 
 had been offered on the other side, the world will judge. Whe- 
 ther such an attack be consistent with that meekness which turng 
 the other cheek, when one has been smitten, the church will 
 judge. 
 
 An (8) objection to the present prosecution is, that no general 
 name is given to the charges — the term heresy is not introduced — 
 "no charge of crime was alleged, nor even of heresy. ^^ This ob- 
 jection was made in Presbytery, but not until nearly three months 
 after the charges were received and admitted to lie, and a time 
 was appointed for the trial : and, not until the trial was just com- 
 mencing, was it discovered that the important word heresy was 
 omitted in the charges. And so pleased were some of the mem- 
 bers with this discovery, that it was actually moved and carried 
 not to proceed unless the prosecutor would take back his charges 
 and alter them by the insertion of that desirable term. In oppo- 
 sition to such a dismissal of the case and shrinking from a tria', 
 I alleged several reasons. (1) The use of the term heresy is cal- 
 culated to excite terrific apparitions in the public mind. In for- 
 
IS 
 
 tfi6f times heretics were unceremoniously burnt, and our Imagina- 
 tions are scarcely capable of strict subjection to truth when we 
 allow ourselves to talk about heresy : we still associate the gibbet 
 and the stake ; the dungeon at best and the rack, with the very 
 name of heretic. The term was therefore omitted. It was felt 
 to be unnecessary and utterly undesirable to use exciting epithets 
 — epithets calculated to inflame popular feeling, and draw forth 
 public indignation. It was politic in the prosecutor; and he is al- 
 ways desirous to act with prudence and policy whenever principle 
 will allow of it. He was sacredly resolved from the outset to ab- 
 stain from all language calculated to excite improper feeling. 
 Nothing is ever gained to the cause of truth by the use of harsh 
 epithets ; and few such there are, that, when used seriously, are 
 better calculated to wound tender sensibilities and call up the 
 worst feelings of humanity, than to charge a man with being a 
 heretic. All this it was my purpose to avoid, and the result 
 shows that the purpose was wise and good. But now might not 
 the question be asked, why did brother Barnes and the Presbytery 
 so much desire the term heresy to be introduced 1 Did they wish 
 to avail themselves of this handle to work against the prosecution? 
 Were they sorry at not obtaining this advantage and means of 
 creating popular excitement? Why, Mr. Moderistor, sorne of the 
 very court themselves could not repress their own imaginations; 
 but although the charge was not for heresy expressly, they could 
 see, and hear, and speak of nothing else. The horrible visions of 
 the tormenting engines and the stake were continually before the 
 minds of some: and the dreadful idea of burning the heretic 
 haunted their imaginations. Now if that fearful word did these 
 things in the green tree what must have been the effect of throw- 
 ing this torch among the dry leaves, agitated by every passing 
 wind 1 Surely these brethren would not wish to bring the most 
 solemn and important decisions of a church court under the violent 
 influence of popular commotion ! And surely therefore you will 
 admit, it was wise to leave out every unnecessary and ob- 
 noxious term^ But vagueness of the term was alleged as a 
 reason, and the chief reason, why it was not employed. It is 
 a general term which no man can define with logical preci- 
 sion. It would cost this Presbytery more time and labour, pro- 
 bably, to tell what heresy is, than to try this whole case. There 
 is not much probability that a week's discussion wouldenable 
 you to settle this one term. What is heresy here, may be ortho- 
 doxy there. What is heresy with one, may be but a slight error 
 with another. Now I hate and abhor vague and undefinable 
 terms. There is nothing better calculated to entangle discussion, 
 and to mystify argument. This it was my purpose to avoid. I 
 wished to deal in specifics, not in generalities; to point out with 
 the utmost precision the errors of the accused, as set forth in this 
 book. Our Book of Discipline speaks of errors as being more or 
 less dangerous — they " ought to be carefully considered ; whether 
 
16 
 
 they strike at the vitals of religion, and are industriously spread ; 
 or whether they arise from the weakness of tiie human under- 
 standing, and are not likely to do much injury." This matter I 
 wished to leave for the Presbytery. I have laid down the posi- 
 tions wiiich I think are taught in these Notes, and are dan- 
 gerous errors. They are laid down witli all tlie precision of 
 which I was capable. I have done my best; if that is bad, be it 
 so ; but pass no censure for want of plainness, and clearness, and 
 explicitness. You will probably find them too plain and clear 
 and specific to admit of mystification. (3.) Another reason for 
 omitting the vague term heresy, was, that it is not defined in the 
 eonstitution of our church. This was admitted in the Presbytery; 
 and was therefore not expanded and pressed, nor shall it be here. 
 It may be proper, however, to add, what will appear upon the face 
 of the Presbytery's records, (if ever they see the light,) that when 
 the charges were received and admitted as charges, and a day 
 appointed for the trial, there was no objection made on this, or any 
 other ground of informality, except as to the references. This 
 objection was an after thought, and probably owed its conception 
 to the brother who intimated, very unkindly, as some thought, 
 that I had refused the term heresy, because I was afraid to meet 
 the responsibility and the risk of a prosecution for slander at the 
 bar of a civil court. The quarter whence this remark came,* 
 made me feel it the more. I thought that brother, with whom, 
 in the days of other times, I had taken sweet counsel — Oh, Mr. 
 Moderator, it was sweet counsel, when we drank in the same 
 blessed truths from the same blessed lips — when we mingled our 
 prayers at the same throne of grace in the social meeting — when 
 we went up to the house of God in company — when we mingled 
 our sighs and tears over the syojbols of our Saviour's sorrows. I 
 thought that brother had known me too well to impute to me 
 eu€h baseness as shrinking from the moral responsibilities of the 
 position in which 1 had voluntarily placed myself. But alas, since 
 those halcyon days, another gospel has saluted his ears, and anD» 
 ther philosophy has won his heart. But I am anticipating the 
 (2d) remark here. Brother Barnes' imputation of disingenuity or 
 baseness, against my ministerial character, is as unworthy of him- 
 self as it is unjust to me. He would not have done it of his own 
 motion. I feel confident he has been ill advised. Yet he has 
 done it indistinctly, perhaps; but eyes there are which have de^ 
 tected it. Speaking of the omission of the term hetesy, he reite- 
 rates the charge of "shrinking" — of want of moral courage, and 
 adds, " it has thrown an air of mystery over all this transaction, 
 which it is difficult to reconcile with the principles of the New 
 Testament, and with the requirements of the Presbyterian church 
 in regard to thp character of its ministers." The present prose- 
 
 * Rev. George Duffieid, who had been my fellow student under Df 
 Mason. 
 
17 
 
 cutor kas never insinuated an impeachment of the motives and 
 moral integrity of the defendant in this case ; and he scorns to 
 defend his ov^^n, even at "Csesar's judgment seat," to which his 
 brother has appealed, and whither he has dragged him. He only- 
 regrets, that a remark so dilficult to reconcile with the spirit of 
 kindness which had hitherto cliaracterized this discussion, should 
 have dropped from his brother's pen. Of a similar character is 
 the insinuation, that the prosecutor is influenced by the spirit of 
 pride, vanity, and self-conceit. " No man has a right to arraign 
 me, 10 give him the occasion of displaying his talent, or eloquence, 
 or learning." Such remarks are unworthy of the writer and his 
 subject, ilad they proceeded from me, 1 think the law of charity 
 would administer a reproof at the bar of conscience. 
 
 On the principle of interpretation adopted by Mr. Barnes, and the 
 manner of his applying it, you will indulge a few remarks. It is 
 thus stated in the prelace : " The design has been to state what 
 appeared to the author to be the resd 7neaning of the apostle, with- 
 out any regard to any theological system ; and without any defer- 
 ence to the opinion 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 
 study." ^nd in his defence he says, " It was, further, my inten- 
 tion in preparing these notes, not to be influenced in the interpret- 
 ation by a regard to any creed, or confession of faith, whatever. 
 I make this frank avowal, because it is the deliberate and settled 
 purpose of my mind; and because it is the principle by which I 
 always expect to be governed." 
 
 My first remark, is, that no man more admires "decision of 
 character," independence of mind, freedom of thought and action, 
 than I do: nor would any reasonable man go farther in resisting 
 all unjust encroachment upon the glorious privilege of indepen- 
 dent thinking. Accordingly, it has long been a standing rule with 
 me, when about to expound a text or context, first to study the 
 naked scripture, generally in the original, without note or com- 
 ment ; lest the weight of a commentator's opinion should bias my 
 own judgment in the sifting of terms. Afterwards my rule has 
 been, to examine authorities, and compare them, with the results 
 of my own cogitations. This rule I learned at the feet of our 
 Gamaliel, and twenty years practice has confirmed the opinion of 
 its practical wisdom. But this latter half of the rule is founded 
 on the principle of 
 
 My second remark, viz. Tliat independence of mind, does not 
 consist in supercilious contempt of other men's opinions. Real 
 humility, appears to me, entirely consistent with unflinching in- 
 dependence. To possess real decision, a man must possess clear- 
 ness of perception and accuracy of discrimination : for truth is the 
 foundation of this quality. It is the soul's perception of the truth 
 that gives promptitude in counsel and firmness in purpose. If a 
 man, without this perception, assert his claim to decision of cha« 
 
18 
 
 rarter, he mistakes self-sufficiency for independence of mind, and 
 brute obstinacy for the highest intellectual attainment. 
 
 3. 1 dissent from the rule as laid down by Mr. Barnes for another 
 reason, viz. that every man is bound, by the highest authority, to 
 interpret scripture in consistency with scripture — "according to 
 theanalogy of the faith." Rom, xii. 6. No man is at liberty to take 
 any given text, and construe its terms according to tlicir plain, na- 
 tural meaning, irrespective of the drill and force of the writer. 
 You are bound to look at the train of his thought and reasoning, 
 and, if it be at all practicable, without an utter crucifixion of 
 language, to understand his terms in the given passage, consist- 
 entfy with that train, honesty requires yon so to do. To do other- 
 wise is to "handle the word of God deceitfully." But I am 
 aware, that in these notes, " the analogy of the faith" is made to 
 mean " the measure offuith,''^ and faith is made to mean " the ex- 
 truordinary endoicment bestowed on ihem by the gift of prophecy," 
 and that " they had the power o^ using their prophetic gifts as we 
 have the ordinary faculties of our minds ; and of course ot' abusing 
 them also." And hence "the propriety of regulating this office by 
 apostolic authority." (See Notes, p. 202.) Now it appears to me, 
 that the spirit of supernatural revelation, conferring ^'extraordina- 
 ry endowment,''' it is not at the prophet's option to abuse. Nor 
 can 1 see how it should be necessary, for one prophet, — I mean a 
 truly inspired man, to lay down restraining rules for another. A 
 true prophet, supernaturally inspired, indeed m.ay prescribe tests 
 by which to try the prophets; but where the Spirit of Cod is in a 
 man, foretelling events, I cannot think that even Balaam can go 
 one word beyond what the Lord puts into his mouth: hence this 
 whole interpretation is unfair. It does violence to the apostle's 
 meaning and language. It is contrary to the " analogy of the 
 faith." But the reason why this is preferred, appears at llie close. 
 It is to obviate this very use which 1 have made of it — lest it should 
 be applied "^o systems of theology''^ and demand " that we should 
 interpret the Bible so as to accord with the system" — contained 
 in itself The first thing to be done toward the exposition of any 
 piece oi:" writing is, to read it all over, and thereby to ascertain 
 its general drift — its grand, leading substance — its system. This 
 ascertained, we are to be guided by this in disposing of the mi- 
 nuter parts of its detail. Now this the Presbyterian church has 
 done. This every minister of that church has solemnly declared 
 in the face of heaven and earth, that he has done, in reference to 
 the Bible. This declaration he has made in his ordination vow.«. 
 He has told the church, that he has examined the Bible — that, 
 though he does not pnitend to understand all of it, in all its minute 
 j)arts ; yet, that he has arranged in his own mind, its grand lead- 
 ino" thoughts — he has set up the groat land-marks of truth, and 
 now he solemnly pledges liiniself to b(! guidcnl by these in his sub- 
 secjuent researches. This pledge is jpst and reasonable; and he 
 can neither be a just nor a reasonable interpreter of Scripture who 
 
19 
 
 will wilhhold such pledge : he must be exposed to perpetual danger 
 of handling the word of God, if not deceitfully, at least erroneous- 
 ly. But no man can be a Presbyterian minister until after he 
 has given such pledge. His ordination vow embraces the confes- 
 sion, as containing the systems of doctrines taught in the holy 
 Scriptures. Now 1 contend that such pledge cannot be reconciled 
 with the language above quoted. Mr. B. professes to have given 
 what he supposes, " without any regard to any theological system," 
 to be the meaning of the apostle. Whereas neither he nor any 
 other man has any right, or can have any right to interpret this 
 particular section of Scripture without any regard to the tiieologi- 
 cal system laid down in the Bible. It is right to make the ge- 
 neral drift of scripture bear upon particular parts and mould their 
 interpretation : and a right to construe them " without any regard" 
 to this, would be a right to do wrong : which no man can ever pos- 
 sess. " 1 mean that the mould should be first formed" in general 
 — it is formed in the general system of the Scriptures and the 
 particulars are to be understood accordingly. The workman has 
 no right to chissel any one stone from the quarry into whatever 
 shape he may think it will best suit: thus proceeding, the temple in? 
 stead of coming together stone to stone, without " the sound of 
 hammer or axe or any tool of iron," would exhibit a scene of con? 
 fusion and noise not excelled by Babel's tower, On the contrary, 
 every workman that is worthy to lift up his tool in the prepara- 
 tion of any one stone, is bound to shape it for its destined position 
 in the building. He must be directed by the relative position — 
 the analogy, which it bears to the vvhole structure. Moses was 
 bound to make all things, even to the minutest pin, according to 
 the pattern showed him in the mount. And every expositor of 
 holy scripture is bound, in common honesty, to have an eye to, 
 and to be influenced by the system of doctrines taught in the 
 Bible. Now that system every Presbyterian minister has solemn- 
 ly declared to be set forth in the Confession of Faith. That it is 
 thus set forth in explicit terms — printed in a distinct book by it- 
 self, surely does it no prejudice. It is certainly as safe there, and 
 as available to each individual, as though it were unwritten and 
 imprinted ; but remained floating among the less fixed and stable 
 conceptions of his own mind. 
 
 Here then is the grand paralogism of Mr. Barnes in reference to 
 creeds. He admits their great principle, where it is applied to a 
 given portion of Scripture ex.gr. to this epistle: but he denies the 
 same principle in its application to the whole Bible and the grand 
 system of doctrines therein taught. Hence an inconsistency 
 amounting, in my view, to a direct contradiction, within a very 
 short space. He glories in having been free from the entano-le- 
 ments of all creeds — having proceeded " without any regard to 
 any existing theological system." — "He is supposed to be respon- 
 sible not at all for its impinging on any theological system ; nor is 
 he to be cramped by any frame-work of faith which has been 
 
20 
 
 reared around the Bible." And, directly in the teeth of these 
 declarations, he says, " I may here be permitted to slate ihat I 
 am no enemy to creeds and confessions. Never have I penned 
 a sentence arrainst them ; and no man has ever heard me speak in 
 their disparagement, or condemnation." An utter disreo-ard to the 
 Confession of Faith — a boasted recklessness whether he otfends 
 ag-ainst its doctrines or not, is not speaking- in its disparagement ! 
 This conduct is not penning a word against it!! 
 
 But I remark farther, that into this paralogism and consequent 
 self-contradiction, he has been led by a correctly, and I doubt not, 
 inadvertently assumed false position; viz: That the Confession of 
 Faith contains a system of human dogmas, and not the system 
 taught in the holy Scriptures. For, obviously, if the truths of the 
 Bible are binding upon the conscience of its interpreter, they 
 are so binding, whether they are trans printed into another book 
 ■or remain in their original position. And if in the Confession, 
 they are the truths of God's word — the system of doctrines therein 
 taught, do they cease to bind the conscience, because of their local 
 position "? Do these doctrines become mere human dogmas, simply 
 because a human pen has transcribed them ! Or, because they 
 are exposed in a varied phraseology ! Assuredly the Brother's 
 objections to any influence whatever from the Confession, is based 
 ..on the assumption, that its truths are human, not divine — not the 
 truths of the Bible, but the dogmas of men. This is the proto- 
 pseudos of all those wlio have unfortunately received into their 
 system the errorsof anti-confessionism, and also of those who have 
 inhaled the exhilerating gas of free inquiry, decision of charac- 
 ter, independence of thought and a judgment utterly unbiased 
 by all the opinions of all who have gone before them. 
 
 4. But my fourth remark is, that the writer of these notes has 
 mournfully departed from his own rule. I do not say designedly : 
 and he himself admits, that "unconsciously" he may havedeparted 
 from it; for he does not "assume a freedom from bias, and from 
 the prejudice of opinion." The propriety of his admission will 
 appear to his reader, upon reflection on the two following observa- 
 tions. (1.) Mr. Barnes could not have written the following sen- 
 tences without having some reference to some confession of faith. 
 " Yet men have not been satisfied with that. — [The fact of Adam's 
 fall, and man's consequent misery.] They have sought for a theory 
 to account for it. And many suppose they have found it in the 
 doctrine that the sin of Adam is imputed, or set over by an arbi- 
 trary arrangement to beings otherwise innocent, and that they are 
 held to bo 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.'''' — (Notes p. 10.) Now I 
 ask, where did the Brother find this " theory ]" Who, thxt has 
 read the Presbyterian Confession, can be at a loss for the right 
 answer] How then could he say — "in preparing these Notes, I 
 have never had the Westminster Confcsson of Faith before me 7" 
 
21 
 
 " Nor have 1 ever framed a sentence with any desire or intention 
 that it should in any way depart from any such confession I" I 
 am g-lad he threw in the saving parenthesis, "to the best of my 
 recollection," and I am truly glad, that human recollection is de' 
 fective. Again. — " Various attempts have been made to explain 
 this [the connexion between Adam's sin and our ruin.} *'^Tbe 
 most common has been, that Adam was the representative of 
 the race ; that he was a covenant head, and that his sin was 
 imputed to his posterity, and that they were held liable to punish-' 
 ment for it as if they had committed it themselves. But to this 
 there are great and insuperable objections." p. 128. Again 
 I ask, where did the Brother find this explanation, which he re- 
 jects. " Has it no respect to any framework of faith that has 
 been reared around the Bible !" Oh my Brother, how my heart 
 mourns over such declarations as these; fordost not thou know, that 
 this is the great, leading, distinguishing feature of the Calvinistic 
 system taught in the standards of our Church 1 Take this doc- 
 trine out of the Westminster Confession, and where is the sys- 
 tem ? Who does not know, that this doctrine of representation, 
 covenant headship and imputation, is the very doctrine that consti- 
 tutes the thread of its unity, and makes it a system 1 (2.) My 
 other observation is, that there is a system lying back in the 
 author's mind, whether he is conscious of it or not, a model, or 
 frame work of doctrine, by which he has been uniformly influ- 
 enced in his exposition. I mean the system of error, summed up 
 in these ten charges. If it shall appear that those errors are 
 taught, and that they are the exact opposite of the system set 
 forth in our standards ; then you will see, that the expositor came 
 up to his work with his system already made — all the pieces and 
 parts of his frame fitted and jointed, and put together and pinned 
 fast : yea, and weatherboarded and closed in completely : so thajr 
 Paul must stay within its pale, and only put out his head, and see 
 and be seen, and speak and be spoken to, by and through the propet 
 apertures and openings of Brother Barnes' framework. Now Mr, 
 Moderator, it would be curious indeed, if this were true. But it is 
 true : and I shall prove it by Brother Barnes' own words. He had 
 framed his opinions before he came to this work of writing notes. 
 Whether prematurely or not, is not mine to say ; but he had 
 framed th-^m, and the pertinacity with which he has held to them 
 shows that he, at least, thought they were correct- He says, "I 
 have not changed my views materially since I was licensed to 
 preach the gospel." Clearly then his Notes were written under 
 the modeling influence of these views. But further. — " In the The- 
 ological Seminary at Princeton, my views, which were the same as 
 now, were fully known." The italics are mine. They are designed 
 to impress upon your mind the important fact, that the Brother's 
 views, his opinions, his system of doctrines, the sentiments which 
 he considered true — his frameworkjof faith were the same when 
 he was a green student of theology, before he was presumed to 
 
22 
 
 have thoroughly, fully, and laboriously run the round of theoloorical 
 studies, tlie same as now ! Hence you perceive that under this 
 system he writes his Notes — within this framework Paul must 
 dwell: there he can rest only on the Procrustes' bed of Brother Barnes' 
 early opinions : or, if he venture forth, he must first be moulded 
 into tiie annotator's likeness and wear his livery. 
 
 The next topic in this " defence," which must be met, is, the 
 laboured attempt to open a wide ^ate and a broad way of entrance 
 into the Presbyterian church. This church, the Brother alleges, 
 is founded on liberal principles. It knows nothing of the narrow- 
 ness and shrivelled up spirit of the Scotch Presbyterians. It has 
 adopted on the contrary a broad and liberal policy, correspondent 
 with the unlimited breadth of our land, and the glory of the 
 nineteenth century. Accordingly, subscription to its standards 
 does not imply belief in the doctrines taught in them, except in 
 general. It contemplates a considerable latitude of interpretation. 
 A man in entering her ministry is not expected to embrace all 
 her doctrines : he subscribes '■'-for substance of doctrine^ That 
 is, he may reject many particular items of that doctrine ; but he 
 must maintain the sentiments of the Confession in the main. 
 This, I think, is the substance of the Brother's doctrine on this 
 point. Now for the substance of my objections. 
 
 1. If brother Barnes is right here, then he may well ask 
 " What are the standards of the church?'''' And I throw back the 
 question in tones of defiance; let him or any other man tell me 
 " What are the standards of the church ? If you may reject one 
 doctrine, as non-essential, may not I reject another ] May not 
 the next brother, reject a third ? — and the next, a fourth ? And what 
 will be left] One man denies the eternal Sonship ; another the 
 personality of the Spirit; anotiier, the doctrine of predestination; 
 another, the guilt upon Adam's race of original sin; another, the 
 imputation of Christ's active obedience*; another, the whole doc- 
 trine of imputation, the covenants of works and of grace! I 
 repeat it, What is lefl? " What are the standards of the 
 church 7" Why, sir, is it not as clear as sunshine, that there 
 neither is nor ca7i be a7iy standard of doctrine at this rate. Each 
 man claims the privilege of judging for himself what is essential 
 to the system — he cannot be cramped. What ! Shall I sacrifice 
 the independence of my mind ! Shall I forego the glorious privi- 
 lege of independent thought! Shall I cease to bean original 
 thinker, and trammel up my capacious soul within the framework 
 of your conceptions! Shall the freemen of this free and happy 
 country, not have the privilege of thinking for themselves!! 
 Shall we be hurried back into the dark ages ! ! Shall there be an 
 end of free inquiry and free discussion ! ! Will the high-toned 
 spirit of American Christianity endure this! ! ! Again, I repeat 
 it. — If the doctrine of the brethren, who advocate the boasted 
 liberal construction, be adopted, there is an end of constitutional 
 order, 
 
23 
 
 2, Why is this doctrine contended for 3 Why has Mr. Barnes 
 spent so much time in attempts to cut down Jachin and Boaz, 
 and open a way into the Presbyterian church wide enough for 
 every man who can say, I subscribe "for substance of doctrinel" 
 Is there not, in the fact of his thus pleading, evidence that he 
 needs considerable latitude of interpretation ] So it seems to me. 
 If he were not conscious of some considerable departure from the 
 plain doctrines of our confession, he would not display such 
 anxiety to open up a wide door of entrance. 
 
 3. The only argument of any plausibility, adduced to prove 
 that the standards of the Presbyterian church are not the pub- 
 lished constitution absolutely, but this, with such deviations 
 from its plain meaning as individuals feel constrained to make, 
 is the argument from history. You will keep in mind that we 
 are now prosecuting the inquiry. What are the authoritative 
 standards ojthe church? It is a question of fact. Now suppose 
 the question were asked, What is the Constitution of the United 
 States] Would you answer this by referring to the old articles 
 of Confederation 1 It cannot be doubted that the great princi- 
 ples — the substance of political doctrines — are there to be found. 
 But are they the constitution] So, it is absurd to look at the 
 occasional acts of the ecclesiastical body, in its forming condi- 
 tion ; before its system was matured, for its actual constitution. 
 Now such is the chief argument from history to prove the lax 
 doctrine. The " Proviso" to the adopting act of the Synod, in 
 1729, is quoted as proof that latitude of constructions is the law 
 of the church in the nineteenth century; a hundred and five years 
 afterwards: It runs thus : — " And in case any minister of the 
 Synod, or any candidate for the ministry shall have any scruple, 
 with respect to any article, or articles of said confession; he shall 
 in time of making said declaration, declare his scruples to the 
 Synod or Presbytery; who shall notwithslanding admit him to 
 the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial 
 communion, if the Synod or Presbyter}^ shall judge his scruples 
 not essential or necessary, in doctrine, worship, or government." 
 
 Now this is no part of the standards of the Presbyterian church. 
 It is as eifectually superseded by subsequent legislation, as the 
 old articles of confederation are superseded by the present consti- 
 tution. On May 21, 1788, the Synod record the following 
 minute, viz. "The Synod took into consideration the draft of the 
 form of government and discipline of the Presbyterian church in 
 the United States of America. And having gone through the 
 same, did, on a review of the whole, ratify and adopt the said 
 form of government and discipline, as now altered and amended, 
 as the constitution of the government and discipline of the Presby- 
 terian church in America. And recommended to all their judi- 
 catures, strictly to observe the rules laid down therein, in all 
 ecclesiastical proceedings. Afid they order that a correct copy be 
 printed ; and that the Westminster Confession of Faith, as now 
 
24 
 
 nllered, be printed, in full, along with it, as making a part of the 
 Constitution." In a subsequent part of the same minute, the rati- 
 fication of the Directory for Worship, and amendment of the 
 Larger Catechism and ratification of it and the Shorter, are 
 recorded. And these, " as now ratified''^ are to continue to be 
 our constitution and the confession of our faith, unalterably ; 
 unless two thirds of the Presbyteries" make a change. In a still 
 subsequent part of this minute, the Synod publish a minute of 
 1764, wherein the spirit of their guardian care over the orthodoxy 
 and piety of their mmisters is set forth. — "If any society, or body 
 of men are known to be of erroneous principles ; or to be lax, or 
 negligent, as to the orthodoxy or piety of tlwse they admit into 
 the ministry; in such cases none of our Presbyteries are obliged 
 to receive or employ such persons as gospel ministers or proba- 
 tioners, though producing fair certificates, and professing to adopt 
 our confession." And in 1765, the Synotl enjoin the examination 
 of a foreign minister "to obtain satisfaction respecting orthodoxy 
 and piety; and not to receive him implicitly on a certificate, how- 
 ever fair and regular, together with his general profession of 
 adopting the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. But if 
 such probationer, or minister, shall come from a church or judi- 
 cature, generally suspected, or known, to be erroneous, or lax and 
 negligent with respect to the moral conduct or piety of their 
 candidates or ministers ; or if they shall come from any number 
 of ministers, who may convene, without any regular constitu- 
 tion (that is a Congregational Association) merely for the purpose 
 of licensing or ordaining, in such case, a certificate from such 
 a judicature, or such ordainers, and a general profession of the 
 partv's adopting the Confession of Faith, is still less satisfactory." 
 And in 1784, their minutes say '* The Synod in order to guard 
 the churches under their care against dangers from the ad- 
 mission of ministers or probationers of unsound principles, do 
 hereby renew their former injunctions." From these quotations 
 it is demonsirably evident that this adopting act of 1729 has no 
 more to do with the constitution of our church, than the adopting 
 act of tlie church of Scotland has. The whole constitution has 
 been revised since and formally ratified and adopted; that the Sy- 
 nod in 1764-5, '84, and *88, were extremely rigid in their vigilance 
 over the orthodoxtj and piety of their ministers. A fair and full 
 certificate of good standing from a foreign church — yea even from 
 acongregational convention, would not be admitted as satisfactory : 
 no not even when the person bearing it made a general profession 
 of adopting the Westminster Confession and Catechisms." No ! 
 the right of examination was claimed and exercised — and this "to 
 maintain orthodoxy in doctrine; and purity in practice." Even a 
 congregational minister, with clear certificate and profession of 
 "adopting the Confession of Faitii," must be examined. Does 
 this look like the \a.^ interpretation system? Is any man able to 
 
25 
 
 tfelieve tliat these men knew any thing- about adoption " for sub- 
 stance of doctrine." 
 
 Now it may jn-ofit to inquire, wherefore this waking up of the 
 church to a jealousy over her orthodoxy at this junclurt? '] he 
 answer is found in the fact that Doctor Witherspoon, about this' 
 time became a leading, perhaps it wiJt not be thought insidious to' 
 !3ay, the leading man in tiie Presbyterian church. He brought 
 \Vith him trom (despised) Scotland tlie blood and spirit of John 
 Knox, in 1768. And in 1773 we find tlie alarm sounded aiid 
 the churches put on tlioir guard against the laxarian doctrine. 
 The same in '74, and also in '84. But all these are brought up 
 and published and enforced in '88 when Dr. Witherspoon was 
 chairman of the committee for revising' the directory as to the 
 mode of inflicting censures and for v^orship. Indeed it cannot be 
 questioned that this illustrious Scotchman did more than any other 
 man toward mouldiiig into its present form the Constitution of 
 our church. It will therefore let tht true light of true history 
 in upon this question, to quote from Dr. Rogers' funeral sermon 
 o^^er this great man. He says, 
 
 '* The church of Scotland was divided into two parties, with" 
 respect to their ideas of ecclesiastical discipline. The one wag^ 
 willing to confirm and even to extend the rights oi' patronage 
 (our liberal construction brethren too, know how to wield this 
 power) the other wished, if possible, to arrogate, or at least limit 
 them, and to extend the rights and influence of the people in the 
 settlement and removal of ministers. The latter were zesrlous for 
 the doctrines of grace and the articles of religion in all their strict-'' 
 riess^ as contained in the national Confession of Faith. The for- 
 mer were willing to allow a greater latitude of opinion; and they 
 preached in a- style that seemed to the people less evangelical,- 
 and less affecting to the heart and conscience, than that of their 
 opponents. In tlieir concern otherwise to exempt the clergy of 
 their party from the unreasonable effects of popular caprice, they 
 too frequently protected them against the just complaints of the 
 people. These were styled moderate men, whtle their antagonists 
 Were distinguished by the name of the orthodox. Dr. Wither- 
 spoon, in his church politics, early and warmly embraced the side 
 of the orthodox. This he did from conviction, and sense of duty ; 
 and by degrees, acquired such an influence in their councils, that 
 he was considered at length as their head and leader." Now it 
 is not at all marvellous, that a man who stood at the head of the 
 rigid, strict, orthodox party, in that church, whence, coiiff ssedly 
 we have derived our system; when .invited once and again, by the 
 utiited voide of American Presbyterians, to preside over the only 
 College of any note under their influence, should very soon ac- 
 quire an ascendency in the American churches correspondent to 
 that which he held among the rigidly orthodox party in Scotland. 
 And such undeniably were the facts:- and here we see the reason 
 why the Synod put themselves so often in the position "to main- 
 
 o 
 
26 • 
 
 tain orthodoxy in doctrine," their leader, and the man who was 
 
 appointed to open the first General Assembly ever held in Ame- 
 rica, the man who had just foug-ht the long battle of orthodoxy in 
 {Scotland, and led her lorces to triumph over the '•'•moderate men,'''' 
 who was '* z.e:ilous for the doctrines of grace and the articles of 
 religion in all their slrictnoss," a.s contained in the Confession of 
 Faith, this man was a leader in '88, when the Constitution was 
 moulded into its present Ibim and adopted. Now I ask, is it cre- 
 dible, that the victor o{ moderation in Scotland is its defender in 
 America? Can «>Ay man believe, that he who led on to triumph the 
 rank and lile of those who " were zealous for the doctrines ol 
 grace and the articles of religion, in all their strictness," against 
 the hosts of those who "vvere willing to allow a greater latitude 
 of opinion," in moulding our Constitution, accommodated it to 
 " the latitude of opinion" plan ! I' 
 
 It is remarkable here, that Brother Banies quotes no aathorities in 
 favour of his "very wide latitude," later than the days of Presi- 
 dent Davies, long before the present Constitution of our church 
 was formed, until 1830. Why so? Why did he not go to the men 
 who constituted really the convention who modelled, altered, and 
 adopted it, to inquire after its meaning 1 Did be know he would 
 meel Dr. Withcrspoon there J Aye, and the present Dr. Green] 
 Now if I wished to know the meaning of any clause in the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, I should not run back to the days 
 of William Penn, nor even to the incipient committees that cher- 
 ished the rising revolution. No: I should go to the very age of 
 its formation and interrogate the men who moulded it into its pre- 
 sent shape. Their opinions, if certainly attainable, would and 
 should have chief weight in putting construction upon their lan- 
 guage. This has been done with our Constitution ecclesiastical, 
 and the result I leave with you. 
 
 But as to the " Proviso" of 1729, 1 have a word more. Even 
 supposing it binding now, (which is absurd,) there are three 
 things required in regard to its " scruples" of objection agamst 
 the Confession of Faith. The first is, that they are scruples, and 
 in order to admit a minister into the church, they must be scru- 
 ples — merely the 2S8tii part of a pound of truth, "not essential 
 or necessary.'''' Secondly, the synod or presbytery ; not the man 
 who brings them, is to weigh them : they " shall judge his scru- 
 ples." Thirdly, he, who has them, shall not conceal them, but 
 shall offer them to the weigher, before he is or shall be "admit- 
 ted to the exercise of the ministry." — " He shall [this prescribes 
 duty] in time of making said declaration, declare his scruples." 
 Now let us a])ply these to the present case. First, are the errors 
 of this book ot Notes mere scruples — small matters ? This, by a 
 very adroit petitio principii, the brother assumes throughout his 
 re-marks here. On the contrary, the prosecutor presents them as 
 of vital importance. The opinions of other men have been ad- 
 duced to the same effect. The wrongs charged d.xQ fundamental. 
 
27 
 
 They are not small d«ist of the balance— they are not the scruples 
 of truth, but the cwls, and the tons. Here then, Mr. Moderator, 
 is a gratuitous assumption, and I beg" leave to invite your atten- 
 tion to the fact, that on this gratuitmis assumption, brother Barnes 
 has built the very strongest of his appeals to the popular ear, and 
 to your ear, sir. He says many line things in a very fine style, 
 about liberality of sentiment, freedom of thought, slight shades 
 of opinion, the folly of " endeavouring to shake man's belief by 
 authority: to cramp the freedom of inquiry — to place every man 
 on the bed of Procrustes," until really I and you, begin to feel 
 indignant at the man, who would venture to arraign such a liberal 
 minded brother upon some scruple about mint, annise, and cutr- 
 min. But let us beware of the unfounded assumption. It is not 
 true that the matters at issue are trifling matters, they are the 
 essence of the Confession of Faith, and therefore the entire plead- 
 ing, in this most popular and plausible paragraph, is irrelevant — 
 it has nothing to do with this case. Secondly — Did the Presby- 
 tery of New Brunswick, when they ordained Mr. Barnes weigh 
 his scruples against the Confession and admit him, believing and 
 acknowledging that they were mere scruples — " not essential or 
 necessary in doctrine?'''' But this will be answered, in the third 
 point Did Mr. Barnes declare his scruples? Did he offer them 
 to the weigher to be weighed? Did he frankly tell the Presby- 
 tery at the time^ that there were some little matters in which he 
 could not exactly agree with the Confession 1 No, sir ! nothing 
 of all this. And yet the " Proviso" of 1729, under which he would 
 shield the latitude of constructive doctrine, makes it his duty- 
 *' he shall declare his scruples." He did not do it, and conse- 
 quently the Presbytery could not weigh them and pass them as 
 scruples. On this point I speak advisedly: after particular in- 
 quiry, I cannot find that any such declaration was made. The 
 most I can find is, that he was suspected of holding erroneous 
 opinions on the principal points now in controversy. And Mr. 
 Barnes himself seems to coincide with my information- " Thus 
 by die Presbytery of New Brunswick, by which I was licensed, 
 they were, or might have been, fully known." *'Or might have 
 been," clearly admitting that they were not by him openly de- 
 clared. How then can he plead the overshadowing protection of 
 this " Proviso," when he did not put himself under it at the proper 
 time 1 Had his present views, which he says he held then, been 
 fully made known to his Presbytery, and had they "judged that 
 his scruples were not essential or nece?sary in doctrine" and so 
 recorded it, then, indeed, he might effectually plead their own 
 proviso in bar of their prosecuting him. It is however farotherwise; 
 and in every aspect of the case he can find no just protection 
 from the " Proviso" of 1729. By the living constitution — by the 
 law as it is — must he and every other minister be' judged. 
 
 The deranged, confused, and informal manner of bringing these 
 charges has been matter of loud and long complaint. The brother 
 
28 
 
 has presented this complaint so often — tie has harped ^ipon it eo 
 much, that really, Mr. Moderator, he has oriven occasion to my 
 growth in the ^race of patiejice. But for the benevolence whicli 
 I often see beaming from his eye, I should allow myself to tliink, 
 he meant to provoke to something else than to love and good works. 
 But "charity thinketh no evil;" I will therefore put the best con- 
 struction U|K)n this reiterated complaint. I will suppose he really 
 feels embarrassed by the manner — the undigested nature, and the 
 mode of presentation of these charges. On each I must remark. 
 
 *' The manner.'''' This may relate either to the circumstances 
 attending their first presentation to him, or to the mode of con- 
 duct — tlie spirit displayed by the prosecutor. ]f the former, I 
 observe, that 1 addressed Mr. Barries by letter [as published in his 
 Defence] before I presented the charges to the Presbytery. Now 
 I admit, that in giving a man a choice of modes, between what, ip 
 civil concerns, is called an amicable suit, and a suit, the first no- 
 tice of which is an officer's visit, I did throw some embarrassment 
 in his way. IJe is called upon in that letter to say, w hether or 
 not he will cocrjply with my earnest wish, to make it an amicable 
 suit. Wh.erever tliere is a choice, and especially a choice of 
 evils, there may be embarrassment. But it appeared to me every 
 vvray the most agreeable to Christian kindness to lay before his 
 mind this choice, and I really thoughi his mind would not have been 
 much embarrassed in the choice. 1 did certainly think that, seeing 
 the thing must come, he would have let it come in the/orw of an 
 amicable suit, as I was determined it should be so in fact. If 
 manner relates to niy mode, temper, spirit, I have nothing to say. 
 Let the Presbytery, and the whole church, and the world itself, 
 which is always on the side of lax construction in religion, judge 
 fron> tile facts. If the award shall be, that in this whole business 
 I have not violated the law of brotherly kindness, then I can see 
 how this very thing should be a source of embarrassment. If the 
 prosecution was against me, and the case as desperate as I now 
 believe it to be, 1 think I can imagine hovy kind and brotherly 
 treatment would embarrass me. 
 
 " The undigested nature of the charges." To this I reply, that 
 all men's minds are not cast in the same mould. Men will differ 
 aboqt Ixodes of faith. They cannot all see and think exactly alike. 
 What appears confusion to one is order to another. If a man 
 stands with his face toward a window and I look uptm his full, front 
 face, and you u}X)n his side face, our visions will be quite differ- 
 ent, t am looking in i;.e face of these charges, Mr. Barnes has 
 only a side view. To convince yon, that, if they are Cfude and 
 indigested, it is my fault only as infirmities of nature are faulty, 
 let nie give you a history of the manner m which they were pre- 
 pared. First, then, I read the " Notes" through, taking notes of 
 exceptions and marking the pages as I passed along. Then I re- 
 inspected the exceptionable pages, with the utmost carefulness. 
 Then I ruled off a foolscap sheet into brgad columns, and WfQtp 
 
29 
 
 captions of erroneous doctrines. Then I arranged the exception- 
 able pages under these heads of exception. Then I turned in 
 upon them the little share of analogical talent which has fallen to 
 my lot, to discover the relative positions of these several doctrines. 
 In this labour the question was to be answered, how do these er- 
 rors, positive or negative, fit into one another? Having settled 
 this, I numbered them I, II, III, &c. If Mr. Barnes can see no 
 system in them, I know not how to help him out of his embarrass- 
 ment. Others besides myseif have read them since he did, and I 
 have not heard much complaint of indistinctness, or irregularity 
 or confusion. To most minds, I am persuaded, they present the 
 idea of a systematic arrangement tolerably well carried out. Per- 
 haps this is the very feature which occasions the embarrassment. 
 A child of recent birth is known by its father, more readily by 
 its dress than by its countenance. Perhaps the parent of this 
 child is unable to recognise it, for the simple reason, that another 
 hand has dressed it. 
 
 The mode of presenlation, " is exceedingly perplexing." " He 
 first furnished the Presbytery with a setof charges with reference 
 to the pages of my book, but without any reference to the sta^n-d- 
 ards of the church or the Scriptures, supposed by hinj to be vio- 
 lated. This was evidently contrary to the constitution of the 
 church as expounded by the General Assembly in 1824, (Vol. v. 
 p, 219.") 
 
 To this I replj, that the Constittclion is the rule, and the Ge- 
 neral Assembly has no power to add to or take from it. I fully 
 complied with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. It will 
 surely not be maintained, in the nineteenth century, that the m- 
 cidental remarks made by all the General Assemblies, since the 
 days of '89, shall all form a part of the Constitution; so that if a 
 man literally follow the printed rules in our books and yet be ig- 
 norant of some opinion dropped by some Assembly fifty years ago, 
 or fifty months, and of course not be governed by it, he shall lose 
 his cause, on the ground of unconstitutionality. But now Mr^ 
 Barnes' reference is to just such an incidental remark of the As- 
 sembly. It is not even a formal resolution. It is a mere remark 
 under the sixth head of their minutes in the case of Craighead. 
 They had condemned Craighead and justified the synod, and of 
 course, secundum artem^ they must censure \\\e synod too. Well 
 they say " There was a great deficiency in the charges preferred 
 against Mr. Craighead, as it relates to precision. Ail charges for 
 heresy should be as definite as possible." [Mine were definite.] 
 " The article, or articles of faith, impugned, should be specified," 
 {so were mine,] " and the words supposed to be heretical, shown 
 to be in repugnance to these articles" [That is obviously in the 
 argument of the cause, and this was done.] If, however, tiie 
 specifying of articles and the showing of the words to be repug-- 
 nant to them, is intended here to m^n, that the language of the 
 Confession and the words supposed to be heretical, are to be quoted 
 
 3* 
 
30 
 
 in full in the chnro^es : and the showing-, to be their comparison ', 
 then the curiosity is calh'd tor, of the indictment embodying- the 
 charg-e.s, the law, tlie testimony and the argument ; nnrl all this 
 before tlie conrt order a trial ! But this pomt is unworthy to de- 
 tain us, for tv.'o reasons. Because the incidental expression of 
 the Assembly's opinion is no amendment of the constitution, and 
 because Mr. Barnes was fully furnished, about three months be- 
 fore the tfial, with references to all the law and all the testimony 
 in his case: my letter containing them is dated April 11, and the 
 trial began July 1. Why " perplexity" should grow out of this 
 i could never see — where the cause of embarrassment lies in this 
 procedure, few will be able to discover; and the validity of "the 
 only inference which" tlie brother could draw, viz. that the whole 
 suliject was undigested in my mind," I leave to other logicians to 
 examine into. Mr, Barnes hal stated in Presbytery, that he should 
 ]}C guided by the above construction of the Assembly of 18*24; and 
 Jest he should make a difficulty of that and prevent a trial, I, by 
 concession, supplied him with all the references, eighty days be- 
 fore the trial. My "only inference" was, that the perplexity and 
 embarrassment arose out of the intrinsic difficulties of the case. 
 
 Three retnarks are yet necessary before we proceed to the 
 .charges in detail. The first is, that, in this discussion. Brother 
 Barnes will hear observations upon his book, which cannot prove 
 to hmi as the Jovelmess of a song or the skilful touches upon an 
 instrument It is obvious at a glance, that many things must be 
 said not at all complimentary. He therefore will see the necessity 
 pf his remembering two things, viz : that he is the author of these 
 Notes and that I am his prosecutor, having them for witness. Now 
 an author is sup])Dscd to have some degree of interest in his work, 
 beyond that felt by other men. It is the child of his own bosom. 
 Li pon it he ha? " bestowed many an anxious, a prayerful, and pleas- 
 s:int hour." "They are, he continues, the result of much deliberate 
 attention." They have occupied his hours of leisure, his moments 
 of retirement; vvFien a busy world has been shut out. Exhausted, 
 and perhaps chafed with the toils of a laborious life, and his heart 
 f^ickened in contemplating the follies and vanities and wayward- 
 ness with which he has necessarily come in contact, in attendino- 
 to the out-dobr business of a weighty charge, how oflen has he re- 
 tijrned, with delight, to the nursery, to beguile his spirit away 
 IVom perplexing cares, by an hour's toying with the play- 
 thing ()f his bosom ! and how often has the warm heart kindled in 
 parental slon{e, as it hung in admiring fondness over the bosom's 
 witching idol] Lft no unhallowed foot intrude into this sacred 
 place, lift no uninterested heart presume to judge the weakness 
 of this fond interview. Let Agesilaus enjoy the sports of his nurse- 
 ry unujolnsted. To this every parent's heart responds a hearty 
 amen. But still, the son of Agesilaus may aspire to be king of 
 Sparta, and hayirjg come forth into public life, he must expect to 
 
31 
 
 be, as other men, liable to arrest and cross examination as a wit- 
 ness in conit. What 1 ask is, that the parent, durinjj' the progress 
 of tills examination, should remember his relations and mine. — 
 Tiiey arc quite ditlerent and involve different feelings. Now these 
 feelnigs ought to be respected severally: and it is the fixed pur- 
 pose of my mind to pay all due deference to them. Tliey shall 
 not be wounded except where justice to the cause of truth re- 
 quires the sacrifice. There shall be no wanton sporting with them, 
 and I have confidence in the Brother's good sense, which will 
 prompt him to make all due allowance for the difference of our 
 relative positions. 
 
 The second remark relates to the nature of these charges, as a 
 system of error, in opposition to a system of truth. Any and every 
 mind is liable to fall into insulated and detached error; but only 
 minds of a philosophic mould are capable of erring systematically. 
 Now there is a vast difference between the random gun of the roving 
 Indian and the scientifically constructed and systematic battery of 
 the European engineer — between the brush-wood of Canada and tlie 
 fortress of Namur — between Black Hawk and the Duke of Marlbo- 
 rough. Where there is no cultivated talent to form a system, there 
 can be little danger from error. Hence the fact, well known, but enig- 
 matical — at first sight strange, almost to incredibility, but yet not 
 anomalous — the fact, that every man who has ever disturbed the 
 church, by the introduction of erroneous doctrines, has been a man 
 of talent. No obscure individual doing business in the country on 
 a small capital, by his failure in business, can produce a great con- 
 cussion in the mercantile world. No errorist of slender talent, 
 incompetent to throw his errors into a systematic form, can ever 
 do much harm. Standing insulated, as individual foes in an ene- 
 my's country, his errors are easily cut off in the detail. Whereas, 
 if he had talent to organize them into solid bands, to run out regu- 
 lar lines and construct his fortress by the rules of art, they would 
 become formidable. Let it not then be pleaded in bar of this prosecu- 
 tion, that Brother Barnes is a gentleman of talent — that his congre- 
 gation is influential — his position in the church commanding. — 
 Why, obviously, Mr. Moderator, if it were not so, such a prosecu- 
 tion would be the height of folly. These are the very circum- 
 stances which demand it and justify it. The pastor of Morristown 
 church might have preached these doctrines all his days, within 
 his own narrow sphere of operation, and it might perhaps never 
 have become the unpleasant duty of any man to prosecute him.* 
 But not so the minister of the metropolitan church. Not so the 
 author of three or four popular volumes having a wide circulation 
 among the youth of our connexion. Not so the consolidation of 
 error into a system Then it has become a formidable matter. — 
 
 * This was written before I knew ariiy thing aljout the Mprristovvn 
 resolutions. 
 
32 
 
 Itfl batteries may be difficult to silence ; its fortress the permanent 
 abodes of hostility. 1 repeat the thought — who ever hc^ard, in the 
 church's history, of a dangerous erroriet that was not a man of 
 talents? But there is another shade of this thought. Something 
 more than talent, is necessary to answer the epithet davgcrons Xv 
 an errorist, especially during his own life. If a man of bad moral 
 character; or even of doubtful religious character, shall publish 
 erroneous sentiments, even well digested and systematically ar- 
 ranged, who will believe them 1 Will not the blot upon the man, 
 pass over to hi.- system, and condemn it] Clearly then, reputa- 
 tion, as well a;> lulent, is necessary to constitute a dangerous er- 
 rorist. Now W(! have a good illustration of this remark, in both 
 its aspects, in tho author of a new heresy in the fourth and begin- 
 ning of the fifth century. Few men in any age stood higher in repu- 
 tation for talents, learning and piety, than Pelagius the Briti.sh 
 Monk. He had travelled extensively, visiting a great numl)er of 
 monasteries, cultivating acquaintance with the learned and the 
 pious, and extending the sphere of his information and at the same 
 time of his influence. "Augustine," says Mosheim, "acknowledges 
 that he had made great progress in virtue and piety, that his life 
 was chaste and his manners blameless." Speaking of him and his 
 friend Celestius, Milner, depending upon Jansenius' account from 
 Augustine, says " They always maintained a character of fair and 
 decent morals." And of Pelagius, he says, "Augustine owns his 
 reputation for serious piety to have been great in the christian 
 world." And again, "Augustine allows the genius and capacity 
 of both these men to have been of the first order." The author of 
 " the early history of Pelagian ism" in the Biblical Repertory, who 
 doubtless consulted authorities^ far beyond any within my reach 
 at present, confirms these statements. Here then is "genius and 
 capacity of the first order," " great progress in virtue and 
 piety," "a life chaste and manners blameless." But did all these 
 constitute a reason, why the opinions of this great, and virtuous, 
 and pious man, should not be arraigned, and himself censured 1 
 No, sir, these were the very reasons why it became imperiously 
 necessary to condemn them and him, for their sake. The truth 
 of God is of more value than the fair fame of any man. If, 
 therefore, it shall be found that this book of Notes bears the mark 
 of talent, in the fact, that its erroneous doctrines are linked 
 together into a connected system, so that a logical mind falling 
 into one of its errors, will be led necessarily to embrace the 
 whole, then you will see the importance of firmness and decision 
 in the condemnation of one and all of them. Moreover, you will 
 observe, that less force of evidence is necessary to establish 
 against an author, a particular sentiment, when it belongs to and 
 forms a part of a system (if the other parts are fully proved) than 
 would be requisite to establish the same sentiment if it stood 
 alone. This principle will not be controverted, and is here men- 
 tioned, because it will be referred to in the progress of the case. 
 
33 
 
 My third remark regards the right, on the part of the accysed, 
 io explain his own language. A utters words wliich give offence 
 toB: B complains that he has been insulted and traduced; his 
 character has been vilified. A denies any intention of inflicting 
 •such a wound, affirms that his language has been misunderstood, 
 and asks the privilege of explaining. Shall it be granted] Cer- 
 tainly, as a privilege it ought to be conceded ; and his explana- 
 tion, if satisflictory, ought to be accepted. But then you will 
 observe: A asked privilege, he did not Jem and a right ; for he 
 had no right to demand. B conceded a privilege, for he could not 
 surrender the right of self-preservation. And further, the expla- 
 nation must be satisfactory, or B cannot accept it. Now, of this 
 satisfactoriness who is to be the judge 1 — A or B ? The latter un- 
 <]uestionably. But if B remains convinced, that the words uttered 
 were insulting and injurious; can he accept the explanation? 
 Assuredly not. What! not accept an explanatifin, when the man 
 assures you he meant no harm ! Certainly not, when he did harm. 
 I have nothing to do with his intentions. Well, but won't you 
 lake his apology and forgive the injury ? Oh ! that 's quite a dif- 
 ferent matter. An apology and forgiveness — confession of fault 
 and pardon — this language implies an abandonment of the origi- 
 nal ground A took. Now he asks pai'don, then he denied having 
 ^iven any offence. If brother Barnes shall come forward with an 
 apology ; if he shall tell the church, that he has offended in teach- 
 ing (?oc^ri}jcs contrary to her standards; oh, how gladly will she 
 ■throw open her arms to receive him ; and how delightful will be 
 her duty to forgive! But if he come forward with an explana- 
 tion—affirming that he has been misunderstood — he didn't mean 
 so — then he denies the offence, and adds an insult to the person's 
 injury. He tells the injured, — the torn, and lacerated, and bleed- 
 ing church, that she 's a fool and does not nnderstand language. 
 If he aver that he has modified some of his objectionable phraseo- 
 logy, and at the same time state that he has changed not a prin- 
 ciple of his doctrine, he superadds contempt to insult and injury. 
 He in substance tells her, you are too stupid to understand lan- 
 g'uage, but not to take offence at terms: the?e bug-bear words I'll 
 remove out of your way, lest you may be frightened again by 
 them ; the sentiments, however, which I shall leave are precisely 
 the same. 
 
 But the case is still stronger in judicial process. A, is on trial 
 for the utterance of certain words containing (as is alleged) a 
 slander upon the character of B. The truth of the libel is admit- 
 ted, or proved — A, did utter the words, but he puts in a plea of justi- 
 fication. He affirms that, taken in their plain and true sense, 
 they contain no slander. Now who is to judge of their meaning? 
 Is it A ! or B ] or the court? I aver, Mr. Moderator, there is not 
 a man of common sense, who can hesitate a moment on this 
 question. The judges, and not either of the parties are to judge. 
 The jury must decit^e what the language mejjns. They are not 
 
34 
 
 bound to take A's present explanation, and foist that into the libel 
 and then judge ! They are bound by their oath not to take his 
 present explanation, but to say whether the language uttered con- 
 tains a slander. 
 
 New, Mr. Moderator, I press this remark upon your considera- 
 tion, because I am confident that in many of these charges, bro- 
 ther Barnes can set up no other defence but ex-planation. He 
 will claim the privilege of explaining away the obvious meaning 
 of terms, and thus of forcing upon you a construction, of which 
 you would never have thought, but for the perfection to which 
 the art of eating back words has arrived, in these days of improve- 
 ment. To the power of explanations, who can set limits, after 
 the recent illustrious attempt to prove, that the free-will doctrine 
 of the moderate Arminian, or old semi-Pelagian school, is con- 
 tained in the Westminster Confession ! 
 
 We come now to these charges; and the simple questions on 
 each are three in number, viz. 1. Is this doctrine taught (or 
 denied) by brother Barnes in the passages cited? 2. Is it con- 
 trary to the Confession of our Faith, &c. ? 3. Is it contrary to the 
 Bible 1 
 
 CHARGE I. 
 
 Mr. Barnes teaches " That all sin consists in voluntary action." 
 
 Now it would greatly relieve and shorten this discussion, if he 
 would expressly admit or explicitly deny. Which does he do ] 
 Examine, critically, all he has said on the subject, and see how 
 he comes up to the question; Do you teach this doctrine? He 
 gives no answer. You cannot tell whether he admits or denies. 
 No man can tell. His whole answer is equivocal. He does not 
 meet the question. 
 
 The relative value of this charge may appear inconsiderable. 
 It is nearly allied, however, to more important errors. If man has 
 no sin upon him legally, for which he is punishable, prior to the 
 period of moral agency or voluntary action, then as we shall see, 
 our Confession is in error> But if all sin consists in voluntary 
 action, and man is not liable to penal evil but as he is a sinner, so 
 charged in law ; then it will follow, that prior to voluntary action, 
 he cannot be a sinner: original sin he has none. So that the 
 maintenance of this doctrine is a denial of the doctrine of origi- 
 nal sin. That he teaches it, see " Notes" p. 249 : In all this, and 
 in all other sin, man is voluntary." Here is language too plain to 
 be misunderstood or explained away : it affirms the very point to 
 be proved. Voluntary action is necessary to sin in man. It will 
 surely not avail to assert "that its design was not to teach any 
 thing about the doctrine of what is commonly called original 
 sin" — It does teach something — it denies that doctrine. It is a 
 general proposition, — the fifth in numerical order. If the sole 
 object was, to show that in moral actions, man is voluntary and 
 not compelled like a mill-wheel, that object would have been 
 attained without generalizing so as to deny original sin. The 
 
35 
 
 idea of compelling a voluntary agent is an absurdity, and need 
 not detain us. 
 
 Proof 2. p. 123. "There is no reason to believe that they 
 [men] are condemned to eternal death, or held to be guilty of his 
 [Adam's] sin, without participation of their own, or without per- 
 sonal sin, any more than there is, that they are approved by the 
 work of Christ, or held to be personally deserving, without em- 
 bracing his offer, and receiving him as a Saviour." Here per- 
 sonal transgression — voluntary action on their part, must precede 
 the possibility of condemnation to eternal death — or being held 
 guilty of Adam's sin. Prior to voluntary action, there is no lia- 
 bility to condemnation — no guilt. Comment here is unnecessary, 
 but you will bear with a remark: and in making it, I wish to 
 excite, in the Brother accused, a salutary fear ; and do not intend 
 to insinuate that he is a thorough Pelagian. I know that here- 
 siarch held doctrines which this brother abhors. But in one or 
 two points of his heresy, our brother is with him; and my fear, 
 which I am anxious to transfer to his bosom, is, that, as a consist- 
 ent reasoner, he cannot hold the ground which now he does hold 
 in common with that ancient disturber of the church's peace, 
 without following him in other dangerous positions. The remark 
 is, that the argument of the above quotation is borrowed from 
 Pelagius ; not indeed, I suppose, immediately, but really. It is 
 his precise argument, and how nearly in his words, you shall 
 judge. Pelagius says : 
 
 " If Adam's sin hurt those who are not guilty, the righteousness of 
 Christ profits those who believe not." Milner II. 370. 
 
 The only difference between this argument and brother Barnes* 
 is, that it is more pointed and pithy, because less burdened with ver- 
 biage. It is the same precise argument. Now, ought not a 
 Presbyterian minister to be alarmed, when he finds himself inad- 
 vertently, (if it so be,) using the same argument with an acknow- 
 ledged heretic, and for the same purpose 1 Can any thing possi- 
 bly prove more conclusively unity of doctrine? But I have more 
 of the same. 
 
 " How can a man be considered guilty by God of that sin which he 
 knows not to be his own ? for if it is necessary, it is not his own ; but 
 if it is his own, it is voluntary; and if voluntary, it can be avoided." 
 Pelagius, as quoted, Bib. Rep. vol. II. p. 102. 
 
 Take in connexion with this. Proof. 4, p. 124, " As the work of 
 Christ does not benefit the race unless it is embraced, so does not 
 the reasoning of the Apostle lead us to the conclusion, that the 
 deed of Adam does not condemn, unless there be some voluntary 
 act on the part of each individual?" 
 
 "If Adam's sin hurt those who are not guilty, the righteousness of 
 Clirist profits those who believe not." 
 
 I have placed these last two quotations in juxtaposition, that 
 
36 
 
 their substantial identity might be seen at a glance. The righ- 
 teousness of Christ docs not profit the sinner, until he believtei 
 says Mr. B., thorofbre the sin of Adam does not hurt the sinner 
 until he voluntarily transgresses. The doctrine of both is, that 
 there is no liability to penal evil, but in consequence of voluntary 
 action, and "i)reviously to moral agency, there is nothing in man 
 [nothing moral — no moral character,] but that which God created 
 in him." Pclagiiis, Bib. Rep. vol. II. p. 105. 
 
 Again: "Children, in as much as they are children, never carr 
 be guilty, until they have done somethmg by their own proper 
 will." Julian, an intimate friend of Pelagius, and advocate of his 
 doctrine, as quoted Bib. Rep. vol. 11. p. l03. 
 
 Proof 8, \). 192. "They [Jacob and Esau,] had done nothing 
 good or bad, and where that is the case, there can be no charac- 
 ter, for character is the result of conduct. (2.) That the period 
 of nnjral agency had not yet commenced." The doing, the vo- 
 luntary agency is necessary to character. Prior to this, there is 
 no sin to expose to punishmerrt. When this voluntary action 
 occurs, it will be, he admits, sinful, and then, but not till then,- 
 are they sinners. Whether the point is proved, I leave with youy 
 adding only, that, brother Barnes docs not say, " 1 deny that I teach 
 it." 
 
 Let us attend for a moment to the standards. Confession, chap, 
 VI. 5. "This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain 
 in those that are regenerated : and although it be through Christ 
 pardoned and mortified, yet both itself SLud all the motions thereof 
 are truly and properly sin. 6. Every sin, both original and 
 actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and 
 contrary thereunto, doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the 
 sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God and curse 
 of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries, spiri- 
 tual, temporal, and eternal." Larger Catechism, Questicn 27.- 
 "We are by nature ciiildren of wrath, bond slaves to satan, and 
 justly liable to all punishments, in tliis world and that which is to 
 cortie." Shor. Cat. "All mankind by their fall lost conmnmion 
 with God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to 
 all the miseries of tliis life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell 
 forever." 
 
 On these a remark or two. 1. This corruption of nature is' 
 itself sin, " as well as all the motions thereof" 2. This corrup- 
 tion of nature, wiiicli is sin, doth in its own nature bring guilt 
 upon the sinner. It is not said, his voluntary action alone brings 
 guilt; but their fall placed them under his wrath and curse, and 
 exposed them to death and hel! forever. No ! says Mr. B., all 
 mankind are not under his wrath and curse, by their fall ; they 
 must first act voluntarily, and then, but not until then, are they 
 liable to the y)ains of hell. 
 
 AVhat say the Scriptures'! Ep. ii. 8. " And were by nature the 
 children of wrath." Rom. iii. 19. " That all the world may be- 
 
37 
 
 Come guilty before God." Psalm, ii. 5. " I was shapen in iniquity 
 and in sin did my mother conceive me." These passages cannot 
 be turned aside. They prove incontestibly, that man is a sinner 
 independent of, and prior to, his voluntary action, and therefore, 
 that "all sin does not consist in voluntary action." Farther 
 proofs on this head are reserved until a future occasion ; because, 
 so intimately connected are those errors, that they are jointed 
 into each other, so that the evidence on one often answers for 
 others. All that will be adduced to show the guilt, i. e. the lia- 
 bility of man to punishment on account of Adam's sin, will be 
 good on this point. For, obviously, if the infant human being, 
 prior to voluntary action, is liable to penal evil, it must be viewed 
 by the holy Governor of the universe as under sin. 
 
 CHARGE II. 
 
 - Mr. Barnes affirms, " That Adam (before and after his fall,) 
 was ignorant of his moral relations to such a degree, that he did 
 not know the consequences of his sin would or should reach any 
 farther than to natural death." 
 
 Proof, p. 115. "If any inquiry be made here how Adam would 
 understand this, [the. threatening of death,] Ireply, tliat we have 
 no reason to think he would understand it as referring to any 
 thing more than the loss of life as an expression of the displeasure 
 of God. Moses does not intimate that he was learned in the na- 
 ture of laws and penalties, and his narrative would lead us to sup- 
 pose, that this was all that would occur to Adam. And indeed 
 there is the highest evidence the case admits of, that this was his 
 understanding of it. For, in the account of the infliction of the 
 penalty, after the law was violated, in God's own interpretation 
 of it, in Gen. iii. 19, there is still no reference to any thing fur- 
 ther. " Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return." Now 
 it is incredible that Adam should have understood this as referring 
 to what has been called " spiritual death," when neither in the 
 threatening, nor in the account of the injfliction of the sentence, 
 is there the slightest recorded reference to it. Men having done 
 great injury in the cause of correct interpretation, by carrying 
 their notions of doctrinal subjects to the explanation of words and 
 phrases in the Old Testament. They have usually described 
 Adam as endowed with all the refinement, and possessed of all the 
 knowledge, and adorned with all the metaphysical acumen and 
 subtlety of a modern theologian. They have deemed him quali- 
 fied, in the very infancy of the w^orld, to understand and discuss 
 questions, which, under all the light of the Christian revelation, 
 still perplex and embarrass the human mind. After these accounts 
 of the endowments of Adam, which occupy so large a space in 
 books of theology, one is surprised on opening the Bible, to find 
 how unlike all this is to the simple statement in Genesis. And 
 the wonder cannot be suppressed, that men should describe the 
 obvious infancy of the race as superior to its highest advance- 
 
 4 
 
38 
 
 ment; or that the first man just created, juat looking upon a 
 world of wonders, unacquainted with law and moral relations, and 
 the effect of transgression, should be represented as endowed 
 with knowledge, which, four thousand years afterwards, it re- 
 quired the advent of the Son of God to communicate." 
 
 To the truth of this charge, the accused pleads affirmatively ; 
 but he denies its relevancy, and puts in a plea of justihcation. It 
 will therefore detain us only a brief space, 
 
 2. 1 wish here to observe, that no " charge of heresy is based" on 
 this passage, or ever was. On the contrary, I stated, and now 
 state, that in itself considered, it is a small matter, and acquires 
 the little importance 1 attacli to ii, simply from its connection 
 with and preparation for others of great importance. 3. If Adam 
 was " ignorant of law and moral relations" — if he was a large 
 baby, thrown into a strange world, without being endowed by his 
 Creator with knowledge, but in an extremely limited degree — if 
 he knew nothuig about any kind of death but that of the body,and 
 must so understand the threatening — then, of course, there was 
 no covenant made with him. He could know nothing about 
 terms of a covenant — a covenant of works, there could not possi- 
 bly be. This is why this charge is placed here. It is a link in 
 the chain of error — a preparatory step to a direct denial of the 
 covenant: and, so I doubt not, it was designed. To this the 
 writer has reference when he complains of men " carrying their 
 notions of doctrinal subjects to the explanation of words and 
 phrases in the Old Testament." This is the key to the whole 
 paragraph, and explains why the writer has collected a series of 
 silly notions, in order to ridicule the idea of Adam's knowledge 
 being adequate to understand the nature of a covenant, and of 
 spiritual and eternal death. 
 
 4. The words "Dust thou art," &c., are not the ^^ infliction of 
 the penalty." Little as Adam is supposed to have known, I can- 
 not persuade myself he could have committed such a mistake, as 
 to take the pronunciation of the sentence for its infliction. This 
 error surely belongs legitimately to one of his youngest sons born, 
 at least educated, in the full blaze of the nineteenth century. 
 Now to another of those sons, it appears, that Adam could know 
 better, at this juncture, just when the sentence was pronounced, 
 and when he had actually experienced something of spiritual 
 death, as evinced by the fact of his endeavouring to hide from 
 God, — he could better know what spiritual death was, than he 
 could, what natural or bodily death was, which he did not expe- 
 rience for nearly a thousand years afterward. 5. If Adam knew 
 nothing of spiritual death, then I ask, how could God, consistently 
 with justice, visit him with it, as he did, in the tokens of divine 
 displeasure] 6. If he was thus ignorant even after the sentence 
 to bodily death, how could he understand the language, "in the 
 day thou eastest thereof, thou shalt surely die ]" When he did 
 not die a natural death that day, must he disbelieve the truth of 
 
39 
 
 the denunciation ! 7. Brother Barnes endeavours to mystify, by 
 representing- me as maintaining that Adam knew all the conse- 
 quences of his sin, and every thing else. This is disingenuous. 
 
 That this idea of our lirst parent's ignorance, is inconsistent 
 with the standards, see Conf. ch. iv. 2. " After God had made 
 all other creatures, he made man, male and female, with reasona- 
 ble and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, 
 and true holiness, after his own image, having the law of God 
 written in their hearts." Larg. Cat. 17. — to the same effect, 20. 
 God afforded man " in the estate in which he was created" — 
 " communion with himself, instituting the Sabbath, entering into 
 a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, 
 and perpetual obedience, of which the tree of life was a pledge:" 
 and the 22. " The covenant being made with Adam," &c., and 
 the Short Cat. 12. " When God had created man, he entered into 
 a covenant of life with him" &lc. : and yet, although they were 
 "endued with knowledge" — "after his own image, having the 
 law of God written in their hearts" — had the law of the Sabbath 
 made known to them and a covenant of life, with its condition : 
 yet after all they were '* ignorant of law and moral relations 1" 
 or as in the amendment, "imperfectly acquainted with law !" 
 
 What say the Scriptures! 
 
 Gen. i. 27. "God created man in his own imag'e/' 
 
 What was this image? 
 
 Col. iii. 10. " And have put on the new man, which is renewed in 
 knowledge, after the image of him that created him." 
 
 Clearly, then, the image of God, in which Adam was created, 
 consisted in knowledge ; whatever else it included, this was a 
 leading feature of it. 
 
 Rom. ii. 15. " Which show the work of the law written in their 
 hearts." 
 
 What is it that shows'? Why, the law of nature as contradis- 
 tinguished from the revealed law given to the Jews. When was 
 that law impressed upon the human heart 1 Undoubtedly at its 
 first creation, and what remains upon the Gentile conscience, is 
 a defaced relic. 
 
 Gen. ii. 16, 17. " And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 
 Of every tree," Sec. 
 
 This reveals to us the covenant of works ; but I waive, until we 
 come to that more directly, all remark upon it. If such a trans- 
 action as our Confession represents, ever did take place, then this 
 imputation of ignorance to Adam, is as unscriptural, as it is unbe- 
 coming the wisest of his sons. 
 
 CHARGE III. 
 
 Mr. Barnes teaches, " That unregenerate men are able to keep 
 the commandments, and convert theiiiselves to God." 
 
40 
 
 Proof 1. p. 164. " The carnal mind. This is the same expres- 
 sion as occurs in verse 6, (I'o (p^ovrfjia -r'jjj tfa^xoj) " It does not 
 mean the mind itself, the intellect, or the will : It does not sup- 
 pose that the mind or the soul is physically depraved, or opposed 
 to God ; but it means that the ?ninding of the things of the fleshy 
 giving- to them supreme attention, is hostility to God." " For it — 
 The word (it) here refers to the minding- of the things of the flesh. 
 It does mean that the soul itself is not subject to his law, but that 
 the minding of those things is hostile to his law. The Apostle 
 does not express any opinion about the metaphysical ability of 
 man, or discuss that question at all. The amount of his affirma- 
 tion is simply, that the minding of the fleshy the supreme atten- 
 tion to its dictates and desires, is not and cannot be subject to the 
 law of God. They are wholly contradictory and irreconcileable, 
 just as much as the love of falsehood is inconsistent with the laws 
 of truth; as intemperance with the laws of temperance ; as adul- 
 tery is a violation of the seventh commandment. But whether 
 the man himself might not obey the law ; whether he has or has 
 not ability to do it, is a question which the Apostle does not touch, 
 and on which this passage should not be adduced. For whether 
 the law of a particular sin is utterly irreconcileable with an oppo- 
 site virtue, and whether the sinner is able to abandon that sin, are 
 very different inquiries. 
 
 Is not subject. It is not in subjection to the command of God. 
 The minding of the flesh is opposed to that law, and thus shows 
 that it is hostile to God. 
 
 Neither indeed can he. This is absolute and certain. It is im- 
 possible that it should be. There is the utmost inability in regard 
 to it. The things are utterly irreconcileable. But the affirma- 
 tion does not mean that the heart of the sinner might not be sub- 
 ject to God : or that his soul is so physically depraved that he 
 cannot obey, or that he might not obey the law. 
 
 Page 165, 8. So then. It follows, it leads to this conclusion. 
 
 They that are in the flesh. They who are unrenewed sinners, 
 who are following supremely the desires of the flesh, chap. vii. 
 18. Those are meant here, who follow fleshly appetites and 
 desires, and who are not led by the Spirit of God. 
 
 Cannot please God. That is, while they are thus in the flesh, 
 while they thus pursue the desires of their corrupt nature, they 
 cannot please God. But this affirms nothing respecting their 
 ability to turn from this course, and to pursue a different mode of 
 life. That is a different question. A child may be obstinate, 
 proud, and disobedient; and ivhile in that state, it may be affirmed 
 of him, that he cannot please his parent. But whether he might 
 not cease to be obstinate, and become obedient, is a very different 
 inquiry, and the two subjects should never be confounded. * * * 
 He [the sinner] is engaged in hostility against God, and if he does 
 not himself forsake it, it will be endless, and involve his soul in 
 all the evils of a personal, and direct, and eternal warfare with 
 
41 
 
 the Lord Almig-lity. * * * The Holy Spirit is oflen represented 
 as dwellinor in the hearts of Christians: and the meaning is not 
 that there is a. personal or physical indwellino- of the Holy Ghost, 
 but that he influences, directs, and guides Christians; producing 
 meekness, love, joy, peace, long-sufl'ering, gentleness, good- 
 ness, &c. The expression, to dwell in one, denotes intimacy of 
 connection, and means that those things which are the fruits of 
 the Spirit, are produced in the heart." 
 
 Proof 2, p. 108. " We were yei loithoiit strength. The worj 
 here used (a.aOrivc^v') is usually applied to those who are sick and 
 feeble, deprived of strength by disease. Mark xxx. 38 ; Luke 
 X. 9. ; Acts iv. 9. — v. 15. But it is also used in a moral sense, to 
 denote inability or feebleness, with regard to any undertaking or 
 duty. Here it means that they were without strength in regard 
 to the case which the Apostle was considering, that is, we have 
 no power to devise a scheme of justification, to make an atone- 
 ment, or to put away the wrath of God, &:.c. While all hope of 
 man's being saved by any plan of his own, was then taken away ; 
 .while he was thus laying exposed to divine justice, and de- 
 pendent on the mere mercy of God ; God provided a plan which 
 met the case, and secured his salvation. The remark of the 
 Apostle here has reference only to the race before the atonement 
 was made. It does not pertain to the question whether the man 
 has strength to repent and to believe, now that the atonement is 
 made, which is a very ditierent inquiry." 
 
 Before proceeding in the matter of this charge, allow me three 
 observations. 1. It is possible to teach error by denying the 
 truth — to take away sound doctrine positively, by a series of detail 
 in the negative, ex gr. : Certain texts of Scripture, say twenty 
 in number, have been depended on to prove the doctrine of the 
 Trinity. I wish to reject that doctrine and yet do not feel it to be 
 prudent to do it openly. It may be done more successfully and 
 safely by denying in the detail, that it is taught in any of these pas- 
 sages. I put a gloss upon the passage which contains a history 
 of Christ's baptism, and conclude, by saying, whatever maybe 
 the trutfi or falsehood of the doctrine of the Trinity,it is not taught 
 here. I take up the words used at baptism, " in the name of the 
 Father, «Sic." and gloss over and conclude, that doctrine has no 
 foundation here. And so throughout the whole. Have I not 
 really denied the doctrine of the Trinity ] And yet I have not in 
 any one instance said " It is not true — it is not taught in the Bible." 
 Is there a more effectual mode of attacking truth than this parti- 
 zan war; this slow method of insulated assault] 
 
 But then it will be said in reply, " I have only removed certain 
 texts which have been usually supposed to prove the doctrine of 
 the sinners inability," there are yet scores of others left. Very 
 true, but the same process may take away the rest. Now my po- 
 sition is, that when a writer displays a disposition to take away 
 the Scripture props from any doctrine, it is evident he dislikes the 
 
 4* 
 
43 
 
 doctrine itself. Just so, the labour expended in the above, to 
 evince that the doctrine of man's inabiliiy is not taught in these 
 passages of Scripture evinces a dislike to it, and I question the 
 possibility of any intelligent man's reading them carefully over, 
 without imbibing the conviction, from the moral evidence in them, 
 that their writer was an advocate of human ability. And yet, 
 
 2. This is the only charge in which I have felt any hesitancy 
 as to the adequacy of the proof — not of course as to the reality and 
 verity of the case, (for 1 have no doubt Mr. Barnes holds the com- 
 mon doctrine of human ability as found in the East) but as to the 
 possibility of giving it tangible form. For, 
 
 3. Nothing is set forth in this charge but the doctrine that men 
 are able to make themselves new hearts and to live accordingly. 
 It is assumed as an obvious truth, that if men are able to come 
 unto God in the first instance, they are able to live ii. him. 
 
 Now on the comment itself. (1) Mr. B. admits that the phrase, 
 "they that are in the flesh," means — "they who are unrenewed 
 sinners" — unregenerate men. 
 
 (2) He admits, that, " while they are in this state, they cannot 
 please God." " But" — what] they can change their state — if they 
 choose ; they can come out of it. — " But this affirms nothing res- 
 pecting their ability to turn from this course, and to pursue a dif- 
 ferent mode of life. Now, Mr. Moderator, I affirm the plain 
 meaning of this language to be, " that unregenerate men are able 
 to convert themselves." No simple unsophisticated mind is able 
 to take any other meaning out of it. 
 
 (3) The writer however illustrates. "A child may be obsti- 
 nate, proud, and disobedient, and while in this state, it may be 
 affirmed of him, that he cannot please his parent. But" — Whati 
 the child, whenever he chooses, may cease to be disobedient — 
 may change his state — can convert himself — "But whether he 
 might not cease to be obstinate and become obedient, is a very 
 different inquiry." — The same kind of ability is affirmed of men 
 in reference to their Creator, as is affirmed of the child in refer- 
 ence to its parent. A child can convert itself from a state of dis- 
 obedience to a state of obedience; the unrenewed sinner can con- 
 vert himself from that state to a state of obedience. 
 
 (4) I cannot in justice refrain from the remark, that the whole 
 comment is assertion ; dogmatic assertion. Here it would seem 
 the annotator felt that he was writing for children and young 
 people, 
 
 (5) "We were yet without strength." This "remark of the 
 apostle," he says, " has reference onlyio the condition of the case 
 before the atonement was made." Of course, new the deficiency 
 of strength does not exist; we are not without strength. The 
 atonement has removed the inability, and consequently put men 
 in a salvable state — that is, all men — in a state where they may 
 be saved if they choose and lohenever they choose. This is a 
 distinguishing tenet, but not of Presbyterianism. 
 
43 
 
 (6) In this comment, the carnal mind, is taken abstractly, for 
 the acting of the individual — the ^^ minding of the Jlesh''^ — "givino- 
 supreme attention," and this acting is personified, and concerning 
 it the question is raised: Can it be subject, to the law of God? 
 Has it — the acting, ability to obey the law ? Now this is forced 
 and unnatural. The question of subjection to law relates to per- 
 sons, and accordingly the apostle draws his conclusion, " So then, 
 they that are in the flesh cannot please God." The carnal mind 
 (to phronema tees sarkos) is therefore equivalent to " they that 
 are in the flesh ;" i. e. unregenerate men. These are unable to be 
 of themselves pleasing to God ; or by their conduct to please him. 
 They are unable, says the apostle: that is true, says his expositor, 
 but they can turn and then it must be otherwise. This doctrine 
 of human ability is contrary to the Standards. 
 
 Con. vs. 4. " From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly 
 indisposed, disabled, and made opposite lo all good, and wholly inclined 
 to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions." 
 
 IX. 3. " Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all 
 abihty of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation, so as a 
 natural man being altogether averse from that which is good, and dead 
 in sin, is not able, by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare 
 himself thereunto." 
 
 X. 1. "All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those 
 only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted lime, effectually to 
 call, by his word and Spirit, out of tliat state of sin and death, in which 
 they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlighten- 
 ing their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of 
 God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of 
 flesh ; renewing their wills and by his almiglity power determining 
 them to that which is good ; and effectually drawing them to Jesus 
 Christ ; yet so as they come most freely being made willing by his 
 grace." 
 
 2. " This effectual calling is of God's free and special grace alone, 
 not from any thing at all foreseen in man ; who is altogether passive 
 therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is 
 thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered 
 and conveyed in it." 
 
 XVI. 3. "• Their ability to do good works is not all of themselve?, 
 but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled 
 thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is re- 
 quired an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit tp work in them 
 to will and to do of his good pleasure:" 
 
 The inability here affects, 1. The understanding. For in the 
 recovery from it, the counteracting grace, begins in the under- 
 standing, " enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly, to 
 understand the things of God." — And this is supported by the 
 Scripture. 
 
 Acts xxxvi. 18. " To open their eyes and to turn them from darkness 
 to light." ' _ 
 
 And this is exactly accordant with the history of sin's introduc- 
 
44 
 
 lion. It was by the understanding- — "the woman, being deceived, 
 was in the transfjression." So are all her posterity. 
 
 1 Cor. ii. 14. "13ut tlic natural man rcceivcth not the things of the 
 
 Spiril of (Joel." 
 
 Why? because he don't like them] Not exactly that — but for 
 another reason lying beyond it — he don't understand them spiritu- 
 ally " for they are tbolishness unto him." — Why J because, " nei- 
 ther crm he know them," — and why is he unable to know them J 
 — " because they are spiritually discerned," and " the God of this 
 world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not," — of the 
 unregenerate — that is, of all men. " Darkness hath covered the 
 earth." Tliat faculty of man by which he perceives truth and 
 reasons upon it, as it was the first affected by sin, so it is the first 
 affected by the Spirit, in his work of restoring our nature. Then, 
 the understanding being enlightened, 
 
 2. The obduracy, tlie hardness, the insensibility of the soul, is 
 removed ; the affections are affected — " taking away their heart of 
 stone and giving unto them a heart of flesh." And this part of 
 the Confession is sustained by 
 
 Ezek. xxxvi. 26. *' A new heart also will I give you, and a nev»^ spirit 
 will I put within you ; and I will take away the stony heart out of'your 
 flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh." 
 
 Then the affections being susceptible of tender influences, 
 through the understanding's perceptions of the gospel plan and 
 God's love therein exhibited, and thus prepared to operate upon 
 the will. 
 
 Thirdly. The will is renewed. This is that faculty of the soul 
 by which choice is made. The will is the soul or mind choosing 
 — " That which has the power of volition is the man, or the soul," 
 says Edwards, "renewing their wills." For by sin they were "made 
 opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil." But now 
 God " worketh in you both to loill and to do of his good pleasure." 
 Phil. ii. 13. For " the ability to do good works is not at all of 
 themselves." 
 
 But here, a very important question turns up: by what kind of 
 influence is this renewing of the will effected 1 Is it by motives 
 only, according to the manner in which man influences his fellow 
 man 1 Is it mere persuasion and argument? "Knowing the 
 terror of the Lord we persuade men :" but does God's Spirit do 
 any thing more than persuade men? This istiie doctrine of some. 
 But look at the Confession : " and by his almighty power deter- 
 mining them to that which is good." Or, as in the Shorter Cate- 
 chism 31, " he doth persuade and enable us." Suasion is used, 
 but ^0M?er is also given. Or as in the Larger Catechism, C7, — 
 "they (although in themselves dead in sin,) are hereby made 
 willing and able." " Man had lost all ability of will" — so as a 
 natural man is not able, by his own strength to convert himself," 
 
45 
 
 therefore God gives him strength or ability working in him " by his 
 almighty power." 
 
 Thus, by the Confession and the Bible, the utter inability of 
 man lies in his understanding, his affections, and his will. The 
 understanding is the leading faculty of the soul; it presents to the 
 affections objects of desire or aversion ; the affections are moved 
 and operate upon the will, and the divine power of the Spirit 
 gives ability in all. How satisfactory is this Scriptural and Con- 
 fession of Faith view of the subject ? How gladly would I stop 1 
 And how satisfactory it is to the simple-hearted Christian, un- 
 spoiled by false philosophy and bewildering metaphysics? But it 
 cannot be. My unfortunate brother has retreated and trenched 
 himself in metaphysics, and I must continue, " faint, yet pur- 
 suing." 
 
 But before I proceed to discuss " the metaphysical ability of 
 man," as Mr. Barnes calls it, let me make a few observations on 
 his remarks. (1.) He teaches man's moral ability — his ability to 
 change his own heart. What ! do you venture such an affirma- 
 tion? Yes, I do. Mr. Barnes teaches in this "Defence" the 
 very doctrine against which he defends. He teaches that men 
 have power " to choose" — " to make themselves new hearts." 
 The proof! the proof! Well, here it is, in his own words. " The 
 inability of a man to remove a mountain is one thing, and an in- 
 ability 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 become Christians, trace it to sin, and to disin- 
 clination, John V. 40, 44. Particular sins are specified, the love 
 of the world, pride, passion, lust, &c. (6) They address men as 
 subject to no other inability. They command men to choose and 
 to make themselves new hearts, all of which suppose that man 
 has power to obey." Here is unequivocal language. Men are 
 commanded " to choose" — " to make themselves new hearts." 
 Two distinct commands are here stated. Now, has man power 
 to obey? Certainly, says Mr. Barnes, it "supposes he has power 
 to obey." And the contrary supposition would be the height of 
 absurdity; for, (c) "if not, man is excusable for not obeying." 
 Manifestly then, here is the doctrine of moral ability — ability of 
 will — ability " to choose" — ability to " make themselves a new 
 heart." Now this is the old Pelagian and Arminian doctrine of 
 free will, against which Edwards wrote, and which he demolished. 
 But, I know, brother Barnes denies he holds it ; yet you see he 
 teaches it, strongly and clearly I (2) Bat yet, he admits the contrary 
 doctrine of man's moral inability. To this he is constrained and 
 shut up by the Bible and Confession — " an inability to do right" 
 he admits — " it was a moral and not a natural inability.'''' — " Such 
 his moral inability [the italics are his own] i. e. his strong and 
 decided and constant opposition to God by nature, that he will 
 
46 
 
 always remain a sinner unless he is aided from on high." (3) I 
 am extremely anxious you should note it down, that this " moral 
 inability''' — this " inability of will" as the Confession has it, and 
 which it says is removed " by his almighty power" — this being 
 " utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good," Mr. 
 Barnes admits, with the Confession and the Bible is bv nature." 
 It is natural. It exists in man when he is born — he brings it into 
 the world with him. It is antecedent to all volition in him. Its exist- 
 ence does not depend upon his voluntary action at all. It is the 
 result of original corruption, and is never removed but by the 
 Spirit of God, so that " No one can come to me except the Father 
 which hath sent me draw him." 
 
 Now for the metaphysics. And 1st, let us state the doctrine of 
 Edwards, referred to by brother Barnes, vol. ii. p. 35. " Whal 
 has been said of natural and moral necessity, may serve to explain 
 what is intended by natural and moral inability. We are said to 
 be naturally unable to do a thing, when we cannot do it if we 
 will, because what is most commonly called nature does not allow 
 it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrin- 
 sic to the will ; either in the faculty of understanding, constitution 
 of body, or external objects." This is the doctrine of natural in- 
 ability, and I have but one remark upon it here, viz., it includes 
 " defect or obstacle, in the faculty of understanding." If the mind 
 be darkened, the powers of perception and reasoning impaired, it 
 is a natural inability. That this is his meaning is indubitably evi- 
 dent from what he says of that natural necessity, which is the 
 basis of the distinction. "By natural necessity, as applied to 
 men, I mean such necessity as men are under through the force 
 of natural causes ; as distinguished from what are called moral 
 causes, such as habits and dispositions of the heart, and moral 
 motives and inducements. Thus men — assent to the truth of cer- 
 tain propositions, as soon as the terms are understood ; as that two 
 arid two make four — " Now assent to the truth of propositions is 
 a matter for the understanding — it can only result from perception 
 of the agreement between the ideas compared in the proposition. 
 Jjet it be ;Set down then as president Edwards' doctrine of natural 
 inability, that it includes "defect or obstacle in the faculty of un- 
 derstanding," as well as " in the constitution of body, and exter-^ 
 nal objects." Keep that, Mr. Moderator, until we see what he 
 means by Moral Inability. It " consists," says he, " not in any 
 of these things; but either in the want of inclination, or the 
 strength of a contrary inclination ; or the want of sufficient mo- 
 tives in view, to induce and excite the act of the will, or the 
 strength of apparent motives to the contrary. Or both these may 
 be resolved into one ; and it may be said in one word, that moral 
 inability consists in the opposition or want of inclination. For 
 when a person is unable to will or choose such a thing, through 
 a defect of motives, or prevalence of contrary motives, it is the 
 isajiie thing as his being unable from the want of inclination, op 
 
47 
 
 the prevalence of a contrary inclination, in such circumstances 
 and under the influence of such views." 
 
 Now 1 have no objection to this definition, and but one to that 
 of Natural Inability. But I have weighty objections to the prac- 
 tical application which many have rashly made of them. The 
 author is indeed not accountable for the abuse. That sin lies upon 
 those who either leave out that part of his definition (and it is the 
 principal part) in which he makes defect of understanding a natu- 
 ral inability, or who boldly maintain that man's understanding is as 
 perfect as before the fall. The fearful desolations which the 
 church has suffered from this abuse, have caused many regrets 
 that ever the distinction was made. Without pretending to wade 
 through this difficult subject, because "natural inability or defect 
 in the faculty of understanding," and limited space, equally forbid 
 it and render it physically impossible, I propose the following ob- 
 servations : 
 
 1. Against the doctrine, that man unrenewed has full and per- 
 fect natural ability, according to Edwards' definition of it, I ob- 
 ject, because it is not true. The natural man does labour under 
 a defect of understanding in the things of the Spirit of God. The 
 Bible and Confession and all Christian divines, and all Christian 
 experience unite in the proof The understanding is darkened, 
 and without the illumination — the supernatural illumination of 
 the Holy Ghost it cannot discern the things of the Spirit. This 
 fact is undenied and undeniable. That man has a faculty of un- 
 derstanding, by which he can read and reason about scriptural 
 truth, is admitted: but that this faculty is unimpaired by sin, is 
 utterly denied. Nothing short of the Spirit shining into the heart 
 can give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God. All the 
 prayers of Christians for light and knowledge imply this. All men 
 feel it. This very discussion shows it. If the understanding is 
 not impaired by sin, why cannot we see things alike! Had man 
 before he sinned any such perplexity] But will it be said, the 
 very prayer for increase of light implies the natural powers to re- 
 ceive it. If we had not the natural power, how could we pray 
 that our understandings may be enlightened T I answer, certainly 
 it implies a natural understanding, competent to receive natural 
 truth, but it implies not a deficiency of light absolutely, for it 
 shines all around. It beams from the pages of God's word, and 
 the natural man's not receiving, is not owing to its deficiency, but 
 to want of capacity — to defect in his perceptive powers. 
 
 2. It does not relieve the doctrine of full ability of understanding 
 in the natural man, to say that this defect alleged exists in, or 
 flows from, the corrupt affections. For my 2d observation is, that 
 this very inability is itself a sin, and has its origin, not in the na- 
 ture of man as he came from the hand of God, but in sin itself 
 and its penal consequences. Now, if this blindness of under- 
 standing is a penal evil, it alters not the matter of fact. For our 
 inquiry is not as to its origin, but as to the reality of it. Does it 
 
48 
 
 exist? And limiting" our view to this, it seems to me impossible 
 to maintain the position, that " the natural man can — that he is 
 able — that he labours under no defect of understanding — to dis- 
 cern the things of the Spirit of God. 
 
 3. Man is not now in his original state and condition. This, 
 you will say, is no information. And yet the opposite seems to 
 be assumed in a large proportion of the discussion on this subject. 
 Mr. Barnes' reasoning presupposes that man is now in a state of 
 probation, and is therefore furnished now with all the means of a 
 fair trial. The same assumption is almost every where made in 
 similar discussions. And with that assumption,! too am ready to 
 admit, that where a thing is commanded as duty, the implication 
 is, that there is power or ability to comply with the command. 
 But when the state of probation is ended, and the nature of man 
 in ruins, the case is very different. Adam, in his pristine condi- 
 tion, had ability commensurate with his obligations. All the 
 powers of his nature were perfect, and the right exercise of them 
 was all his Maker demanded of him ; and to have demanded of 
 him more than the faculties of his being were adequate to per- 
 form, would not have comported with the nature of God's moral 
 government. But now that he has reduced to ruins his intellec- 
 tual and moral powers, and cut short the period of his probation — 
 now that he is poor, weak, fallen, corrupt, he has not powers 
 commensurate with his duties. To affirm this, is to maintain one 
 of the most ineffable of all absurdities, which it is the purpose of 
 my 
 
 4th Observation to deny, viz. That present ability is the mea- 
 sure of present duty. Or, in other words, that a man's inability 
 to meet the requisitions of law, cancels his obligation ; that a man 
 cannot be bound to do what he is unable to do. This position I 
 suppose to be among the most unspeakable of absurdities. Possi- 
 bly I may not have ability to understand Mr. Barnes and others, 
 who have recently laid down this as a moral axiom. But to me it 
 does seem as if they meant to deny obligation, wherever inability 
 exists. " The Bible no where requires more of men than they 
 are able to perform." "It does not lay a claim on any power 
 which man does not possess ; nor beyond any power which he 
 possesses. It is definitely limited to the extent of the capacity." 
 Inability, no matter how perversely and wickedly brought about, 
 cancels obligation. On this new axiom in morals, you must in- 
 dulge me in a few particular remarks. 
 
 1. It repeals a great and important principle, viz. tliat a man is 
 accountable not only for his own sinful act itself, but also for the 
 necessary and legitimate results of that act. If 1 murder a man, 
 on whose personal labour there is dependent a family of helpless 
 children, I am accountable not for tlie act of murder only, but for 
 the wretchedness and misery that may follow his family: for the 
 ignorance and vice into which they may be plunged by my deed : 
 for the whole line of evils which hence result. If I sell. rum to 
 
49 
 
 my neighbour, am I accotfntable only for the direct and imvne- 
 diate etfects of the act? Or am I responsible tor the dtsability 
 that hence ensues! My neighbour becomes a drunkard; he is 
 disabled from sustaining- liis family; by his example they are 
 trained up in all the ignorance and vice of the drunkard's hovel. 
 Am not I responsible tor these disabilities J And does the dis- 
 ability of the drunkard — a disability induced by his own per- 
 verse and wicked conduct — release him from the obligation to pro- 
 vide for his household J 
 
 But in reply, it is said,' the man may be punished for the act of 
 cutting oft' his hand, but not for neglecting the duties to which he 
 was before bound — to require them, "would be the definition of 
 tyranny." Then clearly, the obligation to duty — the duty of obe- 
 dience — the duty of providing for his household — is nullified by 
 the man's own act of sin ! Hence, 
 
 2. I remark, sin is its own apology, and lifts the sinner above 
 law. The lawgiver requires obedience ; the sul^ject disables him- 
 self by perverse rebellion — he cannot obey ; therefore, he is no 
 longer bound to obey. But, 
 
 3. Apply this principle to the commercial transactions of so- 
 ciety. A man contracts a debt within the compass of his presenfe 
 ability — he perversely and wickedly squanders his estate, gambles 
 away his property, and disables himself from payment ; is he there- 
 fore not bound] Is he free from moral obligation to pay it] Must 
 justice break her scales, and no waore hold up an equal balance, 
 because he chooses to become a villain 1 Oh no, the children of 
 this world are wise in their generation. The merchant may /or^ 
 give the debt ; but forgiveness implies obligation to pay. The 
 master may omit to demand the service, or punish its neglect, but 
 it is an omission of mercy. The law may not prosecute the man- 
 seller — the beggared wife and children may be unable to exact 
 justice of him ; but then it is because cupidity and lust are t6o 
 strong for justice. Therefore, 
 
 4. This principle is a subversion at once of all moral govern- 
 ments. Let it be known throughout the moral universe, that 
 inability (resulting from the most perverse wickedness,) cancels 
 moral obligation, and there will henceforth commence a jubilee in 
 the realms of rebellion, and their ranks may very soon be filled 
 up ; for rebellion is then the surest and the shortest road to inde- 
 pendence. 
 
 5. But I observe again, if natural inability cancels rtioral obli- 
 gntion, much more moral inability cancels moral obligation. 
 Your respectful and special attention is invited to this point. It 
 is an ad hominem against the ability doctrine. Taking these 
 brethren on their own principles, let us see what the result must 
 be. We contend that man labours under " a defect or obstacle," 
 as Edwards says, "in the faculty of understanding"— that this 
 faculty, in our present depraved state, is unable to discern spiri- 
 tual things. This is called by many a noHiPal inability; and the 
 
 5 
 
50 
 
 axiom of our brethren is, that ih\3 natural inability destroys moral 
 obligation. Now, brother Barnes maintains that man has natural 
 ability, but he lacks moral ability — he labours under a moral de- 
 fect or obstacle — a defect, or obstacle, or inability utterly unre- 
 movable, but by the power of God. Nothing but divine grace can 
 remove it — an inability in that very faculty which gives moral 
 character to himself and all his actions — an inability of will, re- 
 movable only by the Spirit of God. Now, I repeat it, if natural- 
 inability DESTROYS MORAL OBI>IGATION, rt fortiori, MORAL INABI- 
 LITY DESTROYS MORAL OBLIGATION. Let the advocato of human 
 ability malie his election. Let him either admit man's total de- 
 pravity in understanding, will, and aifections, and thus become a 
 consistent Culvinist: or let him go over entirely and maintain 
 moral ability, and thus become a consistent Arminian, How can 
 a rational man hold this halfway course ] Surely, the attempt to- 
 suspend himself between the horns of this dilemma, by a meta- 
 physical hair, half sawed ol£ is sufficient evidence of defect in> 
 man's understanding. 
 
 6. But now, to retreat into Arminianism, and maintain man's- 
 Aril abiMty,.is ta abandon the Bible and Confession of Faith, and 
 especially as defended by the great Edwards, in his unanswerable 
 treatise on the will. Tlie main object of that treatise is to estab- 
 lish the doctrine of mail's necessary moral dependence, in opposi- 
 tion to the Arminian doctrine of free will. And this object he 
 accomplishes most triumphantly. Me demonstrates that there is 
 no self-determining power in the will ; no state of indifference, 
 and no absolute continoency in the issues of human action. Tie 
 defends Calvinism against the old standing objection, that it 
 makes man a mere maehine, destroys his accountability, and 
 makes God the author of sin. He states, and abundantly refutes 
 what is now supposed to be new theology ; a leading feature of 
 which is, that man's will, in order to be free, must have choice, 
 with power to contrary choice — he states this doctrine in the lan- 
 guage of Dr. Whitby, in such passages as these, viz. "If all hu- 
 man actions are necessary, virtue and vice must be empty names ; 
 we being capable of nothing tiiat is blameworthy or deserving' 
 praise ; for who can blame a person for doing only what he could 
 not help, or judge that he deserveth praise only for what he could 
 not avoid." {Ed. vol. ii. p. 133.) " Wlio can blame a, person for 
 dalng what he could not help.'''' " It being sensibly unjust ta 
 punish any munfor doing that which was never in his power to 
 nvoid.^ And to confirm his opinion, he (Dr. Whitby,) quotes one 
 of the fathers, saying, " Why doth God command, if man hath 
 not free will and power to obey V And he cites another, saying, 
 •' A law is given to him that can turn to both parts: i. e. obey or 
 transgress it ; but no law is against him who is bound by na- 
 ture.^^ — p. 151. Agreeably to this, Mr. Barnes observes, " If Dr. 
 Junkin charges me with error in this, he holds the contrary, that 
 js, that unregenerate men are not able to keep the command- 
 
51 
 
 ftients; that there is no ability of any kind to yield obediBn6i>; 
 tliat in no conceivable sense has man any power to repent, to be- 
 lieve, and to love God, or to love his fellow men." Dr. J-ankiii 
 does maintain this, and he asks you to compare Mr. Barnes and 
 Dr. Whitby, and see how exactly they agree. But Dr. Whitby 
 has been battered to pieces by President Edwards, and it is vain 
 for brother Barnes to collect the broken fiagments of his system, 
 and construct therefrom a habitation for Calvinistic Presbyte- 
 rian ism. For, 
 
 7. I do affirm (what my Brother denies) " that iinregenerate 
 men are not able to keep the coaimandments; that there is no 
 ability of any kind to yield obedience; that in no conceivable 
 sense has man any power to repent, to believe, and to love God, or 
 to love his fellow men." — Here we are fairly at issue. Mr. Barnea 
 affirms (to throw oat both neg-atives) that man unregenerated has 
 in some sense ability to yield obedience — to repent — to believe^ 
 and to love God; I peremptorily deny. And I remark (a) Ability 
 is an efficiency, capacity, power toward the production of an et- 
 fect. The term is relative, "as the word unable is relative, and 
 has relation to ability, or endeavour, which is insufficient." (Ed- 
 wards.) It exists where, upon exertion, the effect follows, andu 
 rationa4 agent is said to be<thle to do a given things when upon 
 the putting forth ef his energies toward that thing, it is done: 
 and when it does not follow upon such exertion of his powers, he 
 is said to6e unable. In other words, abUily implies the existence 
 of a power of causation and always refers to the proper effect, (b) 
 Every elT'ect is proporti<^r>ed to its cause both in nature or 
 quality, and in degree. Like produces like. Physical ability can 
 produce only physical results. Strength or mere brute force can 
 effect only strength or resistance of the same kind. Intellectual 
 ability can be efficient only to intellectual results. Intellectual 
 power or ability may plan the machinery by which a man can lift 
 a ton weight: but to say that a man's intellect has ability to lift a 
 ton, is absurd, equally with affirming that mere natural strength 
 is able to plan the machinery. Nor is the absurdity a whit less, 
 when it is affirmed that man has natural ability to perform a moral 
 act. Each part of his nature — his animal, his intellectual, his 
 moral powers — has its own jyecidiar ability — one faculty or class 
 of faculties cannot perforuj the functions of another. Animal 
 ability (or strength) and intellectual or moral results: intellectual 
 ability and animal or moral results ; and m.oral ability and intellec- 
 tual or animal results, are all equally absurd, (c) To yield obe- 
 dience is a moral result — to repent (I mean saving repentance) is 
 a moral operation — to believe in and love God, are not animal, 
 nor intellectual, nor physical effects or results, but moral; yea, 
 the very essence of all morality, and therefore (d) In the very 
 nature of the thing, no natural ability ol any conceivable kind, 
 can qualify man to repent and love God. Moral ability alone can 
 qualify him — by that only can he turn to God and live in him. 
 
52 
 
 Now thia moral ability exists not in the ooul unlxtrn of tlie Spirit. 
 There death reigns until the Spirit of life takes up his abode 
 there. So long as faith, repentance, and love to God constitute 
 the essence of morality, bo long must he, who is in a state of moral 
 death remain unable, in any and every sense, to obey, to repent, 
 to love God. To maintain the contrary, is to subvert the entire 
 Gospel, and to make the agency of the Spirit in man's conversion 
 unnecessary, and the atonement of Christ utterly in vain. 
 
 8. I therefore object to the doctrine of human ability including 
 the manner of its application. Because (a) It inflates the pride 
 of the human heart. Tell men they are able to make to them- 
 selves new hearts, if tlicy please — that they have power to love 
 God — as much ability to love him as to hate him — they can do the 
 duty of repentance and faith if they choose — tell them this and 
 you swell their souls in vanity. No news more grateful can be 
 poured into the carnal ear. Nothing can be better calculated to 
 produce two effects in their proper time; which I mention as far- 
 ther reasoiiS of objection, (b) The man who thinks he can repent 
 whenever he pleas^, will, almost inevitably, fold up his hands 
 and defer the duty until a convenient season. Every minister of 
 experience must know, that to arouse men from the slumbers of 
 tbis belief, is the first step, and Oh how important and how diffi- 
 cult a step it is, to induce them to believe, that they are dead and 
 their life is hid with Christ in God ! This is the broad road of 
 Arminian Antinomianism, along which the great mass of humaq 
 rrjillions are rushing downward to perdition. Tell them 'you are 
 in the road to ruin' — we know it and we don't mean to follow it 
 long — we can turn out when tee please and shall take good care 
 to do it in time for safety. Ah! Mr. Moderator, you know this is 
 the ruin of the race. The pride of free will and human ahilily 
 is "the broad way" to hell, (c) When these believers in man's 
 natural ability take the notion to be converted ; when the time 
 of their c/ioosmif has come, if it ever come, then they are the 
 dupes of their own delusion. They convert themselves and of 
 course they can undo what they have done : they can convert 
 themselves back again. I mean to say, that false hopes and con- 
 sequently spurious revivals are a necessary result of the doctrine 
 we oppose. Simple people, who were horn Arminians and believr 
 ers in human ability, as all men are, considering themselves able, 
 when they please, to repent, believe, &c. thus rest in their con- 
 fidence ; and upon a little excitement, take up false hopes and 
 rush to the wildest extremes. For (d) the manner of teaching" 
 the doctrinfi of natural ability leads to delusion. Even if the dis- 
 tinction were unexceptionable and clear in itself; yet it is not 
 kept up; but without qualification men are said to be able to re^ 
 pent, love God, &,c. You have the example in the " Defence'* 
 before you. 
 
 9. All that is said about the tyranny of demanding of men du- 
 ties beyond their present ability, m&y be said witj) equal force ajjcj 
 
53 
 
 is daily said, against exacting' the claims of justice at all. What 
 cruelty! to demand of poor imperfect creatures holy obedience, 
 and to punish theui for non compliance. This is the most popular 
 argument of Universalists and Unitarians ag-ainst the doctrine of 
 God's vmdictive justice: and I can view the attempt to soften 
 down these features of the Gospel which make it unpopular with 
 the carnal mind, in no other than the most unfavourable light, 
 I know very well meji do " reject the system which professes to 
 hold" the doctrine of total inability; they " reject it with abhor- 
 rence," and that because it is " so much at variance with the great 
 original impressions of truth, made on their minds:" but I know 
 also that these " great original impressions of truth," are false im- 
 pressions and impressions of falsehood; and I liave no desire to 
 mould the gospel according to them. And I "would dare to 
 preach it to Mr. Barnes' people, or to any other people," in its 
 most abhorrent form. Because I know that tiie tendency of it is to 
 stain the pcidfi of all human glory, to drive man out of himself— 
 to expel from his soul the pride of "free agency," and make hfm 
 feel that he is totally helpless and undone— that there is no ability 
 in himself or in any created being to bring deliverance, and thus 
 to compel him to fall down upon his knees, beat upon liis bosom, 
 and cry out in the deep consciousness of his utter inability, " God 
 be merciful to me a siimer." 
 
 10. This doctrine of human ability and the argument for it 
 founded on the allegation, that unless man is able he cannot be 
 bound, you will allow me to say is the old Pelagian sentiment, 
 and the modern Arminian hobby. Pelagius says, "First it is dis- 
 puted whether our nature is debilitated by sin. And here, in my 
 opinion, the first inquiry ought to be, what is sin 1 Is it a sub- 
 stance, or is it a mere name devoid of substance? not a thing, not 
 an existence, not a body, not any thing else (which has a separate 
 existence) but an act; and if this is its nature, as I believe it i?, 
 how could that which is devoid of substance debilitate or change 
 human nature]" Again. "Every thing, good or evil, praise- 
 worthy or censurable which we possess, did not originate with 
 us, but is done by us ; for we. are born capable of both good and 
 evil; but not in possession of these qualities; for in our birth we 
 are equally destitute of virtue and vice; and previously to moral 
 agency there is nothing in man but that which God created in 
 h?m." Bib. Rep. vol. ii. p. 105. Again. " Why do we loiter and 
 blame the infirmity of nature? He would not command us what is 
 impossible." Milner, vol. ii. p. 385. " Now if before the law, 
 and long before the coming of our Saviour, men led holy lives, 
 how much more after his coming are they able to do it." p. 384. 
 And yet Milner says, " He speaks of the grace of Christ, expiation 
 by his blood, and encouragement by his example." In like rnan- 
 ner Edwards, who studied them largely, says of the Arminians, 
 " They strenuously maintain, that U would be unjust in God to 
 
 5* 
 
54 
 
 require any thirij^ of us beyond our present power and ability to 
 perform." vol. ii. p. 152. 
 
 Now observe, 1. Pelatrius denies any moral character good or 
 bad, prior to voluntary action. 2. lie attempts to prove that sin 
 coulti not debilitate human nature. 3. lie toadies that ability is 
 the measure of duty — (iod " would not command us what is im- 
 possible." That " would be the definition of tyranny." 4. This 
 very same doctrine is lield by the Arminian school, and supported 
 by the very same arg-unicnt. God would be a tyrant if he demand- 
 ed of us any thing beyond our present ability. 5. Tiiese are the 
 doctrines and the argument of brother Barnes in this book. I say 
 not that he is a Pelagian or Arminian ; but that on these points 
 he holds with both, and wish so to operate on his mind (and the 
 minds of others) as to induce him to reconsider seriously what he 
 has written ; in the confident assurance that, if he will re-con- 
 sider, he will retrace and retract and renounce these sentiments : 
 and in so doing will restore peace to a bleeding church. 
 
 CHARGE IV; 
 
 Mr. Barnes teaches, That faith is an act of the mind, and not 
 a principle, and is itself imputed for righteousness. 
 
 To this the accused puts in a plea of justification, confessing 
 the fact that he so teaches, and maintaining that he teaches therein 
 the truth. 
 
 Proof p. 94. " Ahraham helieved God.** In the Hebrew, 
 *' Abraham believed Jehovah.^'' The sense is substantially the 
 same, as the argument turns on the act of believing. The faith 
 which Abraham exercised was, that his posterity should be like 
 the stars of heaven in number. This promise was made to him 
 when he had no child, and of course when he had no prospect of 
 such a posterity. See the strength and nature of this faith fur- 
 ther illustrated in verses 16 — 21. Tbe 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 of God. And it. 
 TT-The word " it" here evidently refers to the act of believing. It 
 does Hot refer to the righteousness of another — of God, or of the 
 Messiah ; but the discussion is solely of the strong act of Abra- 
 ham's faith, which in some sense was counted to him for righteous- 
 ness. In what sense this was, is explained directly after. All 
 that is material to remark here is, that the net of Abraham, the 
 strong confidence of his mind in the promises of God, his un- 
 wavering assurance that what God had promised he would per- 
 fjrm, was received for righteousness. The same thing is ex- 
 pressed more fully in verses 18 — 22. Whon therefore the right- 
 eousness of Christ is accounted or imputed to us; when it is said 
 that his merits are transferred and reckoned as ours; whatever 
 may be the truth of the doctrine, it cannot be defended by this 
 passage of Scripture. Faith is always an act of the mind. It is 
 not a created essence which is placed within the mind. It is not 
 
55 
 
 a substance created independently of the soul, and placed within 
 it by Alniig^hty power. It is not a principle, for the expression, a 
 principle of J ait h, is as unnrieaning- as a principle of joy, or a 
 principle ol sorrow, or a principle of remorse. God promites, the 
 man believes, and this is the whole of it. Beyond the mental 
 operation, there is nothing in the case, and the word is strictly 
 limited to such an act of the mind throughout the Bible. There 
 is not a place that can be adduced where the word means any 
 thing else than an act of the mind, exercised in relation to some 
 object, or some promise, or threatening, or declaration of some 
 other being." p. 95. " Remark (1.) That it is evidently not in- 
 tended that the act of believing on the part of Abraham, was the 
 meritorious ground of acceptance; for then it would have been a 
 work. Faith was as much his own act, as any act of obedience 
 to the law. (2) The design of the Apostle was to show that by 
 the laiD, or by works, man could not be justified. Chap. iii. 28. 
 iv. 2. (3) Faith was not that which the law required, it de- 
 manded complete and perfect obedience; and if a man was justi- 
 fied by faith, it was in some other way, than by the law. (4) As 
 the law did not demand this [faith, " confidence in God," see page 
 30,] and as faith was something difTerent from the demand of the 
 law, so if a man were justified by that, it was on a principle al- 
 together different from justification by works. It was not by per- 
 sonal merit. It was not by complying with the law. It was in a 
 mode entirely different." 
 
 Observation 1. " Faith is always an act of the mind." But 
 now Abraham lived an hundred years at least after he was called 
 to a knowledge of the truth. How many acts of the mind did he 
 perform during that space J Each and every one of these acts 
 is distinct. When the mind has acted, the act is over, and past, 
 and gone; and yet we never speak of faith in the plural number. 
 We never say Abraham's faiths ; and why would such an expres- 
 sion be absurd ? Obviously, because faith is not the act itself; 
 but the principle, the habit, the abiding disposition of the soul, 
 whence the distinct acts of believing issue. And therefore, 
 
 2. We always speak of the acts of faith. So Mr. Barnes says, 
 "the strong act of Abraham's faith." He could not write without 
 contradicting his own doctrine. What sense is in the phrase, 
 " the strong act of Abraham's act of the mind V It is impossible 
 to introduce this definition of his, without multiplying most 
 strange and unmeaning expressions. If " faith is always an act 
 of the mind," and "not a principle" of action, who caii explain 
 the phrase " an act of faith." 
 
 3, If" faith is an act of the mind only," and not a principle of 
 grace in the soul, from which the acts proceed, then it must fol- 
 low that Abraham was justified by an act of his mind, which 
 " was as much his own act, as any act of obedience to the law." 
 Here it is indubitably taught, tha^ the individual, personal act of 
 Abraham's mind is the ground of his justification before God. 
 
56 
 
 Not the righteousness of the Saviour, as the church has alwaj^a 
 believed, hut the act of the man hhnse{f wae imputed to him lor 
 righteousness. " TJie word it," says Mr. Barnes, " here evidently 
 refers to the act of believing-. It does not refer to the righteous- 
 ness of another — of God, or of the Messiah." Now it is ngjjteous- 
 ness which justifies — wiien a man has the righteousness required 
 by the law, he must and will be justified by the judge. If, there- 
 fore, Abraham's own act is his righteousness — is the ground and 
 cause of his being justified — he is not justified by Christ's merits 
 at all, but by his own act But brother Barnes will say, you 
 draw an inference from my language which I deny ; lam respon- 
 sible not for your inferences, but only for my own acts. In reply, 
 i aver it is not so. It is not an inference from his position. It is 
 t!ie very position itself. Abraham's act is his own, and this, his 
 o vn act, is put down as his own righteousness. This is Mr. 
 Birnes' doctrine. He teaches it. Very true, he denies it. But 
 ir ill three lines a man denies and teaches the same thing, let him 
 btar the blame. " In this act, faith is a mere instrument — a con- 
 dition on which men may be treated as righteous." " In this act, 
 faith," which " is an act of the mind," is "a mere instrument," 
 and "a condition" of salvation. This is salvation by works, and 
 yet the author denies it in the same breath. Oh, Sir, how difii- 
 eult it is to get clear of the doctrine of imputed righteousness! 
 how difficult it is to make a man believe that his own act is not 
 his own work ! To escape from this difficulty, he has found it 
 necessary to maintain one of the strangest positions ever laid 
 down by a moralist, viz. that confidence in God is not required 
 by his law. For he perceived that if confidence in God were re- 
 quired by his law, and if Abraham were justified by confidence in 
 God, he was justified by an act of obedience to law — by a work. 
 Reduced to the dilemma of maintaining either that Abraham was 
 justified by the righteousness of Christ, or that confidence in God 
 js not required by his law, he chooses the latter as the lesser evil. 
 You are surprised and grieved ! So am I, but it is even so. Mr, 
 Barnes says, " Faith was not that which the law required. As 
 the law did not demand this; and as faith was something diffe- 
 rent from the demand of the law." Now, on p. 30, he translates 
 Ttvdti^,) faith, by the phrase, "confidence in God," and uses it 
 not less than seven times on that page ; and so on p. 94, " confi- 
 dence in the promise of God" — "strong confidence of his mind"— 
 confidence in God not required by his law ! 
 
 4. Another difficulty of this system which denies faith to be a 
 habit or fixed principle of the renewed man is, thai a Christian 
 can have no character: he is a believer, and consequently a justi- 
 fied man, only during the act: but the act is momentary, and 
 wlien it is past and gone, the man is not a believer; he is not in 
 a justified state beyond the continuity of the act of the mind. 
 Now from all these, and some other difficulties, the plain and 
 
57 
 
 simple doctrine of our (Confession, and of the Bible will deliver us. 
 What then is faith according to these? I answer, 
 
 5. Saving: Faith is a gracious principle — a holy habit — an 
 abiding fixed disposition of the soul — whereby it receives and 
 rests upon the testimonies of God concerning his Son and salva- 
 tion through his righteousness. 1 had written the above, before 
 I asked a friend at my elbow (in whose house I am sojourning) 
 for Dr. Alexander's Bible Dictionary ; and here I put down his 
 definition, viz. " Saving faith, is that gracious quality, principle, 
 or habit, wrought in the heart, by the Spirit of God taking the 
 things of Christ and showing them to us, whereby we receive and 
 rest on Christ alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the 
 gospel." Now that this is the doctrine of the standards is evident. 
 
 Conf. xiv. 1. " The grace of faith, whereby the elect are ena- 
 bled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the 
 Spirit in their hearts : * * * it is increased and strengthened." 
 ii. " By this faith, a Christian believeth," &:c. "But the princi- 
 pal acts of saving faith, are, accepting, receiving, and resting on 
 Christ alone," &c, Larg. Cat. 72. " Justifying faith is a saying 
 grace '^ * * ; whereby he * * * receiveth and resteth on Christ," 
 i&c. 73. " Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because 
 of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good 
 works which are the fruits of it; nor as if the grace of faith, or 
 Any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification," &c. 
 Here I shall be indulged in a few particulars. («) Saving faith is 
 a grace. •' By grace are ye saved through faith" — Ep. ii. 8. 
 •' Who believe according to the working of his mighty power." — 
 i. 19. Now grace " is free favour, unmerited kindness.'^ " The 
 new spiritual principle produced in the heart by regeneration," 
 It is therefore not the act of the sinner's mind, but the prin- 
 ciple from which the acts do proceed. This is evident, (b) be- 
 cause faith is weak or strong — it is increased, it grows by its 
 exercise. "Lord increase our faith," Luke xvii. 5. Lord in- 
 crease our act of the mind ! No, but strengthen the holy habit — 
 the gracious principle, (c) " By this faith, a Christian believeth." 
 By this act of his mind, a Christian acteth with his mind ! Mani- 
 festl}^ faith is the principle, which is called into action when the 
 Christian believeth — "wherehy he receiveth Christ" — "the prin- 
 cipal acts of saving faith" — the principal acts of the acts of the 
 mind ! But enough of this. Mr. Barnes admits it. He says, 
 "The great, leading, deeply-cherished principle of his [the be- 
 liever's] soul is to obey God, It becomes the habitual bent and 
 disposition of his mind ; an inclination or disposition, for the forma- 
 tion and cherishing of which, he is responsible'— an inclination, or 
 preference, or disposition which lies back of any specific act of 
 believing," Oh, si sic omnia! Yet even here, he would be more 
 patisflictory, if he had attributed this principle to the renewing of 
 the Holy Ghost, and not, as seems- to be the case, to the man's 
 own eourse of action, "It becomes the habitual bent," but it sa 
 
58 
 
 becomes by renewing- grace. Had my brother confessed this at 
 first, and condemned his doctrine, that faith exists only in the act, 
 he had done nol)ly, and saved time and labour. He has now 
 found out that "a principle of faith is not unmeaning, no more 
 ■than a principle of confidence in God." Now I rejoice to obricrve. 
 
 6. That 1 can nnite with brother Barnes in pressing tlte<jbliga- 
 tion upon the believing sinner, to cherish this principle, and carry 
 it on to perfection. Jt grows by its exercise; and when Peter 
 commands us to grow in grace, my soul feels the moral bonds of 
 that command. But I would always go farther, and press tWe 
 obligation upon the whole world. The unregenerate — all mf-n 
 who hear it — are bound by the same divine authority whicli says, 
 " worship God," " remember the Sabbath day," to believe the gos- 
 pel, to repent of their sins, and live in the practice of holy obe- 
 dience. But then I deny that this obligation is ever either i«- 
 creased or diminished by man's ability or his inability. It rests 
 net at all on such a basis, but simply on the immutable authority 
 of the everlasting God. The will of God, not the ability of man, 
 is the basis and measure of moral obligation. 
 
 7. It is scarcely necessary to reply to the remarks of brother 
 Barnes, about faith being a created essence, put into the soul — or 
 about my supposing "that the mind does not act in believing." 
 This is too futile, and I know not why such absurdities should be 
 imputed to me. 
 
 8. But I must be allowed to set the annotator and the Presby- 
 terian standards in juxtaposition on another point. He says, " the 
 4ict of Abrahaai" — not " the righteousness of another — of God, or 
 of the Messiah;^' but "the act of Abraham, the strong confidence 
 of his mind, was received for righteousness." The standards 
 specifically deny this Vf8ry position. Lar. Cat. p. 73. " Nor as if 
 the grace of faith, or any act thereof, wer<e imputed to him for 
 justification." I Just leave these two statements to a perpetual 
 menace of each other, and add my 
 
 9th Observation, viz. That taith is to be understood objectively 
 in the passage -(Rom. iv. 3,) under consideration. That is, when 
 Abraham's feith is said to be imputed to hinii for righteousness, the 
 object on which his faith terminates or rests, is so reckoned for 
 righteousness. That is, the righteousness ot Christ, or Christ as 
 the Lord our Righteousness. Now, that this is the true sense is 
 evident, because "Abraham rejoiced," says the Redeemer, "to see 
 my day, and he saw it and was glad ;" John viii. 5, 0. Can any 
 man doubt for a moment that Abraham's seeing Christ's day, was 
 his believing in the promised Messiah and trusting to his righte- 
 ousness alone ? 
 
 On this point let «s hear the voice of the dead. Doctor Wilson, 
 the predecessor of Mr. Barnes, has spoken so admirably on it, that 
 you will doubtless hear him with pleasure. In his notes on Ridg- 
 ley, vol. in. p. lOS, he states the xloctrine thus, " Others, [in the 
 jTsargiB he refers to Whitby and Macknight, two distinguished 
 
59 
 
 Arminians] understand Abraham to have been justified on the ac?* 
 count of the mere act of believing :" — They make faith a work erf" 
 merit. Doctor Wilson rejects this notion, thus, "Faith is the 
 mind's assent to external evidence ; faith thus strictly considered 
 as an act, is man's act, as much so as any can be, and as the un- 
 derstanding- at least in its application to the evidence must be ac- 
 companied by the consent of the will, here is every thing that is 
 necessary to constitute a work, and accordingly it is commanded 
 as a duty, the neglect of which is criminal :" — " that it is not the 
 mere act of believing in Christ which is the ground of such justi- 
 fication is plain from this, that he expresses the same thing by 
 the words, being justified by Christ." If it is true that we are 
 justified by faith, and also that we are justified by Christ, it must 
 be meant in different senses, and to give effect to these words dif- 
 ferently connected, it seems necessary to suppo&e the righteous- 
 ness of Christ as the meritorious cause or ground of justification, 
 and faith the instrumental." — "It is not the holiness of his faith 
 that is accounted for righteousness to him ; faith is a holy duty. 
 [Brother Barnes denies this, in saying that faith is not required by 
 the law,] but not more so than some others, and not so much so as 
 love, " now abideth faith, hope, love, and the greatest of these is 
 love." Nor are Christians ever said to be justified by love, joy, 
 peace, patience, or by any other grace except by faith, — and no 
 doubt it is because faith lays hold on him for whose sake alone we 
 can be justified." 
 
 " Or faith may be put for its object as the words fear, hope, joy, 
 and love are. God is our fear, our hope, &c. ' Thy faith hath 
 saved thee,' it was not her faith but its object, Christ's power, 
 that healed her." 
 
 "The seed which was promised," continues Dr. Wikon, "em- 
 braced Christ, whose day Abraham saw afar off"; so this faith [he 
 is speaking of Abraham's faith, in the precise case where Mr. 
 Biimes insists that his act itself is imputed for righteousness,] had 
 the Redeemer for its object. In the epistle to the Galatians there 
 follow the quotation these words, 'as many as are of faith are the 
 children of Abraham,' these are called his spiritual seed, and be- 
 lieve in Christ, now if all who believe in Christ are thereby the 
 children of Abraham, and Abraham their lather or pattern of faith, 
 his faith must have been of the same kind," — 
 
 Thus, Dr. Wilson explicitly maintains, that not Abraham's 
 faith — not the act of his mind, but the object of that act, that is, 
 the righteousness of Messiah, was reckoned to him for righteous- 
 ness, Mr. Barnes sets himself in his comment to deny and reject 
 this. Dr. Wilson teaches, that faith,^ " considered as an act, is 
 man's act," and is a work ; and he argues, that to insist that the 
 act itself was imputed to Abraham for righteousness, [the precise 
 thing which Mr. Barnes does insist on] is to maintain justification 
 by works. And he proves most conclusively, that, the term faith 
 ought to be understood objectively — it " had the Redeemer for its 
 
60 
 
 object." And on p. 128, 129, using tlie language of anotlipr, he 
 says, " As the ri^^hteousness by which the sinner is justified, is 
 the sole work of Christybr hiin^ so this [faith] is the sole work of 
 the Holy Ghost in him.'''' — " Thus we see that faith is entirely dis- 
 tinct from the righteousness which justifies." — The righteousness 
 of Christ and not the "act of the mind, is that which is imputed," 
 in order to justification. 
 
 11. Finally^ that the accused has used some expression seem- 
 ing to admit a doctrine utterly inconsistent with his main posi- 
 tion, does not affect the truth of this charge. He denies thaf 
 *' the act of believing on the part of Abraham, was the meritori- 
 ous ground of acceptance," — and speaks of " the merit by which 
 all this is obtained, as, the work of the Lord Jesus Christ." — 
 But when a writer lays down and laboriously supports an erro- 
 neous sentiment, and afterwards, looking to consequences, 
 throws in a phrase or two as a salvo, savouring of the opposite 
 doctrine, we are bound to receive his main positions as his reaf 
 meaning. Yet in his Defence, where he reiterates these expres- 
 sions, he soon looses sight of them and reverts to his old ground. 
 He says, " the grand desideratum in a plan of salvation was to 
 restore to an alienated world, coufidcnce in the existence, the ^go- 
 vernment and the perfections of God. This Abraham evinced ; 
 • and it was such a slate of mind as furnished the proper evidence 
 of reconciliation, and he was reckoned as in fact a justified man. 
 His faith in God was so strong as to give an unerring indication 
 that he was recovered, and was reckoned to him ♦' for righteous- 
 ness," or »* in order to justification," just as " faith is now." 
 Here faith is " a state of mind," furnishing " evidence of recon- 
 ciliation," — "a slate of mind to which God had promised accep- 
 tance," — and that state of mind, is his own act — " beyond the 
 mental operation, there is nothing in the case." Whether the 
 Bible and Standards of out church can be reconciled with these 
 views, it is for the court to judge. 
 
 CHARGE V. 
 
 ^Mr. Barnes denies, "That God entered into corenant with 
 Adam, constituting him a federal or covenant bead and repre- 
 sentative to all his natural descendants." 
 
 Proof 1. p. 114. "From these remarks it is clear that the 
 apostle does not refer to the man here from any idea that there was 
 any particular covenant transaction with him; but that he means 
 to speak of it in the usual popular sense ; referring to him as 
 the fountain of all the woes that sin has introduced into the 
 world." 
 
 Proof 2. p. 128. "The most common [explanation] has 
 been that Adam was the represejitative of the race ; that he was 
 a cover^ant head, and his sin was imputed to his posterity, and 
 that they were held liable to punishment for it, as if they had 
 
61 
 
 committed it themselves. But to this ther6 are great and in- 
 superable objections. 
 
 (1) There is not one word of it in the Bible. Neither the term 
 representative, covenant, or impute are ever applied to the trans- 
 action in the sacred Scriptures. (2.) It is a mere philosophical 
 theory." 
 
 Proofs, p. 115. As quoted under charge IL 
 
 Proof, 4. p. 121., "A comparison is also instituted between 
 Adam and Christ in 1 Cor. xv. 22 — 25. The reason is not that 
 Adam was the representative or federal head of the human race, 
 about which the apostle says nothina, and which is not even 
 implied, but that he was the first of the race ; he was the foun- 
 tain, the head, the lather ; and the consequences of that first act 
 introducing sin into the world, could be se^^ every where. The 
 words representative -and federal head are never applied to Adam 
 in the Bible. The reason is, that the word representative implies 
 an idea which could not have existed in the case — the consent of 
 those who are represented: Besides the Bible does not teach that 
 they acted in him, or by him ; or that he acted for them. No 
 passage has ever yet been found that stated this doctrine." 
 
 Proofs, p. 128. "(2) Nothing is said of a covenant with 
 him, [Adam.] No where in the Scriptures is the term covenant 
 applied to any transaction with Adam. (3) All that is estab- 
 lished here is the simple fact that Adam sinned, and that this 
 made it cettain that all his posterity would be sinners. Beyond 
 this the language of the apostle does not go; and all else that 
 has been said of this is the result of mere philosophical specu- 
 lation. (4) This/ac/ is one that is apparent; and that accords 
 with all the analogy in the moral government of God. The 
 drunkard secures commonly as a result, that his family will be 
 reduced to beggary, want, and wo. His sin is commonly the 
 certain occasion of their being sinners; and the immediate cause 
 of their loss of property and comfort, of their being overwhelmed 
 in wretchedness and grief. A murderer will entail disgrace and 
 shame on his family." 
 
 1. Under Charge II. it has been fully proved, that Mr. Barnes 
 holds Adam ignorant to such a deg!-ee that it is impossible he 
 should have known any thing about a covenant. If that charge 
 is substantiated then there was no covenant established with 
 Adam. 
 
 2. But before we proceed to the other proofs, let us settle 
 the idea of a covenant. The Hebrbw word (Berith,) as critics 
 generally agree, is formed from a verb that signifies to cut, and 
 has reference to the ceremony of cutting, killing, or dividing an 
 animal, usually slaughtered upon occasion of establishing im- 
 portant agreements between men. See .ler. xxxiv. 18 — 20. This 
 ceremony most likely had its origin in the divine institution of 
 sacrifices, with which Moses was familiar, and whence he bor- 
 rowed the term. Herman Wltsiws speaks the truth when he 
 
 6 
 
62 
 
 says, vol. I. p. 47, 48. " lmpro|jerly it denotes the following 
 things; 1. An immuiable ordinance about any thing. In this 
 sense God mentions, his covenant of the day and of the nighty—- 
 2. "A sure and stable promise, though it be not mutual. — This 
 is my covenant with them, my ^Spirit shall not depart from them^ 
 Is, Ixix. 21. 3. " It signifies also z precept ,- and to cut acovenant 
 is io give a precept.^'' — " Bui properly^ it signifies a mutual agree- 
 ment between parties with respect to something.^^ On p. 51, he 
 says, Having premised these things in general about the terms, 
 let us now inquire into the thing itself, and the nature of the co- 
 venant of God with man; which I thus define : A covenant of 
 God with man is an agreement between God and man, about the 
 method of obtaining consummate happiness, with the addition of a 
 threatening of eternal destruction, luith which the dcspiscr of the hap- 
 piness offered in that way is to be punished.''^ The covenant on 
 God's part comprises three things in the whole. 1. ^ promise 
 of consummate happiness in eternal life. 2. A designation and 
 prescription of the condition, on the performance of which, man 
 acquires a right to the promise. 3. A penal sanction against 
 those who do not stand by the prescribed condition." p. 52. 
 And p. 53. "It becomes the covenant of two parties, when man 
 consents thereunto, embracing the good promised by God, engag- 
 ing io an exact observance of the condition required, and, upon the 
 violation thereof voluntarily owning himself obnoxious to the 
 threatened curse.^^ If asked for a definition of my own I would 
 say, 'A covenant is a mutual agreement between two or more 
 parties, containing a stipulation (or statement of something to 
 be done) on the one part, and a restipulation corresponding to it 
 on the other, and attended by a penal sanction.' It requires 
 properly, 1. Intelligent agents. 2. (of course,) The exercise of 
 volition in the parties. 3. A proposition made by the one to the 
 other, of something to be done. 4. A condition of reward offer- 
 ed in the proposition, when the other party shall have fulfilled 
 his condition. 5. A condition of penalty threatened, if he shall 
 not do the thing set forth in the proposition, or upon the other 
 party if he shall withhold the promised reward, after the thing 
 shall have been done. This is the idea of a covenant, and it is 
 one of the simplest and plainest things in the theory and prac- 
 tice of morals. I hire a servant for ten dollars per month, to do 
 certain woik. He does his work, agreeably to contract, and re- 
 ceives his pay. This is a simple contract or bargain. I propose 
 to a builder to erect me a house, according to a plan submitted, for 
 a sum of a thousand dollars, within a given time, or pay a hundred 
 dollars damages; and if I shall not pay him, on the delivery of 
 the key at the given time, 1 shall forfeit a hundred dollars. 
 He agrees to my proposition. This is a covenant, and it 
 differs from a simple contract only in its formality ; just as a 
 simile, in rhetoric, differs from a metaphor. Suppose Abraham 
 had said to Eleazer his servant, ♦ Go and take a wife to my son 
 
G3 
 
 Isaac from my kindred, and return with her within three months, 
 and I will give thee thy freedom and an outfit of five camels and 
 and an hundred sheep, a tent, and furniture. But if thou neglect 
 or refuse, I will deprive thee of thy stewardship, and yet retain 
 thee as a slave.' Eleazer, panting for freedom and comparative 
 independent affluence, assents to the proposition. It is now a 
 covenant, just as complete as the preceding, except that the pe- 
 nalty on Abraham, if he shall refuse to do his part, is not ex- 
 pressed, and though implied, it might be difficult for the weaker 
 to enforce its exaction. Again, 1 say to my little boy, '* My 
 son, if you'll be a good boy, kind to your mother, and diligent 
 in your studies until I return home, I'll bring you a new cap ; 
 and if you don't I'll chastise you. Will you agree to if? Yes, 
 that I will." Here is a covenant. Here is simplicity itself, and 
 yet men pretend that young people have difficulty in understand- 
 ing the old theology of the covenants. Had the builder, the 
 steward of Abraham, or my son any difficulty T Oh no ! it is 
 the grandeur of its simplicity which commends the covenant of 
 God to the people of his love. Now, Mr. Barnes denies God's 
 covenant with Adam. 
 
 3. Proof 1. When Paul says, " by one man sin entered into 
 the world," brother Barnes insists that '' he does not refer to the 
 man here from any idea that there was any particular covenant 
 transaction with him." Is not this a denial of the covenant T 
 Could any man who believes in the doctrine of the covenant of 
 works, use such terms] But, p. 128, he says, *' The most 
 common explanation has been, that Adam was the representative 
 of the race; that he was a covenant head, &c," " But," adds 
 he, " to this there are great and insuperable objections." Can 
 language be more explicit] *' But to this" — to what ? Why, 
 to the/ac/ stated before, that Adam was a covenant head — a re- 
 presentative. "It is a mere philosophical theory." "It" — 
 what] Not surely the terms covenant^ representative^ federal 
 head ; nay but the fact of Adam's standing in this moral relation 
 to his posterity and to God — not that the terms covenant and re- 
 present are or are not used in the Bible, but the moral headship — 
 the relation itself — the moral connexion "is a mere philosophical 
 theory." 
 
 Proof 4. Here the moral or legal connexion between Adam 
 and his posterity is rejected both in name and thing. He denies 
 not simply that the tprms are used, but the things — "not that 
 Adam was the representative or federal head of the race" — this 
 *' is not even implied." And he gives a reason why it could not 
 be, . viz. " the word representative implies an idea which could not 
 have existed in the case, the consent of those who are represented.*^ 
 Thus you see how precise he is; not the term but the idea — the 
 thing meant is rejected. He with clearness and perspicuity of 
 language denies the moral connexion — " the Bible does not teach 
 that they acted in iiim, or by him; or that he acted /or them." 
 
G4 
 
 The italics are his own, and they arc put in to give fcrrce to his 
 denial that Adam acted for his posterity. No moral connexion 
 exists. The whole is resolved into mere physical, unimal head- 
 ship. 
 
 Proof 5. " Nothing- is said of a covenant with Adam." And 
 he illustrates by reference to the effects of a drunkard's conduct 
 upon his family, and a murderer's. lie most unequivocally and 
 peremptorily denies any other relation between Adam and his pos- 
 terity, than exists between the drunkard and his. Adam's sin 
 made it certain that all his children would be sinners. But the 
 drunkard's sin does not make it certain that all his children will 
 be drunkards. It very often happens that they shun the vice of 
 their parent and become most exemplary men. Some of the first 
 men in the church and the world have had intemperate parents. 
 There is absolutely no moral connexion between them to secure 
 such a result. There is a connexion of physical relation, and this 
 is all Mr. Barnes seems to admit in the case of Adam. This will 
 appear hereafter: it has appeared that he denies Adam's posterity 
 to be sinners, prior to moral action : and they all do exist prior to 
 moral action ; so that he denies that Adam's sin made any of his 
 posterity sinners. And it will further appear, that he denies their 
 liability to suffer punishment on account of his sin : so that the de- 
 claration of Paul, that "by the disobedience of one many were 
 made sinners," is rejected, or must be explained away. The rela- 
 tions of Adam and his posterity are physical, only there is no mo- 
 ral unity — they are not one moral and corporate body as it were, 
 with their parent as head, acting ^^fur them." "No passage," 
 says Mr. Barnes, " has ever been found that stated this doctrine^? 
 that he acted for them." 
 
 What says the Constitution of our church? 
 
 Conf. VII. *' Of God's covenant with man.'''' This is the head» 
 ing of the chapter, and might of itself be sufficient to prove the 
 opposition of Mr. Barnes to our standards. Section first speaks of 
 God's condescension to man, " which he hath been pleased to ex- 
 press by way of covenant." Sect. II. " The first covenant made 
 with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to 
 Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and 
 personal obedience," Chapter xix. 1. "God gave to Adam a 
 law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all 
 his posterity to personal, entire, and perpetual obedience ; pro- 
 mised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the 
 breacii of it; and endued him with power to obey it." Lar. Cat. 
 20. — " entering into a covenant of life with him upon condition," 
 &c. 22. " The covenant being made with Adam, as a public 
 person, not for himself only, but for his posterity ; all mankind 
 descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him and 
 fell with him in that first transgression." Short Cat. 12 and 16, 
 to the same effect. On the contrary, Mr. Barnes says, " the Bible 
 does not teach that they [his posterity] acted in him, or by hini, 
 
65 
 
 or that he acted for them." And he sneeringly asks, (p. 117,) 
 " What idea id conveyed to men of common understanding by the 
 expression " they sinned in him ]" Thus the very words of the 
 Confession, as well as its doctrine, are held up to ridicule. Con- 
 tradiction cannot he more palpable. 
 
 Here you will allow me to make a remark for application on the 
 other points as well as this, viz. Mr. Barnes does not lay the lan- 
 guage of the Confession down alongside of his own. Why does 
 he not quote the words in full, which he is alleged to contradict f 
 Surely if he were conscious of a perfect agreement with the stand- 
 ards, he would compare them together — he would present both 
 at one view to his readers, that they might see the exact coinci- 
 dence. But no, the language of the Confession is withheld from 
 the public eye. Can any man be at a loss tor the reason"? 
 
 But perhaps the standards, in teaching the doctrine of " the Co- 
 venant of Woiks," go beyond the Bible ; and if so, we are bound 
 not to follow them ; at least we are not conscience-bound to fol- 
 low them : for the word of God is the only infallible rule, and He 
 only is Lord of conscience. Let us therefore inquire whether the 
 Bible teaches the doctrine " of God's covenant with man." Gen. 
 ii. 16, 17. " And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of 
 every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree 
 of the knowledo-e of oood and evil, thou shalt not eat of it : for in 
 the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' 
 
 On this remark. Man was bound to obey his Creator in all 
 things, prior to, and independent on any covenant made with him : 
 just as Eleazer, in the case supposed above, was bound to obey 
 Abraham, and my son to obey his parent. The covenant does not 
 create moral obligation : the obligation is mere law : and' hence 
 the Confession says, " God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant^ 
 That moditication of the law, which appends the promised reward, 
 and secures the consent of Adam, is what constitutes it a cove- 
 nant. Our inquiry is, not whether the term covenant is used 
 here ; that we are to lose sight of the subject before us ; but, is 
 the thing itself here? Have we the moral substance J Are the 
 essential requisites of a covenant transaction here ! To this I 
 affirm: Mr. Barnes denies. Now the proof of the positive rests 
 on the affirmant: and let us to it. 1st. Requisite, "intelligent 
 agents," and here they are, God and Adam. There is no room 
 for disputation on this point. 2d. "The exercise of volition in 
 the parties." Now that God exercised volition and expressed 
 his will to Adam is undeniable — He commanded him. And that 
 Adam acquiesced in the divine proposition is evident («) from the 
 silence of Scripture, as to any objections. You will say 'this is 
 negative proof:' so it is, but negative proof may contain positive 
 evidence. If Adam had not consented, his withholding consent 
 would have been plead by him as a reason why the penalty should 
 not be pronounced and executed. He was certainly sufficiently 
 disposed to excuse himself, and if he could have laid hold of that 
 
 6* 
 
66 
 
 plea — if he could have said in trulli, ' I never consented to the 
 proposition about this tree of knowledge,' it would certainly Jiave 
 been a better apology than to say, " the woman whom thou 
 gavest to be with me, she gave me," &c. (6) Adam could not as 
 a holy creature refuse or withhold Iiis consent of will, to a propo- 
 sition so reasonable. His refusal would have been sin, and he 
 would have been a fallen creature. To refuse his consent and 
 to remain a holy creature are irreconcileable impossibilities. But 
 now Adam, ajler this proposition was made to him, continued a 
 holy creature. For he was such when he gave names to the 
 other creatures, and when his rib was taken out to form his wife. 
 And therefore, it is evident, he did consent at the time — he impli- 
 citly acquiesed in tiie terms proposed, (c) He could not but 
 acquiesce, because the terms were most reasonable, and all for his 
 benefit : and he was under the law of his being which led to seek 
 his own blessedness, and he was in possession oi' j)erfect reasoning 
 powers ; and no temptation had as yet been presented to pervert 
 them, (f?) Eve knew of tiie proposition or command of God, and 
 assented to it. (iii. 2, 3.) t^he replies to the serpent, "God hath 
 said, ' Ye shall not eat of it," &c. Now this knowledge she de- 
 rived from her husband, tor the proposition was made to him 
 before she was created. The evidence of her assent is explicit 
 and undeniable, and to my mind, is perfectly conclusive, that 
 Adam also willingly and cheerfully acquiesced in it. 3d. " A pro- 
 position made by the one to the other, of something to be done." 
 Such proposition was made by God to Adam. Controversy about 
 this, there cannot be. The thing proposed to Adam was, obe- 
 dience in the matter of the fruit forbidden. Abstinence from the 
 fruit. 4th. " A condition of reward offered in the proposition, 
 when the other party shall have fulfilled his condition." Now I 
 aver that such condition is set forth in the words before us. Not 
 indeed explicitly, but implicitly, that is, by plain and unavoidable 
 implication. The threatening of death upon disobedience, im- 
 plied and contained a promise of life to obedience. " In the day 
 thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." The simple reading of 
 this language convinces every rational mind, that life was set be- 
 fore Adam as well as death : and on this principle Paul reasons — 
 Gal. iii. 11, 12. "But that no man is justified by the law in the 
 sight of God, it is evident, for the just shall live by faith : And the 
 law is not of faith; but the man that doeth them shall live in [by] 
 them." Doing the things required in the law, secures life : and 
 V. 21. "If there had been a law given which could have given 
 life." The law given to Adam, contained a pron)ise of life to 
 obedience. This is universally admitted, and I w'aste time in the 
 proof. 5th. "A condition of penalty threatened." And here the 
 text is explicit — "thou shall surely die." 
 
 Thus every item essential to a covenant exists in the ease : and 
 I challenge denial in reference to any one of them. But let us 
 see what notices of this transaction occur in other Scriptures. 
 
G7 
 
 Job, xxxi. 33. says "if I covered my transgressions as Adam, 
 by iiiding my iniquity in my bosom." This passage is cited, 
 simply for the translation of the Hebrew words, ^A-e Adam; it 
 shows that those terms mean as Adam. Now compare this with 
 Hosea vii. 7. " But they he Jldam,, as Adam^ transgressed the 
 covenant." And in the 82d Psalm, " Ye shall die like man, 
 [as Adam] and fall like [as] one of the people." The Lord, by 
 Hosea, complains against Judah and Ephraim, that they have 
 transgressed the covenant. What covenant? Undoubtedly 
 that which God made with their fathers. Deut. v. 3. *' The 
 Lord made not this covenant with our fathers but with us, even 
 us, who are all of us here alive this day." This Sinai cove- 
 nant, is plainly referred to by the prophet. Judah and Ephraim 
 transgressed it: as Adam transgressed the covenent made with 
 him. Here the term covenant is applied to the transaction with 
 Adam: and there is no evasion. For if it be alleged, that »^</am 
 here is used in a generic sense, for the race in general,— r- 
 "they, like men commonly do, transgressed the covenant"— 
 it returns upon us, what covenant do men commonly transgress T 
 Adam is a general term for the race — the whole race. Now what 
 covenant had God given to the whole race 1 It cannot be pre- 
 tended, it is the covenant with Noah, and this is the only cove- 
 nant comprehending the race — the whole race, except only the 
 covenant with Adam. If therefore, ^(iaw means man in gene- 
 ral — the race; then it is demonstrably evident, that with Me 
 race God had made a covenant. 1 ask when, and where, and 
 how 1 And to these there can be no answer full and fair, but by 
 admitting the doctrine " Of God's covenant with man," as 
 laid down in our Confession. 
 
 In 1 Cor. XV. 22, " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ 
 shall all be made alive," there is a parallel drawn between Adam 
 and Christ ; showing that all die in Adam. If, therefore, the 
 headship of Adam is denied, it is incumbent on those who deny to 
 show in what other sense all could die in him, than by virtue of 
 the moral relation to him. The same is evident from Rom. v. 12, 
 19, " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin" — 
 " by one man's disobedience many were made sinners." If the 
 consequences of the legal relation are realised, and God's govern- 
 ment be just, the relation itself must have existed. The fact is 
 undeniably true, that death, preceded, of course, by condemna- 
 tion and jMsi exposure to death, passed and still passes through 
 upon all mankind, and many of them, viz. all infants, had not per- 
 sonally sinned ; therefore they sinned in their first father Adam, 
 the moral head of the race. 
 
 Allow me here to add the testimony of the late learned and la- 
 mented Dr. Wilson. He is very explicit in maintaining the re- 
 presentative character of Adam, and his opinions ought to hav- 
 great weight here. In Ridgley, vol. II. pp. 77, 78, he has a note 
 on tills passage, viz. " We shall proceed to inquire how the pro- 
 
68 
 
 Viclenco of God had a more immediate reference to the spiritual 
 or eternal Ijappiness of man, in that he entered into a covevant of 
 life with him." In the note approbatory and cxplanative, Dr. 
 Wilson eays, " The first intelligent creatures were purely spiri- 
 tual, and each stood or fell for himself^ He united in man the 
 spiritual and the corporeal natures; he formed his soul innocent 
 and holy, and made ample provisions for the comfort of his body ; 
 and as it would have been inconvenient to have brought all of the 
 human family, which v^ere to be in every generation, upon the 
 earth at one time, and still more so, that, every one standing or 
 falling for himself, the earth should be the common habitation of 
 beings perfectly holy, happy, and immortal, and also of cursed, 
 perishing beings, he constituted the first man a representative of 
 his race. That he represented the race appears from this, that 
 the command was given to him before his wife was formed, and 
 also because it does not appear that her eyes were opened to see 
 her guilt and miserable condition, until he had eaten of the 
 fruit, " then the eyes of them both were opened." The same is 
 reaffirmed in the note on page 103. "The command had been 
 given to Adam ; he was the representative of Eve and his poste- 
 rity." Let no man slander the illustrious dead, by saying that 
 Doctor J. P. Wilson denied the covenant of works and Adan/s re- 
 presentative character. 
 
 I proceed now to remark on the Defence of Mr. Barnes. 
 
 1. He mistakes or misstates the case before the court. " My 
 statement in my ' Notes' is definite, and designed to be so. It is 
 simply that the terms covenant, federal headship, and representa- 
 tive, are not applied to the transaction in the passage under con- 
 sideration in my ISotes, nor in the Bible. And the simple inquiry 
 is, whether this is so or is not — and on this the Presbytery is to 
 find a verdict." So, then, Mr. Moderator, it is a mere question of 
 terms ! And this solemn charge of dangerous error amounts only 
 to this, Mr. Barnes denies that the terms representative And fede- 
 ral headship are found in the Bible! Strange ! indeed ! And 
 pray who affirmed that these words are in the Bible? Is it indeed 
 so 1 Is this the precise point of this 5th charge, that Mr. Barnes 
 denies a position, which every person who has ever read the 
 Scriptures denies ? Have I charged him with such a wonderful 
 heresy ? Or have I charged him with denying the doctrine of the 
 covenant of works, the federal or covenant headship and represen- 
 tative character of Adam J This is certamly what I intended, 
 and if I have made such a mistake as to charge as an error the 
 rejection of these terms, then truly you will make short work of 
 this charge, and acquit the accused. But let us take heed. This 
 diversion must not lead us away from the point before us. The 
 controversy is not about terms. The word terms is not used in 
 the charge. It is a question of tilings — a question of doctrine ; 
 and yet the substance of this " Defence" has reference only to the 
 meaning of a few words, and to the question whether they are 
 
69 
 
 found in the Bible. Now, no man can read the passages above 
 cited from the ■" Notes," without perceiving, that whilst he does 
 reject the terms in question as unscriptural, he also rejects the 
 thi7igs meant by them — the doctrine. He states the doctrine ot 
 our Confession, and rejects it — calls it " a mere philosophical 
 theory." What is a philosophical theory 1 The terms covenant^ 
 representative, federal head ? Are the mere words a theory, or 
 does he mean the sentiments, the doctrines, the thin-gs taught ? 
 How futile ! Oh, no ; he denies the legal -connexion — the moral 
 relation. " The Bible does not teach, says he. Does not teach 
 what 1 That the terms are used ! Nay, it *' does not teach that 
 they acted in him, or by him, or that he acted /or them." 
 
 2. Mr, Barnes objects to the term covenant — rather he denies 
 the existence of the thing, because the transaction meant by the 
 term implies " equality between the parties." I have demon- 
 strated that absolute equality is^ot requisite. My son or slave 
 and I may make a covevant; yet, absolutely, we are not on a 
 scale of equality. Dr. Ely and his slave Ambrose have entered 
 into a covenant for the benefit of the latter, and the glory of the 
 former — are they absolutely equal 1 So far from equality being 
 requisite to great and important '• leagues, compacts, agreements,''* 
 it is most commonly absent. Treaties between nations are sub» 
 stantially and often formally covenants, and yet it is notorious, 
 that they are very frequently entered into when one of the parties 
 is beaten and conquered. But the obvious scriptural fact is, that 
 God has often covenanted with his people, and Gesenius ought 
 not to have been quoted as saying, that the Hebrew word "means 
 properly, a compact, league, agreement, between man and man." 
 His first observation has reference to the cutting of victims into 
 two parts, and passing between them, of which the only examples 
 in the Bible are that of God's covenant with Abraham, and the 
 case referred to in Jeremiah, And he says, " Spec, et creberrime 
 de fcEdere pactoque Deum inter et Abrahamum juncto." Gen, xv. 
 17.) " The special and most frequent application is to the covenant 
 &nd compact entered into between God and Abraham." Now 
 every reader of the Bible knows that Gesenius is right. The 
 term is in fact applied in but comparatively few instances in the 
 Bible to compacts between man and man. It is used more than 
 twenty times in reference to the agreement between God and 
 man, before it is applied once to agreements between man and 
 man. Now it is from the general and original application of a 
 term we learn its meaning. Yet I will concede that there is a 
 relative equality — there is a letting down of the high and mighty 
 — there is condescension on the part of the great, when he con-? 
 tracts a covenant with his inferior. Dr. Ely condescended in eo? 
 venanting with Ambrose. Joshua condescended when he made 
 a league (a covenant,) with the beggarly Gibeonites. On the 
 same principle, but infinitely greater- is the condescension of our 
 God, in proposing terms to Adam ; threatening death, and promis* 
 
70 
 
 ing life as the reward of that obedience to which Adam was 
 bound, independently of the promise or the threatening. There 
 can, however, be no such "equality or liberty to reject the terms," 
 as Mr. Barnes speaks of, in any case where God i)roposes a cove- 
 nant, as it is undeniable he often did. The brother's argument 
 against a covenant of God with Adam, applies equally against his 
 covenant with Noah, Abraham, and Israel. 
 
 3. Mr. Barnes' 6th objection is, because the phrase " federal or 
 covenant head," is not .to be found in the Confession of Faith, or 
 in the Catechisms." Is the word constitution, which he uses 
 three lines below, found in the Confession ] The argument here 
 is, that because the term is not in the Confession, therefore, to 
 omit its use is not heresy. But then its force lies in the gratui- 
 tous assumption, which I have shown to be false, viz. that the dis- 
 pute is about the term, not the thing — the mere phrase, not the 
 doctrine. But, in reality, the reasoning from the fact, that cer- 
 tain words are not in the standards, or in the Bible, ought to infer 
 that the doctrine is not there ; and if a certain term is not in the 
 Bible, the idea expressed by it is not necessary to be held. Now 
 the word trinity is not in the Bible, is it therefore no error to 
 deny the doctrine. The phrase " social organization," a favourite 
 with Mr. Barnes, is not in the Bible. The words society, happi- 
 ness, result, explained, system, numberless, iudependent, commu- 
 nities, sympathy, aid, grouped, constituted, clans, conduct, whelm, 
 union, race, (species,) improved, advancement, endeavour — all 
 these, twenty-two in number, are found in a single column (page 
 129,) of Mr. Barnes' book, yet none of them are in the Bible. I 
 have taken the trouble to set them forth, simply to exhibit practi- 
 cally the futility of this argument, against any given doctrine, be- 
 cause the terms by which it may be most conveniently expressed 
 are not in the sacred volume. To say, then, that " in expressing 
 his views of this transaction, he has confined himself as strictly as 
 possible to the language of Scripture," is altogether inaccurate ; 
 the word " transaction" is not in the Scriptures, and every reader 
 must see, that it is much more vague than the Scripture term 
 covenant, and therefore cannot express the idea so accurately. 
 
 4. Mr. Barnes supposes that the doctrine of a covenant with 
 Adam is made the basis of error in those who hold it. And speci'- 
 fies the doctrine of personal identity with Adam as the error ; 
 and alleges that his view avoids it. Now (a) the covenant of 
 works is taught in our standards, and the doctrine of personal 
 identity is not taught there ; nor is it held by any who honestly 
 and truly hold to the Confession. I shall show, in due time, that 
 Mr. B. utterly mistakes when he says Edwards holds it. (6) Per- 
 sonal identity with Adam is perfectly irreconciloable with the 
 doctrine of the covenant of works. For if his posterity were per- 
 sonally one with Adam, they and he are not millions of persons, 
 all represented by one individual of those millions; they are one 
 iodividual, and incapable of representation ; and this is the perfeq- 
 
71 
 
 tion of absurdity. (e)The doctrine of physical unity ; or animal 
 identity — oneness with Adam as the parent of our bodies, is held 
 forth as the only connexion with him. Now this physical identity 
 may, and I think must, lead to dangerous error. How can bro- 
 ther Barnes avoid the odious doctrine of physical depravity ! 
 
 5. " The consent of those who are represented," he considers 
 as included in the idea of representation. This is obviously true, 
 and it is manifestly not true. That is, sometimes the consent of 
 the represented is given personally ; but in the vast majority/, ge- 
 nerally, it is not given by them personally. And as Webster is 
 brought into this theological discussion, let us hear him on both 
 sides. " Representation — 7. The business of acting as a substi- 
 tute for another." And " Substitute," he defines, " One person 
 put in the place of another to answer the same purpose." Repre- 
 sentation, then, is one person acting "for another" — "in the 
 place of another" — " put in the place," that he might act, and go 
 acting for another.. There is not a word said in his entire defini- 
 tions about consent of the represented ; and for the obvious reason, 
 that the creation or production of the relation is one thing, and 
 the relation itself is another. How Adam became a representative 
 is one thing. His action '^for his posterity,'" is another thing. 
 The fact of his acting for them is affirmed in our standards and 
 the Bible; it is denied l)y this brother ; the manner of his appoint- 
 ment is also set forth ; it is by God's constituting or establishing 
 with him the covenant of works. This also is denied. To repre- 
 sent, says Webster, is " to supply the place of; to act as a substi- 
 tute for another." But now if the question be, how is one man 
 to act for another] the answer must be — in various ways. 1. A 
 commercial agent, i. e. a man to act for another in commercial 
 business, is appointed with his consent ; and this consent must be 
 evinced, in order to the business transactions being binding. This 
 doctrine is well laid down and illustrated in the citations from 
 Kent's Commentaries. 2. But similar agency exists in various 
 cases where no account is given — yea, where the consent is with- 
 held. Guardians act for their wards; trustees under the drunk- 
 ard's law act for the man and his family ; legislators act for the 
 whole mass of population, whose consent is not given — as chil- 
 dree, women, persons who never vote, and all minorities. Indi- 
 vidual, personal consent is not asked. In everj- conceivable sense, 
 (for the purposes of the appointment,) the guardian represents — 
 he acts for his ward. And in the national compact, covenant, 
 agreement, provision is made whereby a few represent and act 
 for the whole, without their consent ; minors are sometimes asked 
 who shall represent them; but this is not necessary; their con- 
 sent is not given. But Mr. Barnes says, it is given in forming 
 the constitution by those who were then capable of giving con- 
 sent ; or it is given by their continuing under it. But can a minor 
 withhold that consent"? Is he not bound independently on iti 
 Just so in God's covenant with Abraham and Israel ; it bound all 
 
72 
 
 their posterity, and their withliolding consent was rebellion against 
 God, and a broach of his covenant. So Adam acted for his pos- 
 terity — their consent was not asked. Minors and minorities have 
 men to act for tliem without their consent. Is this hard ? Is it 
 unjust J No more unjust was it in God to constitute Adam a head 
 to act for his people. 
 
 6. He says, in the Defence, " That posterity are subjected, in 
 consequence of this act of Adam, to the same train of ills as if 
 they had themselves been personally the transgressors — that is, 
 that his posterity are " indubitably affected." And the most 
 like admiitincr the legal consequence of the transgression upon 
 his posterity, is on page 124. " Unto condemnation. Producing 
 condemnation ; or involving in condemnation." Now the su- 
 perficial reader would here suppose, that he teaches guilt — lizt- 
 bility to penal evil as a necessary effect of Adam's sin, upon his 
 posterity. But when you look forward you find, that this 
 penal evil comes only after voluntary action. There is a ten- 
 dency to sin in our nature ; and when this tendency is developed, 
 for that developement he is punishable. And he proceeds to 
 explain the whole on the principle by which a drunkard brings 
 ruin upon his family : and such men may bring pain and wo, but 
 not as a penal evil. But I must waive this for the present as it 
 runs into 
 
 CHARGE VI. 
 
 Viz. Mr. Barnes denies "That the first sin of Adam is im- 
 puted to his posterity." 
 
 Prool 1. p.'lO. »* 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 staled, that that sin was followed by the sin and ruin of 
 all his posterity. Yet he offers no explanation of the/crc/. He 
 leaves it as indubitable; and as not demanding an explanation 
 in his argument, perhaps as not admitting it. This is the whole 
 of his doctrine on that subject. Yet men have not been sati-iified 
 wiih that. They have sought for a theory to account for it. 
 And many suppose that they have found it in the doctrine that 
 the sin of Adam is imputed, or set over by an arbilary arrange- 
 ment to beings otherwise innocent, and that they are held to be 
 responsible for a deed comrnitted thousands of years before 
 they were born. This is the theory^ and men insensibly forget 
 that it is mere theory.''^ 
 
 Proof 2. *'(3.) It comports with the Apostle's agreement to 
 state a cause why all died, and not to state that all sinned in 
 Adam. It would require an additional statement to see hotv that 
 could be a cause. (4.) The expression in whom all have sin- 
 ned conveys no intelligible idea. As men had not an existence 
 then in any sense, they could not then sin. What idea is con- 
 veyed to men of common untlerstanding by the expression 
 
73 
 
 " they sinned in himl" The meaning of the expression, there- 
 fore, clearly, is, because all have sinned all die." 
 
 " I understand it, therefore, as referring to ihe fact that men 
 sin in I heir own persons, sin themselves — as indeed, how can they 
 sin in any other way 1 and that therefore they die." 
 
 Proof 3. p. 119. *'The difference contemplated, Rom. v. 14, 
 is not that Adam was an ac/ua/ sinner, and that thei/ had sinned 
 only by imputation. For (1.) The expression to sin by imputa- 
 tion, is unintelligible and conveys no idea. (2) The apostle 
 makes no such distinction and conveys no such idea. (3) His 
 very object is different. It is to show that they were actual sin- 
 ners ; ttiat they transgressed law ; and the proof of this is that 
 they died. (4) It is utterly absurd to suppose that men from 
 the time of Adam to Moses were sinners on/i/ by imputation. 
 
 Proof 4. p. 119. ♦' Death reigned ; and this proves that they 
 were sinners. If rt should he said that the death of jw/on/s would 
 prove that they weie sinners also, I answer, — (a) That this was 
 an inference which the apostle does not draw, and for which he 
 is not responsible. It is not affirmed by him. (b) If it did re- 
 fer to infants, what would it prove 1 Not that the sin of Adam 
 was imputed, but that they were personally guilty and transgres- 
 sors. For this is the only point to which the argument tends. 
 The apostle 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 intro- 
 duced to explain difficulties ; but whether the theory explains or 
 embarrasses the subject, it is not needful here to inquire. (3) 
 The very expression here is against the supposition that infants 
 are intended, and that the sin of Adam is imputed to them. The 
 doctrine of imputation has been, that infants were personally 
 guilty of Adam's sin ; that they '* sinned in him ;" that there was 
 z pei-sonal identity consututed between them and Adam, see (Ed- 
 wards on original sin ;) and that therefore his sin was theirs as 
 really and truly as if committed by themselves. Yet here the 
 apostle says that those of whom he was speaking had not sinned 
 "■ after the similitude of Adam's transgression." But if the doc- 
 trine of imputation be true, it is certain that they had not only 
 had sinned after the similitude of his transgression, but had 
 sinned the very identical sin. It was precisely //A;e him; it was 
 the very thing itself; and they were answerable for that very 
 sin as their own. This doctrine, therefore, cannot be intended 
 here." 
 
 Proofs, p. 121. ♦' Nor have we a right to assume that this 
 [ver. 15,] teaches the doctrine of the imputation of the sin of 
 Adam to his posterity. For (1) the apostle says nothing of it. 
 (2) That doctrine is nothing but an eflfort to explain the manner 
 of an event which the apostle Paul did not think it proper to 
 attempt to explain. (3) That doctrine is in fact no explanation. 
 It is introducing an additional difficulty. For to say that 1 am 
 
 7 
 
71 
 
 guilty of the sin of anolijer in which 1 had no agency, is no tx- 
 planution, hut is involving me in additional difficulty still more 
 perplexing, to ascertain how such a doctrine can possibly he 
 just." 
 
 Proof 0. p. 127. *' The word is in no instance used to express 
 the idea of imputing that to one ivliich belongs to another. It here 
 either means, that this was h;/ a constitution of divine appointment 
 that they in fact became sinners, or simply declares they were 
 so in fact. There is not the slightest intimation that it was by 
 imputation." 
 
 Proof 7. p. 128. As quoted under Charge V. 
 
 Mr. Moderator, we now approach the more serious and solerhn 
 parts of our discussion. And as we advance I seem to hear the 
 solemn sounds, "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the 
 place whereon thou standesl is holy ground." Yes, we come to 
 the holy mount — the sacred seat of the Most High — the strong 
 holds of truth divine. 
 
 Our discussions heretofore have respected principles, import- 
 ant indeed, but, with the exception of the last, only relatively 
 so ; we have passed the out-posts and the horn-work and the 
 crown-work, and now approximate the citadel of truth. Let us 
 enter and examine the interior, and see whether every thing is 
 in due order for successful defence — her guns all well mounted 
 and manned — her magazine fully stored — her rank and file tho- 
 roughly drilled — her officers all at their posts. And where do 
 we find brother Barnes 1 Where but at his proper station, as a 
 good soldier of Jesus Christ should be. See him at his gun, 
 with every thing in complete order — his thirty-two well rammed 
 home — all primed and ready — his match lighted and whirling 
 round his head — But hold! my brother, your gun points directly 
 into the magazine ! Discharge her, and we are blown up — our 
 citadel is in ruins and our cause lost for ever. Yes, Mr. Mode- 
 rator, the doctrine of imputation is fundamental in the Christian 
 system. Destroy this and all is gone. Deny this and affirm 
 what else you please, it is all to no purpose. Adam's sin is im- 
 puted, i. e. charged in law to his posterity; and Christ's righte- 
 ousness is imputed, i. e. charged in law to his posterity — his 
 , spiritual seed. Do you not see and feel this to be the very es- 
 sence of the gospel ! I see, or think, I see it. I feel, or trust, I 
 feel it. Yes, nothing is more plain and undeniable. I /<?c/sin 
 upon me — the sin of my life and the sin of my nature. Adam's 
 sin imputed, and my own sin imputed. I am a condemned 
 wretch. How shall I escape? Blessed be God ! As in the first 
 Adam I became or was made a sinner; so in the second Adam I 
 became or am made righteous. His death takes away my sin, 
 and his life or righteousness secures me in life. This is " my 
 title clear to mansions in the skies." Take away the doctrine of 
 imputation and the title is gone. Rob me of the imputed righte- 
 ousness of the Son of God and I have no title to heavenly joy. 
 
75 
 
 Deny the representative character of Adam and the imputation 
 of his sin to his posterity, and you must deny the representative 
 character of Christ and the imputation of his righteousness to his 
 posterity — the Rock is removed from beneath the feet of my 
 faith — the foundation of my hopes for eternity is taken away. 
 But thanks be to God, his love will never direct Omnipotence to 
 create a Samson with powers to tear away the pillars that sus- 
 tain the throne of his mercy. His covenant is sure. It is esta- 
 blished as the heavens, and confirmed by the oath of Him that 
 cannot lie — " even the sure mercies of David." It was ad- 
 visedly and deliberately I said, concerning brother Barnes' denial 
 of tiiis doctrine, " if it be true, then I cannot read my title clear 
 to mansions in the skies ;" for there is no title, nothing which 
 gives the believing sinner a right to an inheritance on high. 
 Now to make it clear as day that the accused does deny " that 
 the first sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity," Remark 
 
 Proof 1. He explicitly and in terms declares it ; his language 
 is, " that the sin of Adam is imputed, or set over by an arbitary 
 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 — is the theory, and men insensibly 
 forget that it is mere theory.''^ Now the term theory is applied to 
 " the philosophical explanation of phenomena, either physical or 
 moral," [Webster,] and when the application is correct, the 
 theory is true. Thus we speak of the theory of combustion — the 
 theory of animal heat — the theory of light and vision — the theory 
 of morals. But when we speak of a mere theory, we therein deny 
 the truth and reject the principles of the explanation — we affirm 
 that the relations alleged therein do not exist, and the allegations 
 are false. Thus the doctrine of imputation is explicitly denied. 
 
 Proof 2. He maintains that the expression " in whom all have 
 sinned" conveys no intelligible idea. Now on this let me 
 remark : (a) it is the most literal and exact translation of the 
 Greek £?w rtavtsj iqi.ia^'tov (eph ho pantes hemarton) and this no 
 man will deny — "in (or by) whom all sinned or have sinned." {b) 
 There is not an instance, but one, in the whole New Testament, in 
 which the Greek words fcp «, are or cari be translated "for that" 
 or because. If there is, let it be produced. The nearest to it is 
 Matt. xxvi. 50. " Friend, wherefore art thou come 3" But here 
 the literal rendering, makes the sense full and clear. " Friend, 
 in whom ? by whom ] by whose authority ] in whose name, art 
 thou come?" Knapp, however, prefers the reading £9 0, the 
 accusative case, which of course removes the difficulty as to the 
 construction of the diction in the text. In Luke v. 25., there is 
 an ellipsis of the antecedent, precisely as in this place under con- 
 sideration, (Rom. V. 12.) "He took up that Wicreon he lay" — that 
 in which he lay. Here it is impossible to translate eph ho as a 
 causal particle /or that or because. _Mark ii. 4. " They let down 
 the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay," — wherein, in which he 
 
70 
 
 lay. Here again it is impossible to render the eph ho, as a causal 
 particle, for that, or because. Phil. iii. 12. " 1 follow after, if 
 that 1 may appreliend that Jor which also J am apprehended of 
 Christ." ilere eph ho is translated /or which and tlic antecedent 
 ie supplied, that. In Rom. ix. 80, I'auJ applies the term translated 
 apprehend, to the act of faith, laying hold on Christ's righteous- 
 ness — " attained to righteousness." And in 1 Cor. i.x. 24, " So 
 run that ye may ohtain^^ the prize. So here, " I follow after, if 
 that I may apprehend [hint'\ in whom I am apprehended of 
 Christ" — or "I may apprehend [the thing"] by which 1 am appre- 
 hended." But to render it a causal particle, Jor that or because, 
 destroys the sense. One other instance only occurs. 2 Cor. v. 4. 
 ** We, that are in this tabernacle, do groan, being burdened : not 
 for that we would be unclothed," &c. Here the sense of the 
 passage is not destroyed by rendering itybr that or because. But 
 it is equally or more explicit by the literal rendering ; " we 
 groan, being burdened : in which we would not be unclothed" — 
 ^' by which [conduct] we do not wish to be unclothed." (c) The 
 same preposition, epi, is so to be understood in other connections. 
 2 Cor. vii. 7. " He was comforted in you.** Matlh. xiv. 8. " Give 
 me here John the Baptist's head in a charger." Acts xiv. 3. 
 "Speaking boldly in the Lord." To this reading, the only 
 serious objection I have heard, is the distance of the antecedent; 
 this, however, is more specious than substantial : as will be seen 
 upon considering the position I next lay dovjrn, viz. That the 
 word 8cii'k9iv (dielthei)) always requires a case to be governed 
 by it, expressed or implied. This position can be established by 
 reference to all the instances wherein the word is used in the 
 New Testament. Space, however, will not permit the insertion 
 of the whole. I have examined them all, and feel confident of 
 the correctness of the affirn)ation. Allow me to designate a few 
 instances. Matth. xii. 43. " He walketh through dry places." 
 Here the governed case is expressed, and the preposition, in- 
 cluded in the verb, is repeated, dia, through. The same oceurs 
 xix. 24. '^ To go through the eye of a needle." Mark iv. 35. " Let 
 us pass over unto the other side" — Let us pass through [the sea] 
 unto, &,c. Here the governed case is understood. Luke ii. 15. 
 the same-r-verse 35, " A sword shall pierce through thy own soul 
 also." Here the case is expressed and the preposition is not 
 repeated. So xix. 1. '^ Passed through Jericho.'" — And many 
 other instances might be cited, all showing that where it is not 
 expressed, a case must be supplied before it is possible to apply 
 the ordinary rules of grammatical construction and make the sen- 
 tence full. Seeing, therefore, that the verb, passed through, 
 requires a case, the difficulty is obviated, for that case is the ante- 
 cedent to the pronoun whom. The sentence therefore precisely 
 translated, stands thus. '' Wherefore, as through one man sin 
 passed in upon the world, and through the sin, death; and so 
 (or even so) upon all men, de.ath passed through [hijn] in whom 
 
77 
 
 all have sinned." Owen, in his Treatise on Justification, 
 Vol. XI. eh. xviii. p. 400., says of this nnsf?age, The Apostle 
 " declares, how all men universally became liable to this punish- 
 ment, or guilty of death, *> ^ 7iavtt<; t^fxa^tov ' in quo omnes 
 peccaverunt;' 'in whom all have sinned.' For it relates unto 
 the one man that sinned, in whom all sinned ; which is evident 
 from the effect thereof, in as much as in him all died ;" 1 Cor. 
 XV. 32. Or as it is here, on his sin " death passed upon all men." 
 And this is the evident sense of the words, e^i being put for sv 
 which is not unusual in the Scripture. See Matth. xv. 5. Rom. 
 iv. 18. V. 2. Phil. i. 3. Heb. ix. 17. And it is so often used by 
 the br.it u riters in the Greek tongue. So Hesiod, ' Metron de 
 opi pasm ariston,' modus in omnibus rebus optimus. So ff vi^iv 
 i' a If IV ' in verbis situm est.' — And this reading of the words is 
 contended for by Austin against the Pelagians, rejecting their 
 
 * eo quod,' or ' propterea' [for that or because.] But I shall not 
 contend about the reading of the words." 
 
 Mr. Barnes also affirms here, that men can sin no other way 
 than in their own persons, thereby denying that " vi^e sinned in 
 him, and fell with him in his first transgression." His language 
 is plain — " men sin in their own persons, sin themselves — as in- 
 deed, how can they sin any other way ]" 
 
 • Proofs. There is here an attempt to make the doctrine of im- 
 putation ridiculous, by a phraseology not sanctioned by reputable 
 Calvinistic writers. (1) " The expression to sin by imputation 
 is unintelligible, and conveys no idea. (2) The Apostle makes 
 no such distinction, and conveys no such idea." Here it is 
 obvious that the doctrine of imputation is held up to scorn. An 
 absurd phraseology is coined, and the real doctrine is lashed over 
 the absurdity. We teach with the standards, that Adam sinned 
 as a public head- — a representative and the guilt of his sin was 
 imputed to his posterity ; and they were thus condemned — " they 
 sinned in him and fell with him," into condemnation and death. 
 
 Proof 4. " Death reigned ; and this proves that they were sin- 
 ners. If it should be said, that the death of infants would prove 
 that they were sinners also, I answer — (a) That this was an 
 inference which the Apostle does not draw." Here is a plain 
 denial that infants are sinners representatively, — that " they sin- 
 ned in him." (b) " If it did refer to infants, what would it prove? 
 Not that the sin of Adam was imputed," &c. Plainly rejecting 
 imputation. 
 
 Proof 5th is equally explicit. He lays down three arguments 
 against imputation. 1. The silence of Paul. — " The Apostle 
 says nothing of it." 2. "It is nothing but an effort to explain 
 the ma7i7ier of an event," unexplained. 3. It is no explanation at 
 all, but an increase of the difficulty ; it occasions a challenge of 
 God's justice. 
 
 Proof 6. The comment here is on'v. 19. " For as by one man's 
 [Adam's] disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obe- 
 
 7* 
 
78 
 
 cUence of our, [Christ] shall many be made righteous." Now no 
 language can be more explicit, than his denial ot" Adam's sin being 
 imputed to the many, and their being thus made sinners. The 
 whole scope of his reasoning- is against it. " I'here is not the 
 f-lightest intimation that was by imputation." And as an argu- 
 ment (which I shall notice hereafter) he alleges that it* Adam's 
 j)ostenty are condemned for his sin, without their own act, then 
 Cljrist's people are constituted righteous by his act, without their 
 own voluntary agency. The Apostle says explicitly that "the 
 rn'»ny were made sinners, by the disobedience of the one" — he 
 does not say, they were placed in such a position, that whenever 
 thsy would act morally, they would become sinners. Tliis is the 
 gloss; but tlie text contradicts it expressly : " They were made, 
 t. e. constituted sinners." How ? No matter: any way at all, so 
 fis it is not by imputation. 
 
 Proof 7, quoted above. The doctrine of the Covenant of 
 Works, is there graphically set fortii, and is utterly rejected as 
 »' a mere philosophical theory." " Neither the terms representa- 
 tive, covenant, or impute are ever applied to the transaction io 
 fhe sacred Scriptures." 
 
 On these various points of proof, I think it the less necessary to 
 ilwcll, because in his pleadings, Mr. B;..rnes admits the truth of 
 the charge and puts in a plea of justification — ho sets up a defence, 
 and on that we must join issue. But let us first look into the 
 standards of the church, and see whether they teach that Adam's 
 sin IS imputed to his posterity. Confession, ch. vi. 3. "They being 
 the root of all mankind; the guilt of this sin was imputed, and 
 the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their 
 posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation, Ch. iv. 
 From til is original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, 
 /rlisabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all 
 /evil, do proceed all actual transgressions." Larg. Cat. 22. "The 
 icovenant b Mng made with Adam, as a public person, not for him- 
 self only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him 
 by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in that 
 fivsx- transgression." 25. " The sinfulness of that estate whereinto 
 men fell, cotisisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of 
 that rightyousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of 
 l)is nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made 
 opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all 
 evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original 
 .sin, aud froui which do proceed all actual transgressions." Short. 
 Cut. 18, to t!ie same effisct. 
 
 Here observe 1. There was a covenant. 2. Adam was its pub- 
 lic person— its head. 3. He acted in the whole matter for him- 
 si^lf and his posterity. 4. They sinned in him— he acted for 
 them, and by consequence, 5. His sin, in all its legal effect, is 
 charged in law upon them. 6. The immediate legal effect is 
 condemnation to death — " thou shalt starely die." 7. A necessary 
 
79 
 
 effect of this is loss of original righteousness on the one hand and 
 original corruption — indisposedness, disability and opposition to all 
 good, and inclination to all evil, on the other. These things are 
 obvious, and to labour the proof of the doctrine of imputation 
 being taught in our standards, would be lighting tapers to seek 
 the sun at noon day. I will now proceed to the defence of 
 brother Barnes, and some other points which will turn up in the 
 progress of the discussion. 
 
 1. My first remark is upon his distinction between the guilt of 
 sin and sin itself — the former, he says, is imputed, according to 
 our Confession, but not the latter. " To impute sin itself to a 
 man is one thing ; to impute the obligation to punishment, is an- 
 other thing." But while he admits the latter to be tauglit in our 
 standards, he does not here say he believes either. He alleg'es 
 tills distinction to be real and accurate and material, and niy not 
 observing it, a clear evidence of " the loose and indigested manner 
 in which these charges have been brought up." Now, Mr. Modera- 
 tor, I really had taken up the notion, loose or strict, that to charge 
 a man witli the sin of another— or with his own sin — to hold him 
 accountable in law for it, was tne precise thing meant by imputa- 
 tion. When the debt of Onesimus was put on Paul's account — 
 charged to Paul, this was imputation. Onesimus contracted the 
 debt; a legal obligation lay upon him ; Philemon, who held this 
 obligation, transferred it from Onesimus to Paul, and this is the 
 precise thing meant by imputation. The imputation of sin is the 
 transfer of its legal obligations. Owen, xi. 207, after argument 
 and illustration, concludes: " Wherefore to impute sin, is to lay 
 it unto the charge of any, and to deal with them according to its 
 deserts." Edwards, 11. 309, " But yet when the doctrine of ori- 
 ginal sin is spoken of, it is vulgarly understood in that latitude, 
 which includes not only the depravity of nature, but the imputa- 
 tion of Adam's first sin; or, in other words, the liablen^ss or ex- 
 posedness of Adam's posterity, in the divine judgment, to partake 
 of the punishment of that sin." So the conductors of the Bibl. 
 Rep. II. 459: " According to him, for one man to bear the iniqijity 
 of another, is to have his guilt imputed to him. This is our 
 doctrine, and the doctrine of the Reformed churches. This is 
 what is meant by imputation. — He [Christ] is said to bear our ini- 
 quities, precisely in the sense in which, in Ezekiel, it is declared 
 '♦ the son shall not bear the iniquity of the fathers." And all Cal- 
 vinislic writers speak every where of" the imputation of Adam's 
 sin," meaning explicitly the transfer of its legal relations and 
 effects. The distinction therefore which the brother makes, has 
 no foundation in fact, and is opposed directly to the universal lan- 
 guage held by divines on the subject of imputation. In this charge 
 it is my design to bring up the doctrine of imputation in one 
 aspect of it and in the VII. in another aspect. 
 
 2. Mr. Barnes labours much to prove that the idea of personal 
 identity with Adam was the doctrine of the older Calvinists — 
 
80 
 
 " that the posterity of Adam are not condemned for his sin qs being 
 the sin of another cluirg-ed on them, but os truly and properly 
 theirs ; that they are subject to condemnation not aa m themselves 
 innocent beings made guilty by imputation." The obvious design 
 of this attempt is to make the impression, that the Calvinists of 
 this day [the old school] have renounced Culvinisu), and by couse- 
 quence lie and others may, vi'ith equal impunity, renounce the 
 whole doctrine of imputation, botn as now held and as lie says it 
 was formerly held. [This argument was formally advanced by a 
 member of the Presbytery.] And I admit, the argument would 
 have an overwhelming power, if it had a foundation in truth — if 
 it were true that we have forsaken the old doctrine of imputation 
 an I embraced a new doctrine, then indeed any who please may 
 rej»-<'tours and embrace one still newer. But fortunately this is 
 not ilie case, and the brother's attempt to make it out is an utter 
 failure. Neither Edwards nor any other Calvinist of note ever 
 taught that Adam and his posterity were personally one — that we 
 sinned in him personally, but only putatively — he being our repre- 
 sentative and acting for us. On this subject remark (1) Eduards 
 affirms the doctrine of a covenant one-ness — a federal identity — 
 a moral unity. Thus the members of a congregation are one. 
 How 1 personally ? No, but socially, legally. Thus the whole 
 inhabitants of a city are one — not personally but legally — by com- 
 pact, agreement, covenant. Their charter is the legal instrument 
 by which they are bound together. This, and not their physical 
 relations as parents and children, make them one nioral body, 
 having a moral head, who acts, agreeably to the covenant com- 
 pact or charter, for the whole. This is seen in his Treatise on 
 Original Sin, p. II, ch. i. sec. 3. Works, II. 425, &c., where, 
 though he uses not the word covenant, he does use terms which 
 afterwards he uses as synonymous with it. He calls it, p. 432, 
 " God's establishment." " But I shall lake notice of one or two 
 things further, showing that Adam's posterity were included in 
 God's establishment with him." And p. 438, "the constitution he 
 established with them." And having summed up his heads of ar- 
 gument, he concludes — " I cannot but think it must appear to 
 every impartial person, that Moses' account does, with sufficient 
 evidence, lead all mankind, to whom his account is communicated, 
 to understand, that God, in his constitution with Adam, dealt with 
 him as a public person — as the head of the species — and had re- 
 spect to his posterity, as included in him." Compare these with 
 P. IV. iii. vol. II. p. 543, where he meets the objection against 
 imputation, that such imputation is unjust and unreasonable, in- 
 asmuch as Adam and his posterity are not one and the same.'''' 
 And he meets it by affirming that his posterity is " one with him''^ 
 — that is in a certain sense. " That God, in every step of his 
 proceeding with Adam, in relation to the covenantor constitution 
 established with him, looked on his posterity as being one with him.''^ 
 Here is a unity with Adam, not personal, but " in relation to th 
 
81 
 
 covenant.'* It is a fkleml union, whefcby Adam is constituted 
 "as the mora] head of his posterity"-— " there being' a constituted 
 one-ness or identity. ^^ These italics are Edwards' own, and un- 
 questionably they and the phrase *• moral head" were designed to 
 point out a covenant, a federal or moral headship, in contradis- 
 tinction from the natural headship or physical connexion as the 
 parent of their mere animal nature. And so Stapfer, whom he 
 quotes, says. "Seeing therefore that Adam with all his posterity 
 constitute but one moral person, and are united in the same cove- 
 nant, and are transgressors of the same law, they are also to be 
 looked upon as having, in a moral estimation, committed the same 
 transgression of the law, both in number and kind." Stapfer, too, 
 makes the unity dependent oh the covenant — it is not a personal 
 identity as brother Barnes will have it — but a federal unity consti- 
 tuting Adam and his seed '■^ one moral person,''"' just as a charter 
 in law constitutes the corporators one moral person. Edwards, p. 
 548, states as an objection of his opponents, " First di^culiy-^^ 
 That appointing Adam to stand, in this great affair, as the moral 
 head of his posterity, and so treating them as one with him, as 
 standing or falling with him, is injurious to them." Here again 
 is the covenant of works — " appointing Adam to stand — as the 
 moral head of his posterity ;" nothing about personal one-ness. In 
 this sense the action of Adam is the action of his people — repre- 
 sentatively — he acted for them. But brother Barnes loses sight 
 of this, and fixes his eye upon the illustrations from a tree and its 
 branches, and from the metaphysical nature of identity, and de- 
 lights to dwell upon the phrase '^arbitrary constitution;" but he 
 should do Edwards the justice to state that this " arbitrary consti- 
 tution" " is regulated by divine wisdom." It is, in fact, as every 
 candid reader will admit,"simply and only "the covenant of works.'* 
 I can therefore find no just ground for the doctrine of " personal 
 identity" with Adam, without treating Edwards unfairly. The 
 Biblical Repertory seems to admit it, but shows plainly that the 
 admission makes that great man inconsistent with himself.* I 
 think if they look a,t him again, they may be convinced that Dr. 
 Janeway wrote his essay to disabuse Edwards on this point, not 
 without good grounds to sustain him. 
 
 I am surprised to hear Mr. Barnes adduce Calvin as teaching- 
 the doctrine of persona] identity — and that, after the quietus 
 g-iven by the Biblical Repertory to the very same assertions in 
 the Christian Spectator ; and especially am I surprised at his 
 citing the very passage there cited, and giving the same misr, 
 translation of Calvin's words, after the severe and deserved re- 
 buke given to the Protestant by the Repertory for it. Allow me 
 to quote the paragraph, as the best possible refutation. Rep. vol, 
 III. p. 418. " The Protestant need only throw his eye the second 
 tune upon the above passage, to see that he has pnisapprehended 
 
 * Vol. iii. pp. 453—6. 
 
82 
 
 its meaning and erred in his translation. He makes Calvin say, 
 * We are condemned, not by imputation merely, as if punishment 
 were exacted of us for another's sin, but we undergo its punish- 
 ment (viz. the punishment of Adam's sin,) because we are charge- 
 able toith ITS criminality, (viz. the criminality of Adam's sin,) 
 [directly against the reviewer again.]" Yes, and against Calvin 
 too ; for there is nothing in the original to answer to the word 
 ITS, and the assertion entirely alters tlie sense. Calvin docs not 
 say, that we are chargeable with the criminality of Adam's sin, 
 but just the reverse: "Non per solara imputationem damnamur, 
 acsi alieni peccati exigeretur a nobis pa3na ; sed ideo pccnam ejus 
 sustinemus, quia et culpae sumus rei, quatenns scilicet nalura 
 nostra in ipso vitiata iniquitatis reatu obstringitur apuu Deum." 
 " We are condemned not on the ground of imputation solely, as 
 though the punishment of another's sin was exacted of us; but 
 we endure its punishment because we are also ourselves culpa- 
 ble, (how! of Adam's sin! by no means, but we are culpable,) 
 in as much as, viz. our nature having been vitiated in him, is 
 morally guilty before God." (Iniquitatis reatu obstringitur apud 
 Deum.) Here is a precise statement of the sense in v;hich we 
 are morally guilty, not by imputation, but on account of our own 
 inherent depravity. Two things which the Protestant seems 
 fated never to distinguish." 
 
 Nor IS Mr. Barnes less fortunate in his proof from Calvin's In- 
 stitutes. Take the whole passage, and it is plain Calvin teaches 
 the same doctrine as in the above citation, viz. that men are con- 
 demned not only on account of Adam's sin, but also for inherent, 
 or native depravity. His words are, *' these two things, therefore, 
 should be distinctly observed : first, that our nature being so to- 
 tally vitiated and depraved, we are, on account of this very cor- 
 ruption, considered as convicted and justly condemned in the 
 sight of God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, 
 innocence, and purity. And this liableness to punishment arises 
 not from the delinquency of another : for when it is said that the 
 sin of Adam renders us obnoxious to the divine judgment, it is not 
 to be understood as if we, though innocent, were undeservedly 
 loaded with the guilt of his sin; but because we are all subject to 
 a curse, in consequence of his transgression, he is, therefore, said 
 to have involved us in guilt. Nevertheless, we derive from him 
 not only the punishment, but also the pollution to which the 
 punishment is justly due. Wherefore Augustine, though he fre- 
 quently calls it the sin of another, the more clearly to indicate its 
 transmission to us by propagation ; yet, at the same time, he also 
 asserts it properly to belong to every individual. And the apostle 
 himself expressly declares, that 'death has therefore passed upon 
 all men, for that all have sinned,' that is, have been involved in 
 original sin, and defiled with its blemishes." Institutes, Book II. 
 ch. i. \ 8. Hence, clearly, Calvin maintained, that men are con- 
 demned on account of depravity inborn — " they bring their con- 
 
83 
 
 demnation into the world with them" — and also on account of 
 their first father's sin — "we are all subject to a curse in conse- 
 quence of his transgression." The same thing he also teaches in 
 his creed written for the school at Geneva. " Quo fit, ut singuli 
 nascuntur originali peccato infecti, et ab ipso maledicti, et a Deo 
 damnati, non propter alienum delictum dunlaxat, sed propter im- 
 probitatem, quas intra eas est." Biblical Rep. vol. III. page 421. 
 " Whence it happens that they every one are born infected with 
 original sin, and on account of it cursed, and condemned of God, 
 not on account of another man's delinquency only, but on account 
 of depravity which is within themselves." This is the precise 
 doctrine of our Confession, chap. VI. \ 6. " Every sin, both ori- 
 ginal and actual, doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sin- 
 ner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God," &c. And 
 sec. 1 states, that our first parents "sinned in eating the forbidden 
 fruit ;" and sec. 3, "the guilt of this sin was imputed to all their 
 posterity." Thus Calvin and our Confession agree in making 
 imputation include both the guilt of Adam's sin, and the depravity 
 resulting from it ; and neither teach the doctrine of personal 
 identity. 
 
 The attempt to make Boston teach this doctrine is equally un- 
 successful. Even in the passage he quotes, he is refuted — "for 
 God's juslice doth not punish men for a sin which is no way 
 ■their's." No, truly, the sin is some way their's, or they could not 
 suffer for it. But how 1 Is it by personal identity with Adam % 
 Let Boston himself answer. " Adam, by his sin, became not only 
 guilty, but corrupt; and so transmits guilt and corruption to his 
 posterity. Gen. v. 2. Job. xiv. 4. By his sin he stript himself 
 of his original righteousness, and corrupted himself: we were in 
 him representatively, being represented by him, as our moral 
 head, in the covenant of works ; we were in him seminally, as our 
 natural head ; hence we fell in him, and by his disobedience were 
 made sinners; as Levi in the loins of Abraham paid tithes. Heb. 
 vii. 9, 10. His first sin is imputed to us." State. II. \ 1. Thus 
 Boston holds no doctrine of personal identity, but of representa- 
 tion, or moral unity with Adam, on the ground of which represen- 
 tation " his sin is imputed to us," and by the natural connexion 
 we became depraved, and this depravity is sin in us. 
 
 But most of all am I amazed at Mr. Barnes' attempt to prove 
 that the doctrine of personal identity with Adam, and his moral 
 turpitude becoming ours, was held by Turretin. How any rpan, 
 after reading the articles on imputation in the Biblical Repertory, 
 vol. III. could venture such an assertion, is most marvellous to 
 me. I can hardly conceive of a more triumphant refutation than 
 is there given to this allegation. Nor is the wonder diminished 
 at all by the passage adduced in proof by Mr. Barnes. Turretin, 
 as he quotes him, says, " they have sinned in him, [Adam,] and 
 are bound with him (communi culpa) in a common criminality.^* 
 But how 1 If brother Barnes means by common criminality, mo- 
 
84 
 
 ral turpitude, and thinks that Turretin maintains that the moral 
 turpitude of Adam was infused into his posterity, he is mistaken: 
 for by commrmi culpa, the very next branch of the sentence 
 shows, he means the sin of Adam as our common head, as our re- 
 presentative. And again — " the justice of God docs not inflict 
 punishment upon him that does not deserve it, [immerenti,] but 
 upon him that does deserve it. [merenti.]" True, but how does 
 he deserve iti Is it by a personal identity and infusion of moral 
 turpitude? Or is it by moral, federal, covenant unity and conse- 
 quent imputation'? Let me answer in the language of the Biblical 
 Repertory, vol. III. p. 438. "Now, as to the second point, viz. 
 that Turretin and other Calvinists do not use the "words guilt, de- 
 merit, ill-desert, &c. as the Spectator understands them, in a 
 moral sense, we have already proved it, and might abundantly 
 prove it again, because they expressly, repeatedly, and pointedly 
 affirm the contrary. Thus, when he says, ' We are constituted 
 truly sinners by the imputation of Adam's sin,' he tells us as 
 plainly as language permits, in what sense. ' Ista Veritas est im- 
 putationis, non infusionis, juridica, non moralis.' ' To impute is a 
 forensic term, meaning to set to one's account. ' Non est actus 
 physicus, sed forensis et judicialis' — it is to render one a sinner in 
 the eye of the law, not morally — as the imputation of righteous- 
 ness renders legally, not inherently just." After he had read all 
 this, for brother Barnes to say, " the sentiments of ihese men, who 
 were surely competent to state what old Calvinism was, cannot 
 be mistaken,'* amazes me ! How strangely does he mistake 
 them ! 
 
 Before I quit this point, let me present what I doubt not has 
 been the belief of the church in all ages, in the language of the 
 late Dr. Mason, vol. I. p. 170. "The world, then, is full of the 
 imputation of sin. And why shall it not as well be imputed to a 
 representative for expiation as from a representative for punish- 
 ment?" 
 
 From this strong ground we are not to be driven by the plea, 
 that righteousness aiid sin, being moral and personal qualities and 
 acts, cannot be transferred to a surety. We know it. Neither 
 do the Scriptures teach, nor we maintain, any such transfer. In- 
 stead of establishing, it would destroy our doctrine. "For if my 
 personal sin could be taken from me, and made the personal sin of 
 another, he must then suifer for himself, and not for me, as I 
 would be per.-onally innocent. He would not be under the impu- 
 tation of my sin, because I would have none to impute ; and I 
 could not enjoy the benefit of his righteousness; because, on the 
 one hand, I would require none, and, on the other, he, as suffer- 
 ing for himself, would have none to offer. So that here would 
 be no representation, neither the substance nor the shadow of a 
 vicarious atonement. Therefore, while my personal demerit 
 must for ever remain my own, the consequences of it are borne by 
 my glorious surety. It is this which renders the imputation of 
 
85 
 
 sin to the Lord Jesus, a doctrine so acceptable to tlie conscience, 
 and so consoling to the heart of a convinced sinner. And this 
 simple distinction between a transfer of personal acts to a substi- 
 tute, and the transfer of their legal connexion, which is properly 
 imputation, relieves the friends of truth from the embarrassment 
 in which an incautious manner of speaking has sometimes in- 
 volved them, and blows into the air the quibbles and cavils of its 
 enemies." The doctrine of personal identity with Adam, and 
 transfer of personal acts, always has been a figment cast upon 
 Calvinists as a slander, and so esteemed by them. 1 should not 
 have spent so much time in refuting the charge, but for the use 
 made of this caricature to impress the popular mind with the ab- 
 surdity of Calvinistic dogmas, and thus to bring the real doctrine 
 of imputation into discredit, and to give currency to the idea that 
 Calvinism is one "mere philosophical theory" pursuing after 
 another. 
 
 We admit that personal acts cannot be transferred, but affirm 
 that they are imputed. Imputation lies in transferring to a surety 
 not the qualities and acts themselves, but their legal connexion. 
 It is a transfer o^ obligation and of right. 
 
 We now proceed to what Mr. Barnes is pleased to call " the 
 second theory on the subject of imputation," but which is the sim- 
 ple and only doctrine ever held in the church to any extent. "It 
 consists, says he, in the doctrine that the sin of Adam is not 
 reckoned or imputed to his posterity as ^rw?y and properly their^s^ 
 as that for which they are blameworthy or ill-deserving, but is 
 their's simply by imputation, or putatively ; that a sin is reckoned 
 to them, or charged on them, which they never committed, and 
 that they are subjected to punishment for that sin, without being 
 personally or really to blame. A part of this punishment is said 
 to consist in the sin itself, with which man comes into the world, 
 and a part in the personal sufferings to which he is subjected in 
 this life and the world to come, and which are in all respects the 
 same as if the infant had himself committed the sin. This is said 
 to be by a sovereign arrangement of God appointing Adam to be 
 in all respects the representative of his posterity." If there be no 
 intention here to insinuate that infants suffer in the world to 
 come, and if there be no peculiar meaning in his terms, I feel pre- 
 pared to admit this as a correct statement of our doctrine and the 
 doctrine of the standards. And this doctrine Mr. Barnes rejects 
 under ten distinct heads of remark. These in order. 
 
 1. " That it is an abandonment of the ground of the older Cal- 
 vinists." This, I- have shown above, is incorrect. On the last 
 clause only, viz. " Turretin says, the ill-desert of Adam is trans- 
 ferred to his posterity." Bib. Rep. vol. III. p. 436. This theory 
 says it is not; I would remark, it is unfair to append the Reper- 
 tory's sanction to that saying of Turretin, without telling us in 
 what sense the term " ill-desert," according to the Repertory, is 
 used by Turretin, " They [the opponents of Princeton,] consider 
 
 8 
 
80 
 
 Turretin to use the word ill-desert in a moral sense"—" in this 
 they commit an obvious mistake. Turretin and old Calvinists ge- 
 nerally, do not use the words guilt, demerit, ill-desert in a moral 
 sense" — " the ill-desert of which Turretin speaks as being trans- 
 ferred, is not moral character or turpitude, but legal responsibility, 
 such as exists between a sponsor and him for whom he acts." 
 This they abundantly prove, and this brother Barnes ought in 
 candour to have stated as their opinion. 
 
 2. This theory appears at least to be a departure from the Con- 
 fession of Faith. The language of the standards of our church 
 was evidently derived from the theory that the sin of Adam was 
 truly and properly ours. Thus it says, "All mankind sinned in 
 him, and fell with him." Now you will observe that this is Mr. 
 Barnes' first theory, which he rejects— which all reject. Conse- 
 quently he rejects what he believes to be the doctrine of the 
 standards. But it is not the doctrine of the standards, as has been 
 made to appear. The phrase " all mankind sinned in him," &:c. he 
 says, is proof that Adam's sin " teas truly and properly ours !" 
 Strange ! when the first part of the sentence tells how it is ours, 
 viz. by his acting, " not for himself only, but for his posterity" — 
 for us, representatively, we sinned in him not 'personally. 
 
 3. The third objection is, because our doctrine " employs the 
 word impute in an unscriptural sense." In meeting this it may 
 be well to remember that it is not a dispute about the term, but 
 really concerning the thing — what is imputation 1 
 
 Owen has given, no doubt, the correct idea of the term and the 
 thing: Justif Works, xi. 205, " Hashab, the word first used for 
 this purpose, signifies ' to think, to esteem, to judge,' or ' to re- 
 fer' a thing or matter unto any ; 'to impute' or *to be imputed' 
 for good or evil — To judge or esteem this or that good or evil, to 
 belong unto him, to be his." And so the corresponding Greek 
 terms. 
 
 It has been very common on this subject to admit j^rsi an impu- 
 tation of that which properly belongs to the person before, and 
 secondly, of what did not properly belong to him prior to the im- 
 putation of it. But there often arises obscurity from the vague- 
 ness of the terms properly belong. The chief confusion however 
 I think arises from not considering that imputation is an action of 
 judgment, and when applied to morality and the proceedings of a 
 ruler and judge has exclusive reference to legal relations. Now legal 
 relations are clearly distinguishable from moral conduct and cha- 
 racter. I perform a moral act — I defraud my neighbour. The 
 moral turpitude is one thing : and the legal relation or my expo- 
 sure to punishment is another thing. Imputation is the act of my 
 ruler and judge declaring the connexion between the act and its 
 punishment. It includes two things. 1. The judgment that the act 
 is mine properly — personally. 2. The legal consequence must 
 follow — I must be punished. The latter is based on the former. 
 Onesimus borrows money of Philemon, and is debited thus : ' One- 
 
87 
 
 simus, to money borrowed, two miles,' Can this money be reco- 
 vered of Paul? Certainly not : Paul did not borrow the money — 
 the act of contracting the debt is not his, and it never can become 
 his. And so it is in every possible case. The act of Adam never 
 can become properly my act. The act of Christ never can become 
 properly my act. And thus all Calvinists deny the possibility of 
 Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness being imputed ; and this 
 is not therefore at all wiiat they mean by imputation. But now the 
 other part is, can such a relationship be constituted between One- 
 simus and Paul, that the legal obligation may be transferred to 
 the latter 1 May not Paul become surety for his friend '.' and thus 
 come under his legal relations'! Suppose this suretyship entered 
 into before the debt was contracted ? In either case, Onesimus 
 failing, there is a transfer of legal obligation : and Philemon im- 
 putes to Paul, not the act of Onesimus, but the legal obligation : 
 he charges him with liability to a demand of law — he transfers 
 the legal obligation : Paul is bound in law by an act which was 
 not his own. The obligation to pay the two mites is now "rec- 
 koned to a man which did not belong to him." This is the fact 
 of the case. Thus far there can be no diversity of opinion. But, 
 says Mr. Barnes, Paul assumed — he assented to the debt, and 
 thereby made it his own. This is not exactly according to truth. 
 Paul's assumption did not make the debt his own. Because, if it 
 was Paul's own, it was not Onesimus's, he was released ; for, 
 the reckoning of it to both, would be a double reckoning and ma- 
 nifestly unjust. Philemon only can make the transfer of legal 
 obligation : until he does it, the obligation still lies upon Onesi- 
 mus and not on Paul. Philemon may choose to let his book ac- 
 count stand as originally it stood, and Paul and Onesimus both 
 cannot change it in any way but by paying the debt. Yea, farther; 
 Paul cannot pay the debt — his offering Philemon two mites lays 
 the latter under no obligation to receive it and enter a credit to 
 Onesimus, except he do it as the agent — the representative of the 
 debtor. In that case, if Paul be the legal representative of Onesi- 
 mus and not otherwise, is Philemon bound to receive it, and to 
 enter the proper credit. Paul's agency is necessary, and his assent 
 is necessary to his becoming agent, and liable to the demand. 
 When both Paul and Philemon are agreed, then only can the 
 transfer of legal obligation take place. " The simple truth then 
 is, that things are reckoned just as they were not," before Philemon 
 BO reckoned them : but yet reckoning, or setting down against 
 Paul a debt of two mites, which were not set down against him 
 the minute before, is based upon certain relations existing between 
 Paul and Onesimus. This is a plain case : now let us apply it. 
 Philemon, by hypothesis, is God ; Onesimus is Adam : Paul, his 
 posterity. Adam had sinned : God reckons — sets down in the 
 book of his account, 1st, the act; 2d the guilt of it — the obligation 
 to punishment— these are properly Adam's own. But now the 
 p9Jnt is; Cm God or does he reckon or impute this obligation to 
 
88 
 
 the posterity? In answering this brother Barnes and I will agree 
 thus far, that God cannot and will not unless there is a legal rela- 
 tion existing, as the basis of the imputation — there must be a 
 connexion between Onesimus and Paul — Adam and his posterity. 
 What then is that basis? The ffssenf of the posterity, says Mr. 
 Barnes; the covenant of works, wherein God appointed Adam a 
 covenant head of his posterity, affirm our standards. "So if man 
 flsswrnes the crime of Adam, or assents to it," says Mr. Barnes, 
 " it may be reckoned unto him just as it is — that is as assumed or 
 assented to." Clearly, the assent of man according to this, is 
 necessary to God's imputation of Adam's sin to him : such impu- 
 tation depends upon such assumption — voluntary action — assent 
 must precede liability to punishment — "by the offence of one, 
 judgment did [not] come upon all men to condemnation," it could 
 only come by the assent of all. On the contrary the legal rela- 
 tions on which this imputation takes place are found in the fact 
 of the one man's moral, legal, covenant unity with his posterity. 
 He represented them. 
 
 Still more clear will the truth shine forth if we apply this case 
 to illustrate the relation men sustain to the second Adam. Here, 
 Philemon is in the place of God; the sinner is represented by 
 Onesimus; Paul occupies the place of Jesus. The sinner has 
 transgressed : God imputes the act and the legal obligation to 
 him; Jesus, (in becoming the head of the new covenant) assumes 
 his liabilities ; God imputes or reckons him " under the law" — 
 " made sin for us" — the legal obligation is transferred ; not the 
 acts of men ; not their moral turpitude ; but their liability to suf- 
 fer the curse, pass over to the great Surety. As Onesimus con- 
 tracted the debt, so the sinner is charged in the book of God's ac- 
 count: as Paul a.ssumed the debt of his friend, so Jesus assumes 
 the debt of our sin : as Philemon imputed it to Paul, so God im- 
 puted our sin to Jesus : As Paul's agency, flowing from his con- 
 nexion with his friend, is the basis of the imputation ; so the 
 suretyship of Christ, resulting from his headship over his church, 
 is the basis of the imputation of their sin to him, and consequently 
 of his righteousness to them, Jesus obeyed the law of God — God 
 imputed the act and the legal relation to him, because they were 
 properly his own : but Jesus is so connected with his people by a 
 moral arrangement, (the covenant of grace,) that God may and 
 doth impute to them, not the acts of Jesus personally — not his 
 moral purity and character— but his legal relation, his right to 
 reward, his title to heaven, his rightcQusness. "For as by one 
 man's [Adam's] disobedience many were made sinners, so by the 
 obedience of one [Christ] shall many be made righteous." Thus 
 their sin, in its legal consequences, is reckoned to their Saviour, 
 which was not his before the imputation ; and his righteousness is 
 ref?koned to them which was not theirs before the imputation. 
 
 i have one or two brief remarks yet on this third head of objec- 
 tion. "God's reckonings are according to truth,''* says Mr. B, 
 *' Jn the theory which we are now considering, man is reckoned 
 
89' 
 
 as having committed a sin, which, in the same breath, we are 
 told he never coinmiUe(V Now in one sense these statements 
 are according- to triilh, and in another they are not. That we 
 committed personalli/ the sin of Adam is not true. That we com- 
 mitted representatively the sin of Adam is true. Tliat God rec- 
 kons things as they are is true. That God reckons things as they 
 were not before tiie reckoning is equally true. 
 
 As to the terra impute or reckon, -let us see whether it implies 
 always a setting down of things as they were before the reckon- 
 ing. Num. xviii. 27, 30, " And this your heave-ofi'ering shall be 
 RECKONED uuto you as though it were the corn of tiie threshing 
 floor and as the fulness of the wine-press;" — "it shall be counted 
 unto the I^evites as the increase of the threshing-floor and as the 
 increase of the wine-press." Was this tithe of the tithes the corn 
 of the threshing-floor or the fulness of the wine-press 1 Or was 
 it only a sample of the whole ] Job xix. 15 — " my maids count me 
 for a stranger." Was Job really a stranger ] or was he only 
 treated as onel But the;plainest cases are in Rom. iv. 3. "Abra- 
 ham's faith was counted to him for righteousness." Was his faith 
 in reality his righteousness? V. 6: "God imputeth righteousness 
 without works." Was the righteousness his before it was im- 
 puted? Paul says, no, it was without works, and yet righteous- 
 ness was reckoned to him. Every man has sinned, and yet God 
 does not impute sin — " Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will 
 not impute sin," Every man has sinned; now if God imputes 
 things always as they were bcfJjre- the imputation, all men must 
 abide forever under the curse due to sin. — V. 11, " that righteous- 
 ness might be imputed to them also." Was it theirs before the 
 imputation] If it was, then they needed not imputation to make 
 it theirs; and if they needed no imputation, they needed no faith 
 to secure the imputation of righteousness to them. 2 Cor. v. 19: 
 " not imputing their trespasses to them." Now, if God always 
 imputes things as they were prior to the imputation, he would 
 reckon them sinners — fasten down their trespasses upon all men, 
 and they must perish. 
 
 4. Mr, Barnes says the doctrine of imputation, above stated, "is 
 a violation in almost. express terms of the principles of the divine 
 government, as laid down in the Bible. Ezek. xviii. 2, 3, 4, 19, 
 20 — " the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth 
 are set on edge." Tliat is, " Why do you charge this as a princi- 
 ple of the divine administration that the children are punished for 
 thei sins of their parents." Mr. Barnes puts capitals in, thus : 
 ' The soul that sinneth it shall die. The son shall not bear 
 
 THE INIQUITY OF HIS FATHER ; NEITHER SHALL THE FATHER BEAR 
 
 THE INIQUITY OF THE SON." Now let US first ascertain what it is 
 to bear iniquity. Is it not to suffer pain 1 to endure sorrow and 
 privation ? Is it not to experience death as a penal evil ] Does 
 Mr. Barnes then mean to say, that in no case does the govern- 
 ment of God allow the son tobear the iniquity of the father? Why 
 
 8* 
 
90' 
 
 then has lie afrirmed the contrary of this ! Mad he indeed forgot- 
 ten his own languajro? p. 1'2H. *' This fact is one that is apparent; 
 and that accords with all tlie analooy in the moral government of 
 God. The drunkard secures commonly as a result, that his Family 
 will be reduced to beggary, want and wo. His sin ie commonly 
 the certain occasion of their being sinners ; and the immediate 
 cause of their loss of property and comfort, and of their being 
 overwhelmed in wretchedness and grief. A murderer will entail 
 disgrace and shame on his family," &-c. Is not this the children 
 bearing the iniquity of their fathers ? When the youthful off- 
 spring of Achan, of Korah and his company, of the whole seven 
 nations of Canaan, were cut off, were put to death by God's com- 
 mand, whose iniquity did they bear? Was it their ownl Or 
 their fathers? Mr. Barnes knows well and has well stated the 
 doctrine, that the son does often bear his father's iniquity. He 
 knows well the principle on which it proceeds, viz. that of moral 
 unity. " God has therefore grouped the race into separate commu- 
 nities." And to the whole extent in which the parents represent 
 or act for their children, the consequences of their acts follow 
 them. And the denial of this is a rejection of the entire basis of 
 all social organization, whether of immediate divine or human 
 arrangement. Then you contradict Ezekiel ? No, I do not ; 
 neither does Mr. Barnes in the passage last cited. What then 
 does Ezekiel mean? Why he simply affirms that every individual 
 shall suffer the legitimate consequences of his own sin — that no 
 individual shall suffer for another's own private or individual of- 
 fence. He is speaking of individuals, and rebuking the error, 
 which would transfer legal obligations without any moral, social, 
 or covenant relation existing as the basis of the transfer. But 
 now our doctrine is, that a covenant does exist, wherein our first 
 father Adam represented the race — he was their federal liead and 
 acted for them, and the moral government of God must be sub- 
 verted before the sin of the father shall cease to be visited upon 
 his children. 
 
 5. The fifth objection is the same as the first. *' It is an aban- 
 donment of the'old system," — And only to correct some expressions 
 is it necessary to notice it again. "We have," says he, "in this 
 system of God's imputing to men, sins which in no proper sense 
 belong to them." — What brother Barnes may mean by proper 
 sense, I know not. But I know, and he should know, that the 
 old school system makes the representation of all -men in Adam, 
 his acting as their federal head, the basis of imputation. His sin 
 was their's representatively, and therefore is imputed ; just as 
 Christ's righteousness is their's representatively, because he is 
 their ever living head and surety, and is therefore imputed to them. 
 
 6. " The theory is liable to a sixth objection, that it "makes sin 
 both cause and effect. It teaches that the sin itself with whicii 
 men are born is a punishment for Adam's sin." On the whole 
 paragraph, I have these remarks: 1. The very ground of objec- 
 
91 
 
 lion 18 a truth of our Confession, the guilt of this [Adam's] sifl, 
 was innputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature 
 conveyed to all their posterity,'* and " every sin, both original and 
 actual, doth in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, 
 whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God," &c. 2. It is a 
 prominent doctrine of the Bible, and an important principle in the 
 government of God. Nothing is more common and more fearful 
 Ihan the judgment of God, which delivers men up to sin as a pun- 
 ishment tor past sin. Rom. ii. 21—30. Because of their wicked- 
 ness — " God also gave them up to uncleanness," &.c. " And even 
 as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave 
 them over to a reprobate mind," &c. "My spirit shall not 
 always strive with man." God hardened Pharaoh's heart — deli- 
 vered him up to his own free will — as a punishment for his sin. 
 On what other principle can Mr. Barnes justify the ways of God 
 to man"?" The fact he admits — men are born with a corrupt 
 tendency to sin, and so soon as they act, they will sin. Here is 
 the fact, and it is undeniable. Now how is this, reconcileable 
 with God's justice? If this inborn corruption is not a judicial 
 infliction ; nor the result of the individuals own actual — his per- 
 sonal sin — as is clearly the case^ — how can it be reconciled with 
 the justice of God 1 " How can justice make punishment precede 
 transgression or ill desert 1" How can the sufferings of infant 
 humanity, be reconciled with the idea, that no moral reason — 
 no just exposure to pain and woes, existed prior to the endurance 
 of them? 3. The paragraph intimates that we teach that "the 
 holy God should create sin in the heart of innocence." This is 
 uncandid, at least, for two reasons. 1. The whole world knows 
 that we profess to believe that all men are by nature under con- 
 demnation, are guilty and not innocent. 2. It is equally well 
 known, that we reject with abhorrence the doctrine of God's 
 creating sin. And the fact of existence lies in the way of all 
 schools alike. 
 
 7. " It explains nothing." This is mere assertion. I assert the 
 contrary. It explains very many things, and very satisfactorily ; 
 but not every thing. He here repeats and again under the 8th, 
 the incorrect affirmation, that our system makes men ^^ guilty of 
 a sin, which in no sense we committed." How often have I 
 shown that in some sense we did commit it; viz. in our repre- 
 sentative Adam ? 
 
 8. " It is mere theory." This again is mere assertion. " The 
 doctrine, it is believed, is not to be found in the Scriptures." This 
 again is simply assertion. I can drop the negative and use the 
 sentence in perfect truth. " The doctrine, it is believed, is to be 
 found in the Scriptures." But under this 8th head, something 
 else is introduced. If our native depravity and guilt through 
 Adam, lays us under condemnation and death, it must be repented 
 of before forgiveness can issue. Did you ever repent of original 
 sin? This question has vapoured long enough — let us dispose of 
 
92 
 
 it. And first, I remark. Repentance is turning from sin to God/ 
 Short. Cat. 87. " Repentance unto life is a saving grace, 
 Whereby a sinner * * * dotli * ♦ * turn from it [sin] unto God.***" 
 This is repentaiice in the strict and true sense. Secondly, Its 
 ar.comjmntments are however set down in the answer, viz. 1. Sor- 
 row, " with grief and hatred of sin." 2. The impelling and show- 
 ing motives are also set forth, viz. (a) conviction, "out of a true 
 sense of his sin," {h) illumination or the knowledge of the gospel, 
 "and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ." And thirdly, 
 The concomitant purposes of the soul in future, " with full pur- 
 pose of, and endeavour after new obedience." Now in this true 
 and scriptural idea of the term, I aver that every gracious man 
 can and doth repent of original sin. \jook first at the " impelling 
 motives to action, " out of a true sense of sin." A true sense of 
 original sin views it in its threefold relations, viz. " The guilt of 
 Adam's sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corrup- 
 tion of his whole nature." Now let a man see that " he is con- 
 demned already," that " by nature he is a child of wrath," that 
 " the judgment is by one [Adam] to condemnation" — that " he is 
 dead in trespasses and sins." Let him see that so far from 
 having by nature any original righteousness, he is vile and pol- 
 luted — tha-t, unclean thing, he was born of an unclean thing — 
 that his very root and origin is vile — that he " was shapen in 
 iniquity and in sin did his mother conceive him." Let him see all 
 this, and you will soon perceive, that he feels the corresponding 
 sense of danger, and sorrow, and grief, and hatred of sin. For 
 what other purpose did David (Ps. 51.) revert to the fountain of 
 his original corruption ] Was it not explicitly, to deepen upon 
 his own sorrowful soul, a sense of shame and sorrow for sin] 
 But, there is another impelling motive — " an apprehension of the 
 mercy of God in Christ." Now, 1 defy any man, to have a right 
 apprehension of the mercy of God in "the second Adam, unless 
 he also sees and knows something of the relations he himself sus- 
 tains to the first Adam, and the direful consequences of them. 
 The most glorious views of divine truth are given in this very 
 connection. Never, until we see, and feel, and know our death 
 in the one, do our souls burn for life and glory through the other. 
 Oh, how the soul of the pious heart kindles at the contemplation. 
 
 " Lord, I am vile, conceived in sin : 
 And born unholy and unclean ; 
 Sprung from the man whose guilty fall, 
 Corrupts the race and ruins all." 
 
 Well, does such a view prepare the mind for the expression of 
 shame, as in hymn 26. 
 
 " Backward with humble shame I look 
 On our original," &c. 
 
 Therefore, secondly, The "grief and hatred of sin, which, in 
 various degrees of strength, accompany true repentance, are 
 
93 
 
 highly excited by a consideration of our native depravity. When 
 we look at the rock whence we are hewn, and to the hole of the 
 pit whence we are digged, then it is the soul sinks in sorrows un- 
 utterable, and finds relief in tears. This is accordant with uni- 
 versal Christian experience. Salutary fears moreover result from 
 a view of our guilt — our exposure to punishment on account of 
 Adam's sin. And I see not how a man can be lifted up into the 
 high joys o^ forgiveness through the second Adam, who has not 
 been plunged toward the borders of despair through his con- 
 demnation in the first. 
 
 Hence, thirdly, The thing itself— the turning unto God from 
 sin — " doth turn from it into God." 
 
 And, fourthly, The concomitant purposes and feelings — bent 
 upon- holy obedience. All the essentials of a true and saving 
 repentance are experienced in a view of original sin. David's 
 soul was kindled by it into a deeper fervour of self-abasement. 
 Watts failed to string his lofty lyre, until he drew the life of his 
 humility from the same views: and kindled the fire of his love by 
 turning toward the second Adam. 
 
 Let me here remark, that this same objection was urged by 
 Dr. Taylor, the great champion of Arminianism ; hence we may 
 suppose some alliance between that system and theirs who use 
 the objection now. Edwards, Vol. II. p. 559. " Dr; Taylor urges 
 that sorrow and shame are only for personal sin; and it has often 
 been urged, that repentance can be for no other sin. To which I 
 would say, that the use of words is very arbitrary. But that men's 
 hearts should be deeply affected with grief and humiliation before 
 God, for the pollution and guilt which they bring into the world 
 with them, I think is not in the least unreasonable. Nor is it a 
 thing strange or unheard of, that men should be ashamed of 
 things done by others, in whom they are nearly concerned. 1 am 
 sure it is not unscriptural ; especially when they are looked upon 
 in the sight of God, who sees the disposition of their hearts, as 
 fully consenting and concurring." Such is the answer of the 
 immortal Edwards to this old query, about original sin : And 
 that his doctrine "is not unscriptural," any man of a sanctified 
 and penitent heart, will be fully satisfied, if he will read the 22d 
 Psalm, and listen to the sighs of Gethsemaife, and the groans of 
 Calvary. Did not the holy soul of the Saviour, viewing the sins 
 of others, — the original guilt and pollution, and the actual corrup- 
 tions of his own dear people, turn from it all with abhorrence I 
 Did he not in the deep heavings of his sorrowful soul, weep over 
 the obduracy of the human hearf? O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ! "Oh 
 that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I 
 might weep.day and night !" " Father, if it be possible, let this cup 
 pass from me." Thus anguish of soul in view of the sins of the 
 people; sorrow for their obstinacy, and revulsion of heart from 
 sin, as seen in them, agitated the holy soul of our holy Redeemer. 
 And though it cannot be said that he repented in the full sense of 
 
94 
 
 the term, yet it is undeniable, that all the foregoing", Christ did ex- 
 perience, and that tliey enter into the common notion of repentance. 
 But some men will say, "Repentance is remorse of conscience." 
 I deny it. The catechism alone quoted gives the true idea. But 
 remorse is hell on earth, and its full import will be known only in 
 eternity. Remorse of conscience is no essential part of saving 
 repentance. A despairing frame, approaching toward remorse, 
 there may be, preceding true repentance, but it is not essential, 
 and in the great majority of true conversions, has no existence. 
 
 9. Mr. Barnes' ninth objection is, that this doctrine " will 
 greatly embarrass a man's ministry, produce ease in sin, and hinder 
 the prayers of the gospel, and disgust men of common under- 
 standing with Christianity." These are heavy objections, if. true. 
 But first, it is the doctrine of all the Reformed churches, as the 
 Biblical Repertory has most triumphantly demonstrated. Did it 
 embarrass Luther and Calvin and Knox and Owen ? When did 
 the church see such men before or since ? Whose labours were 
 ever more blessed"? Did it embarrass Edwards ? And does it 
 embarrass the great majority of sound Presbyterians at this day ! ! 
 Secondly, I have shown that it is the very doctrine to make men 
 feel the greatness of their sin. But the opposite system, which 
 makes human nature not quite so bad, flatters man's abihties and 
 pampers his pride. Thirdly, the truth of God cannot hinder the 
 progress of the gospel. Fourthly, " it disgusts men of common 
 understanding with Christianity." To this I plead guilty; it does 
 60, I admit. 
 
 Mr. Barnes, under the sixth remark on the next charge, ad- 
 vances the same idea. " And is there no danger that men will 
 regard the system which proclaims it as at variance with all their 
 just conceptions of a righteous government, and religion as op- 
 posed to the common sense of the world ]" In both these cases 
 the language is certainly unguarded. Are we then bound to 
 square God's truth " to the common sense of the world V Must 
 religion be made palatable to the world, and modelled to suit the 
 world's conception of a righteous government?" Are we bound 
 to dress up Christianity that she may not " disgust men of com- 
 mon understanding 3i' " Let a minister proclaim that his hearers 
 are one with Adam, and then common sense will revolt at it.'* 
 So it will, "The world, by wisdom, know not God" — " common 
 sense will revolt at it." Yes, the common sense of the world will ; 
 but the common sense of the great mass of Presbyterians in this 
 country, who have heard this doctrine all their lives, is not yet 
 revolted at it. " The infidel will smile." Very well, let him 
 Bmile. Tell him of a just God, a coming judgment and an open- 
 ing hell, and he will smile. Tell him of a bleeding Saviour, and 
 an opening heaven, and he will smile. Preach the terrors of the 
 Lord, and the mercies of redeeming love, " and the infidel will 
 emije." What then ? " Is the offence of the cross ceased ?" Ah ! 
 my brotherj tliere are juany othcir things, besides the doctrine of 
 
95 
 
 our sinning " in Adam and falling with him in his first transgres- 
 sion," which "disgust men of common understanding with Chris- 
 tianity," and make "the infidel smile." 
 
 10. Mr. Barnes' tenth reason for rejecting this doctrine is, that 
 other, men in great numbers, have done it. And men, too, of high 
 standing. And he quotes Dr.. Woods, of Andover, where he ob- 
 jects to the imputation " of any sinful disposition or act,!' which 
 has nothing at all to do with our doctrine, and is wholly irre- 
 levent. 
 
 Thus I have gone over Mr. Barnes' ten reasons for rejecting 
 the great leading doctrines of the Presbyterian Church. His 
 statement of it is clear, and his rejection explicit and full, and 
 frequently repeated. 
 
 The only other form of doctrine is the simple statement of the 
 facts. This, the accused says, it was his design to teach. Now, 
 as I shall have occasion to remark hereafter more fully, the facts 
 may be admitted and the doctrines, the moral connexions and re- 
 lations of them denied. 
 
 CHARGE VII. 
 
 Mr. Barnes denies " that mankind are guilty, i. e. liable to 
 punishment on account of the sin of Adam." 
 
 Proof 1, page 123. " There is no reason to believe that they 
 are condemned to eternal death, or held to be guilty of his sin, 
 without participation of their own, or without personal sin, any 
 more than there is that they are approved by the work of Christ, 
 or held to be personally deserving, without embracing his offer, 
 and receiving 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 
 either means that this was bij a constitution of divine appointment 
 that they in fact became sinners, or simply declares that they loere 
 so in fact. There is not the slightest intimation that it was by 
 imputation. The whole scope of the argument is, moreover, 
 against this; for the object of the apostle is to show not that they 
 were charged with the sin of another,'but that they were in fact 
 sinners themselves. If it means that they were condemned for 
 his act, without any concurrence of their own will, then the cor- 
 respondent 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 mercy, so it fol- 
 lows that those who are condemned, are not condemned for the 
 sin of another without their own concurrence, nor unless they 
 personally deserve it. 
 
 Sinners. — Transgressors; those who deserve to be punished. 
 It does not mean those who are condemned for the sin of anoiher, 
 but those who are violators of the la^v of God. All who are con- 
 
96 
 
 demned are sinners. They are not innocent persons condemned 
 for the crime of another. Men may be involved in the conse- 
 quences of the sins of others without being to blame. The con- 
 sequences of the crimes of a murderer, a drunkard, a pirate, may 
 pass over from them, and affect thousands, and whelm them in 
 ruin. But this does not prove that they are blameworthy." 
 
 Proofs, p. 1*28. " Various attempts have been made to explain 
 this. The most common has been that Adam was the represen- 
 tative of the race ; that he was a covenant head, and that his sin 
 was imputed to his posterity, and that they were held liable to 
 punishment for it as if they had committed it themselves. But to 
 this there are great and insuperable objections. * * * (3.) It ex- 
 plains nothmg. The difficulty still remains. It is certainly as 
 difficult to see bow, in a just administration, the sins of the guilty 
 should be charged on the innocent, as to contemplate simply the 
 universal fact, that the conduct of one man may involve his family 
 in the consequences. (4.) It adds another difficulty to the sub- 
 ject. It not only explains nothing, removes no perplexity, but it 
 compels us at once to ask ihe question, how can this be justl How 
 can it be right to charge the sins of the guilty on those who had 
 no participation in them] How could millions be responsible for 
 the sins of one who acted long before they had an existence, and 
 of whose act they had no consciousness, and in which they had 
 no participation 1" 
 
 Proof 1. A simple reading of this language must satisfy every 
 mind, that the author does deny men to be condemned on account 
 of Adam's sin — they are not "held to be guilty of his sin" — 
 " without personal sin." And what renders it unequivocal is, 
 that he uses an argument to prove it, viz. if men are held to be 
 guilty without personal sin of their own, then men would also be 
 approved by the work of Christ without embracing his offer. The 
 same is adduced in proof second, and more fully stated: " But as 
 none are constituted righteous who do not voluntarily avail tiiem- 
 selves of the provisions of mercy, so it follows that those who are 
 condemned, are not condemned for the sin of another without 
 their own concurrence, nor unless they personally deserve it." 
 Condemnation cannot take place without personal sin — it cannot 
 take place on account of Adam's *&in. Now the brother must ex- 
 cuse me for repeating here the argument of Pelagius. "If 
 Adam's sin hurt those who were not guilty, the righteousness of 
 Christ profits those who believe not." Milner, chap. II. page 370. 
 The precise argument of the above quotation. But the argument 
 is more specious than valid. It ought to be fairly balanced, and 
 would stand thus. Personal sin is necessary to condemnation, 
 therefore personal righteousness is necessary to justification. 
 Assuredly, if we are not put into a state of condemnation by 
 Adam's sin, we are not put into a state of justification by Christ's 
 righteousness. 
 
 Proofs. Here you see the common doctrine of our standards 
 
97 
 
 stated — " they were held liable to punishment for it, [Adam's sin,] 
 as if they had committed it themselves." This he denies. "But 
 to tliis there are great and insuperable objections." Need I pro- 
 ceed any farther in the proof? Surely he denies that men are 
 liable to punishment on account of the sin of Adam. 
 
 Confession, chap. VI. J 3. " They being the root of all man- 
 kind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin 
 and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending 
 from them by ordinary generation." § 6. " Every sin, both ori- 
 ginal and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of 
 God, and contrary thereunto, doth in its own nature bring guilt 
 upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, 
 &.C." Lar. Cat. " The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man 
 fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin." 
 
 27. "The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion 
 with God, his displeasure and curse, so as we are by nature chil- 
 dren of wrath, bond slaves to satan, and justly liable to all pun- 
 ishments in this world and that which is to come." Shor. Cat. 
 18, 19, to the same effect. 
 
 Here, by guilt, is meant liability to punishment. " The guilt 
 of this sin was imputed," and thus mankind came under death 
 and corruption ; they were surely liable to the punishment of 
 death, when they actually experienced it. Original (as well as 
 actual) sin " doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner," 
 and by this guilt he is " bound over to the wrath of God." The 
 fall (or Adam's sin,) brought upon mankind God's curse, so as by 
 nature, we are "justly liable to all punishments." Here the lan- 
 guage is explicit. It cannot be more sa 1. Guilt is liability to 
 punishment. 2. Mankind are made guilty by the fall, on account 
 of Adam's sin. 3. A third point is settled here. Punishment is 
 endurance of pain, misery, death, as an expression of God's dis- 
 pleasure. In Confession, chap. VI. § 6. By guilt " he is bound 
 over to the wrath of God, and curse of his law, and so made sub- 
 ject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal." 
 In Lar. Cat. § 27, " these very things are called punishments, to 
 which by the fall, by nature mankind are justly liable." And 
 § 2S, " The punishments of sin in this world are either inward, as 
 blindness of mind, a reprobate sense," &c. Tims, punishment is 
 subjection to evil, to death — suffering death as justly due for sin, 
 or on account of sin. Thus, clearly, the term punishment is ap- 
 plied to all the evils we endure " in this world and the world to 
 come," including native depravity, "blindness of mind, a repro- 
 bate sense ;" and the liability to these proceeds from original sin; 
 this "brings the guilt upon the sinner," and his actual sin in- 
 creases it. The doctrine of our Confession then is, that all man- 
 kind are justly liable to punishment on account of Adam's sin — 
 liable to suffer under the claims of law — as a matter of justice ; 
 for the language is ^^ justly liable to a-11 punishments." 
 
 Let us now see what the Bible says. Rom. v. 12-19. In the 
 
 9 
 
98 
 
 twelfth verse the ajx)btle speaks of the entrance of sin into the 
 world through one man, Adam, " in whom all have sinned." 
 Tiien he sus{)enda the comparison he had begunj as is his frequent 
 custom, that he may strengthen his position incidentally, as it 
 were, brought in, viz. " in whom all sinned." Yet this position, 
 apparently incidental, is important to fill up his subsequent com- 
 parison of the first and second Adam. He therefore proceeds to 
 prove, that all sinned in the one man. His first position is, that 
 sin was in the world, prior to the existence of the Mosaic law. 
 His second point is, that the existence of sin proves the existence 
 of a law ; for sin is the transgression of law, and imputation of sin 
 ia its legal charge upon an individual ; the charging of sin proves 
 a law. His third point is, that sin was imputed, notwithstanding 
 the non-existence of the Mosaic law, from the creation until 
 Moses. This position he supports by reference to a general and 
 undeniable fact, viz. that death was righteously inflicted, reigned 
 — it was not the domineering of lawless power, but the exercise 
 oT lawful authority — " death reigned.^'' But now death hath right 
 of dominion only from the law, through sin — " the strength of sin 
 is the law," and "the sting of death is sin." Sin puts the law's 
 power into the hands of death. Here, then, is proof that a law 
 existed, and had been transgressed ; for hence death. True, men 
 sinned, and therefore they ought to die. Nay! but the death oc- 
 curred in cases where no personal sin existed — they had not 
 sinned like Adam, who, by his personal acts, broke the covenant 
 immediately of himself, and who stood also like the second Adam, 
 a public representative — "the type of him that was to come." 
 These, of whom I speak, says Paul, had sinned some other way, 
 as is manifest from the fact that they died. Their death proves 
 them, under condemnation — their condemnation is a sentence for 
 violated law — their violation of law could not be, like Adam's, 
 their own personal act. What then 1 Why then it is true they 
 sinned in him, .and fell with him — " in whom all sinned." Now 
 death is a penal evil, therefore, these (infants,) were liable to 
 punishment on account of Adam's sin. The apostle then, v. 15, 
 16, 17, illustrates certain points in which the comparison he is 
 about to make does not hold between the type and the anti-type. 
 And in v. 18, resumes the comparison, and perfects it. "There- 
 fore, as by the ofience of one, judgment came upon all men to 
 condemnation ; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift 
 came upon all men to justification of life. For as by one man's 
 disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of 
 one shall many be made righteous." Here, as I mean not to give 
 an exposition of the context^ it niay be sufficient to remark, 
 
 1. The comparison dropped in the 12th verse is resumed, be- 
 tween Adam and Christ. As-^even so ; and this regards the 
 wanner of the condemnation and justification respectively, i. e. 
 the principle of law and right is the same in both. As — in what 
 manner ] How ! Unquestionably by the representative charac- 
 
99 
 
 ter — the federal headship of the parties respectively. 2. " The 
 oftence" — the fall of the one, is the ground and cause of the sen- 
 tence of condemnation; and the righteousness, the full com- 
 pliance with law of the other, is the ground and cause of the sen- 
 tence of justification. Clearly, then, condemnation is through 
 Adam's sin; but condemnation is the declaration that a man is 
 liable to be punished. Men are therefore guilty on account of 
 Adam's sin. 3. The guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to all his na- 
 tural posterity, not because they are his natural posterity, (for 
 they become such in consequence of their moral relation to him, 
 in as much as the moral world was not made for the material, but 
 vice versa, the material for the moral,) but because he represented 
 them in the covenant of works ; so the righteousness of Christ is 
 imputed to all his spiritual seed, and because he represented thera 
 in the covenant of grace. All whom Adam represented are con- 
 demned in him; all whom Christ represented are justified in him. 
 Universalism may take what advantages here the truth will aflford 
 it. If it can be proved, that Christ represented all, then universal 
 salvation, of course, is the true doctrine. But if he represented 
 only his own slieep, for whom he prays, and not those of whom he 
 says, " I pray not for the world," then old fashioned Calvinism 
 has no difficulties here. 
 
 Rom. vi. 23. " The wages of sin" — that which is justly due to 
 it — " is death.'* But — " in Adam all die," therefore in him have 
 all earned the wages of sin, and are liable to punishment on ac- 
 count of his sin. 
 
 Eph. iL 3. " — And were by nature children of wrath." — By 
 nature, that is, in their natural condition, before any gracious 
 change had been made on them by the Spirit of holiness — they 
 were children of wrath — subject to God's wrath — under condem- 
 nation — liable to punishment for the sin of nature. But against 
 this it is objected, that nature means disposition, temper, charac- 
 teristic feeling. Thus we speak of good nature, meaning kindly 
 disposition. To this I reply, that a case in which such a construc- 
 tion is required, cannot be pointed out in the writings of Paul. 
 He uses the term eleven times; seven in this epistle : chap. i. 26. 
 — " even their women did change their natural use into that which 
 is contrary to — disposition ! no, but to the proper laws of their 
 being. Chap. ii. 14, — '* do by nature — in their natural condition 
 — the things," &c. V, 27, — •• shall not uncircumcision which is 
 by nature — naturaV IX. 21, — " spared not the natural branches 
 [branches according to nature, not according to their temper or 
 disposition : it occurs twice more in the same verse.] Gal. ii. 15 
 — " we who are Jews by nature" — not by temper and disposition, 
 but naturally ; by birth. IV. 8, — " which by nature are no gods." 
 So here we were children [ones begotten] of wrath by birth — 
 naturally. Bretschneider gives it — '*1. Vie genetrix. 2. procrea- 
 tio, nativitas, generatio," 
 
iOO 
 
 Permit me to present one more argument on this subject. You 
 will keep your eye upon the precise point in dispute. It is the 
 question whether men are liable to punishment lor Adam's sin — 
 whether they are guilty and exposed to wrath on account of his 
 first transgression passing over in its legal effects upon them. 
 Mine is the affirmative, brother Barnes's the negative. The ar- 
 gument to which 1 allude was pressed, many centuries ago, on 
 the consideration of Pelagius, who said, "Therefore we conclude 
 that the triune God should be adored as most just, and it has been 
 made to appear most irrefragably, that the sin of another never 
 can be imputed to little children." And again, " Hence that is 
 ievident, which we defend as most reasonable, that no one is born 
 in sin, and that God never judges men to be guilty on account of 
 his birth." Bib. Rep. ii. p. 103. Here is the precise point now 
 in controversy, and that profound scholar was bearded with the 
 argument I am about to present; but he never met it fairly. It 
 has oflen been presented since, and has never been met. I could 
 most earnestly wish it might noio be met; but I fear it will not 
 for the best of all reasons. I press it, however, upon brother 
 Barnes's consideration, and entreat his candid attention to it. It 
 is the argument from the state of infants. It always appeared to 
 me unanswerable ; but never, until I was called to perform the 
 last duties to the loveliest babe [I speak as a father, you can par- 
 don my weakness] the loveliest babe these eyes ever beheld, did 
 I see and feel and know and appreciate the force of the argument 
 and the sweetness of the doctrine it establishes. These knees, 
 Mr. Moderator, sustained that lovely form — these eyes watched 
 every heaving emotion of that labouring bosom, and every groan 
 and shriek of writhing nature pierced this aching heart — as I 
 doubt not it pierced the heart of God and moved the sympathies of 
 Him who groaned in Gethsemane, and shrieked on the cross of 
 Calvary. The physician, whose skill God would bafHe, stood 
 watching with anxious heart, the last, last pulsations of ebbing 
 life. I observed — "Doctor, men may speculate as they please 
 alaout original sin and the liability of infants to penal sufiering on 
 account of Adam's sin ; but if no sin lies upon this child in any 
 sense, what kind of a God have we] VV^here is his justice, if 
 this sweet babe is not suffering for the sin of another? Oh ! if I 
 did not believe the doctrine of original sin, I would call God a 
 monster of cruelty and turn atheist. jEither a just sentence of 
 law requires all this, or there is no God." 
 
 *' But besides," said I, " this child has never committed any sin 
 of its own personally — it can have no sin upon it as a legal cause 
 of this agony, but that of its first representative Adam ; what a 
 dreadful thing sin must be, which, six thousand years after its 
 perpetration, presents us with such appalling results as this from 
 one single act 7 And what must our condition be, who have added 
 innumerable actual transgression to the sins of our nature, unless 
 we believe and repent] But oh! how eweet the doctrine! My 
 
101 
 
 dear babe is dying-, indeed, by virtue of its legal relation to th« 
 first Adam; but thanks to my heavenly Father, he shall live tor 
 ever by virtue of his legal relation to the Lord my Redeemer." 
 
 Yes, Mr. Moderator, if infants do not die in Adam, they are 
 not made alive in Christ. If they are not condemned and exposed 
 to God's wrath by the sin of the former, they cannot be pardoned, 
 justified and blessed for ever by the rigrhteousness of the latter] 
 Look at the facts of the case. Can infants be saved if they are 
 not losti Can they be redeemed, if they were not slaves, sold 
 under sin ? Can they be pardoned if they have not been con- 
 demned! Pardon is the remission of sin — the passing by a sinner 
 condemned — the withholding punishment from him to whom it 
 was justly due. Pardon is bought with Jesus' blood. Can the 
 infant be washed in the blood of the Lamb, if it has not been pol- 
 luted ? Clearly, then, the salvation of infants is out of the quep- 
 tion, on any other hypothesis than that of their being guilty on 
 account of Adam's sin imputed. If, therefore, this doctrine be 
 not true, then it will follow, that infants cannot be pardoned ; 
 they cannot be washed from their sins in the blood of the Lamb, 
 (for they have no sin) — they cannot be regenerated by the Spirit 
 of God, for they were never dead in sin — they cannot, by conse- 
 quence, " sing a new song, saying. Thou art worthy to take the 
 book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain and hast 
 redeemed us to God by thy blood." Rev. v. 9. Oh no ! these 
 lovely strangers, who just visit earth to peep in upon its follies, 
 taste a little of its joys, and drink deeply of its sorrows in no 
 sense justly due to them, turn away and pass into another heaven 
 from their parents. Not redeemed from the curse of the law, they can 
 not thank redeeming love. No golden harp in its praise can they for 
 themselves hold — no lofty note, no loud anthem shall swell from 
 infant tongue and from parental lip. Can this beT Who that has 
 closed in death the eyes of lovely infancy, can bear to behold such 
 dissevered bonds'? Who, that has sealed the prattling tongue in 
 the long, long silence of the grave, can endure the thought that 
 that tongue shall never unite with his own in singing the song of 
 Moses and the Lamb? Ah no ! Moderator. The heart clings to 
 the truth when the erring head would part from it. Yes, our 
 little ones too will obey the "voice which comes out of the throne, 
 saying. Praise out God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, 
 both small and great." They, too, shall be " arrayed in fine linen, 
 clean and white," and with us shall sit down at " the marriage 
 supper of the Lamb." 
 
 Besides, on what other gi-ound can the baptism of infants be 
 accounted fori This argument is alhlded to in the admirable 
 History of Pelagianism, Bib. Rep. ii. 100. "So also the council 
 of Milvium, or rather of Carthage, denounced such as denied that 
 infants should be baptized for the remission of original sin. Can. 
 17. " For in no other sense can that be understood which was 
 spoken by the apostle — that by one man sin entered into the 
 
 9* 
 
102 
 
 world, and death by sin ; and so death hath passed upon all men, 
 in whom all have sinned [so it is translated] — than in that adopt- 
 ed by the universal church, every where ditiused. For by reason 
 of this rule of laitii, even infants, who were never capable of 
 committing any sin themselves, are nevertheless baptized accord- 
 ing- to truth for the remission of sins: so that the pollution con- 
 tracted by them in their birth might be cleansed by their regene- 
 ration." 
 
 But that which was thought to give peculiar force to this argu- 
 ment was, that Celestius himself, in a book which he edited at 
 Rome, was constrained to confess, " that infants are baptized for 
 the remission of sins, according to the rule of the universal church, 
 and according to the doctrine of the gospel." It seems, then, 
 that from this argument the Pelagians were never able to extri- 
 cate themselves." P. 107, Vincentius Lyra asks, " Who, before 
 Celestius, that monstrous disciple of Pelagius, ever denied that 
 the whole human race was held guilty of Adam's sinT' Need I, 
 Mr. Moderator, ask who after him denied it] P. 110. "Hilary 
 ex}tresses their [the Pelagians'] opinion thus, 'That an infant 
 dying unbaptized cannot justly perish, since it is born without 
 sin.' And Augustine describes it in these words: 'Nor do little 
 children need the grace of the Saviour, by which, through bap- 
 tism, they may be delivered from perdition, because they have 
 contracted no guilt from their connexion with Adam." The doc- 
 trine of the Pelagians on this point was, that infants were not 
 guilty — that is, neither polluted nor liable to punishment on ac- 
 count of Adam's sin ; and yet they held — absurdly enough, just as 
 those in our day who deny the same doctrine — that they ought to 
 he baptized. 
 
 Against this doctrine Richard Baxter directed his mighty pen. 
 Works, vol. xiii. 91, &c. " You cannot," says he, *' exempt in- 
 fants themselves from sin and misery without exempting them 
 from Christ the Redeemer, and the remedy." He then pours 
 forth more than half a page of texts, and proceeds: " If infants 
 have no s»i and misery, then they are none of the body, the 
 xhurch, which Christ loved and gave himself for, that he might 
 cleanse it." You will observe here specifically he fastena down 
 sin as well as misery upon infants, and then he mentions the 
 guilt and tliepunishment of sin in the case of infants. "But what 
 need we further proof when we have the common experience of all 
 the world ? Would any man that is born of a woman, without 
 exception, so early manifest sin in the life, if there were no cor- 
 rupt disposition at the heart 1" In this brother Barnes and others 
 agree with him; not in the next sentence: "And would all man- 
 kind, without exception, taste of the punishment of sin, if they 
 had no participation of sin, if they had no participation of the 
 guiltl "Death is the wages of sin ; and by sin death entered 
 into the world, and it passeth upon all men, for that all have sin- 
 ned." Rom. v. 12. Infants have sickness, and torments, and death, 
 which are the fruits of sin. And were they not presented to 
 
103 
 
 Christ as a Saviour, when he took them in his arms and blessed 
 thein, and said, "of such is the kingdom of heaven 1" Certainly 
 none that never were guilty, nor miserable, are capable of a place 
 in the kingdom of the Mediator. For to what end should he me- 
 diate for them 1 or how should he redeem them that need not a 
 redemption ? or how should he reconcile them to God, that never 
 were at enmity with him ? or how can he wash them that were 
 never unclean ? when the whole have no need of the physician." 
 Matt. ix. 12. He " came to seek and save that which was lost." 
 Luke xix. 10. and to save " the people from their sins." Matt i. 
 21. They are none of his saved people therefore, that had no 
 sin. He came to " redeem them that were under the law." Gal. 
 iv. 5. But it is most certain that infants were under the law, as 
 well as the adult: and they were a part of "his people Israel, 
 whom he visited and redeemed." Luke i. 68. If even they be 
 admitted into glory, they must praise him that redeemed them 
 by his blood." Rev. v. 9. P. 94. " Infants then, are sinners, or 
 none of those that he came to save. Christ hath made no man 
 righteous by his obedience, but such as Adam made sinners by 
 his disobedience."— ^" There is no regeneration, or renovation but 
 from sin." P. 95. " If they think that any infants are saved, it is 
 either by covenant, or without ; there is some promise for it, or 
 there is none. — 96. He concludes, "By the fulness of this evidence, 
 it is easy to see, that infants and all mankind are sinners, and 
 therefore have need of a Redeemer." Richard Baxter then 
 hath fully taught, 1. That infants are polluted and need cleansing 
 — 2. Are dead spiritually, and need regeneration. 3. Are guilty, 
 liable to, and do experience punishment. 4. Punishment is the 
 endurance of" sickness and torments and death," due not for their 
 own but Adam's sin. Against this argument I predict no man 
 will lift up his voice. And here I might close the discussion of 
 this VII charge, in the confidence that the proof is full and clear, 
 that Mr. Barnes denies men to be guilty on account of Adam's 
 sin. However, as it would be uncourteous not to notice his argu- 
 ment, I must remark, 
 
 1. I apprehend the difference lies in the things not in the terms, 
 and therefore it is not an idle logomachy. I have endeavoured, in 
 stating the things deemed errors, to express them in terms plain 
 and simple; and here, to avoid ambiguity in the term guilt, I 
 have defined it " liability to punishment," and I hope the preced- 
 ing remarks have made the meaning clear and the truth evident. 
 When it is said, mankind are liable to punishment on account of 
 Adam's sin, I cannot imagine how any man should suppose that 
 the certainty of their sinning, when they should become moral 
 agents, was meant — or that they came into the world with a he- 
 reditary depravity, or propensity of liability to sin ; or that. they 
 will suffer and experience pain and death merely " in consequence 
 of that connexion." The dumb briiies experience the same evils 
 as a consequence of Adam's sin. Nor yet is the meaning, that 
 
104 
 
 they are suitable for the moral Governor of the universe to inflict 
 in order to express his abhorrence for sin." But the meaninjif is 
 plain, that pain and death, temporal, spiritual, and eterniil, are 
 justly and legally awarded to every soul of man by the rii^hteous 
 God — that thus they are sinners condemned, and therefore liable 
 to have this sentence executed upon them ; and all this on account 
 of Adam's sin imputed, that is, charged in law and right upon 
 them. On the contrary, Mr. Barnes maintains that the evils in- 
 cident to infant humanity (and tl>us to all the race, for they all 
 are one time infants) are not penal at all ; do not result from mo- 
 ral or legal connexion with Adam ; but are sinular only to the 
 evils incident to a drunkard's children from his conduct — to a sui- 
 cidi'V, to a trailer's, to Adam's. All his reasoning here seems to 
 me t.» vest on the hypothesis that the legal relations are the same. 
 Now ihis hypothesis I take to be gratuitous and false, and also 
 dangerous. It is gratuitous and false, (a) because the death of 
 Achan's children could not follow as a legal result of his crime 
 simply. He was not their legal representative in that act of sin; 
 his relation as parent did not constitute him such, and his act 
 alone could not in justice and right bring upon them this fearful 
 punishment. This would be to set the children's teeth on edge, 
 because the father had eaten sour grapes. " Why do you charge 
 this as a principle of the divine administration, that the children 
 are punished for the sins of their parents ?" Mr. Barnes says that 
 to deny this principle is the object of the eighteenth chapter of 
 Ezekiel. Here we agree, for 1 deny that the sin of Achan was 
 \,\\Q sole or true ground of his children's death. And I deny it 
 simply on the principle, that evils upon a moral being can follow, 
 in a perfect government, only the transgression of law : and this 
 transgression must be committed either by the individual or by one 
 rightfully authorised to act for him. But Achan was not so ap- 
 pointed, (the drunkard, the suicide, the traitor, were not so ap- 
 pointed, except measurably as the representatives of property,) 
 and therefore his sin could not be the sole, true and legal pro- 
 curing cause of their death : at the very most it was the occasion 
 only, (b) Because if Achan's sin was the sole cause of their death, 
 they being yet infants, their execution was itself an infinitely 
 greater offence against the laws of right, than Achan's sin. He 
 was not their representative in this matter, and their lives could 
 not justly be the forfeit of his act. On the contrary, (c) they had 
 been born under sentence of condemnation — they were guilty of 
 death by the transgression of Adam, who did represent them by 
 riij^/tf of God's appointment, and the judgment being by one to 
 condemnation, they were before the act of their father, under 
 sentence of death — children of wrath, and this was the only, true, 
 real moral or legal cause of their death. The offence of Achan 
 was but the occasion, and " all Israel stoned them with stones," 
 and became their executioners. So exactly with the drunkard, 
 and traitor, &lc. Their children suffer. There is an immediate 
 
105 
 
 instrumental cause, viz, their destitution of food, raiment, Slc, 
 There is a mediate cause or agent instrumental, viz. the drunken 
 parent. There is an original essential procuring moral cause, viz. 
 their first lather's first sin. 
 
 The hypothesis on which Mr. Barnes' reasoning rests, viz. that 
 the relations between Achan, the drunkard, &c. are the same as 
 between Adam and his posterity, is dangerous, (a) It strikes at 
 the foundation of all moral government ; for it makes God (and 
 human governors,) inflict pain and wo and death, without a 
 ground in right and law for such infliction. The infant of Achan 
 dies for his father's sin, without any Jwsf condemnation — the law 
 does not look upon the child as guilty, as liable to punishment, 
 and yet it dies ! Is not this unjust 1 So, says Mr. Barnes, Adam's 
 infant posterity sufler on just the same principle. They are not 
 guilty — not liable to punishment — not under sentence of law— not 
 condemned to penal suffering — and yet they suffer death 1 Is not 
 this unjust ? Is not this the definition of tyranny"? (b) It leads 
 to a subversion of the gospel ; for if no other relation exist be- 
 tween Adam and his posterity than between Achan and his, then 
 neither does any other relation exist between Christ and his peo- 
 ple, (c) This principle makes the physical or mere animal con- 
 nexion the only basis and ground of moral or legal treatment ; or 
 in other words, the moral world is adapted to the material, and 
 not the material to the moral. Matter is superior to mind. 
 
 But we are told this treatment of infants, &.c. is designed to 
 display the abhorrence of the moral governor against sin. Now, 
 I ask how? If they are not guilty because of Achan's off*ence — 
 if they are not under sentence of law declaring them justly liable 
 to punishment, as is affirmed, how can their suffering death ex- 
 hibit the abhorrence of government to sin ] Can the sufferings of 
 innocence — for if they are not guilty, and Mr. Barnes says they 
 are not, they must be innocent — can the sufferings of innocence 
 display hatred against sin ! 
 
 2. We must add something about mere terms — the logomachy : 
 and a poor business it is. Mr. Barnes contends that guilt always 
 implies personal crirninality, meaning, that the person himself 
 committed the crime : and that punishment means suffering pe- 
 nalty for personal acts. And (1) he quotes Webster, but only so 
 far as suits his object. Let me quote him to suit mine. " A 
 crime denotes an offence or violation of public law." Now, it is 
 in reference only to public law that we speak. " Criminal — that 
 violates public law, divine or human." " Criminality — a violation 
 of law." " Guilt — criminality in a civil or political view; expo- 
 sure to forfeiture or other penalty." " Punishment — any pain or 
 suffering inflicted on a person for a crime or offence, by the 
 authority to which the offender is subject, either by the constitu- 
 tion of God or civil society." The truth is, that Webster, in the 
 definitions of crime and guilt, distiaguishes between the mrtral 
 and the civil or political application. Mr. Barnes has improperly 
 
106 
 
 turned his oye upon the former ; for it is manifest, that our con- 
 cern is with legal relations, and not with moral character. Now, 
 *' criminality is a violation of law," and " guilt is criminality in a 
 civil or political view, exposure to forfeiture or other jjeiialty.''^ 
 *• Guilt, therefore, implies both criminality," " violation of law," 
 "and liableness to punishment," to "any pain or suffering in- 
 flicted on a person for a crime, or violation of public law." He 
 does not say, that tiie criminality, or violation of law, by which a 
 man is guilty or exposed to fori'eiture or other penalty, and so 
 endures punishment, or any pain or suffering inflicted — he does 
 not say, the violation of law must be his own personal act, in or- 
 der to his being exposed to the forfeiture. The definitions appli- 
 cable to the present case, are precisely such as I could desire. 
 Adam violated public law, divine; this exposed him and his pos- 
 terity to forfeiture of life; they became guilty ; pain or suffering 
 is inflicted on them; they are punished. 
 
 (2.) The second appeal is to the law books ; and here I confess 
 my learning runs short; the books are not within my reach just 
 now. Brother Barnes says " a jury or court never think of sepa- 
 rating the idea of personal offence, or crime, from their idea of 
 punishment^ Whether this remark be true or not, he has utterly 
 failed to prove it true. I think it is about half true; in certain 
 departments of their proceedings, they do not make the distinc- 
 tion, and in others they do. The latter first. In all cases where tiie 
 " forfeiture," or thing itself awarded as that to which the person 
 is liable, or by which he is bound, lies properly and really within 
 the power of human law, the award may fall upon a person, and 
 he endure the forfeiture, who did not perform the act. Thus in 
 the whole business of suretyships and co-partnerships, the courts 
 frequently find a verdict against a man, and hold him bound in 
 law by the forfeiture, although he did not personally perform the 
 act The silent partner of a firm is held responsible {reus, 
 guilty,) in law for the act of another. But where the " forfeiture" 
 relates to life, where death or pains leading to death are the mat- 
 ter of the " forfeiture," the court make no distinction, because 
 no man has power over his own life, or over another's ; no man can 
 rightly expose himself by his own act, or by another's, to forfei- 
 ture of limb or life. And therefore, no jury or court can rightly 
 admit such forfeiture, and hold a man guilty, i. e. liable to penal 
 evil for another's act. But what man has no right to do, because 
 he has not power over life, God has done in appointing his own 
 Son to die for the sin of others. Whether, therefore, the term 
 punishment is used in human courts to mean the suffering of evil 
 on account of the sin oF another, is a matter of indifference in this 
 question. Still, however, brother Barnes has adduced no evidence 
 to disprove it. For (a) Blackstone defines punishment to be, " the 
 right of the temporal legislator to inflict discretionary penalties 
 for crimes and misdemeanor s^ Does he say for crimes only of 
 the persons punished ? Or may such relations exist between two 
 
107 
 
 persons, that one may suffer pains and forfeitures for another's 
 misdemeanor ) Besides, Blackstone's definition is limited to "the 
 temporal legislator," and we are speaking of tlie rights of the 
 eternal legislator ; and, besides, the extreme inaccuracy of his 
 definition proves the truth of Coleridge's remark, that he lived 
 and wrote in a dark and imperfect state of legal knowledge. If 
 accurately quoted, Blackstone says, " punishment is the right of 
 the temporal legislator," &c., which is manifestly not true. 
 " Punishment is not the right of a legislator," nor is it the exer- 
 cise of such a right." It is the forfeiture inflicted — the pain en- 
 dured under sanction of law — and the ground of it is violation of 
 law. Coke's maxim of law is true or false, just according to its 
 application. If he meant that such relations cannot exist as shall 
 bring penal evil upon one man for another's sin, (as I suppose he 
 did not,) it is not true. But brother Barnes' chief dependence is 
 upon Grotius — and for it I am sincerely sorry — because it lays me 
 under the necessity of making statements, which will be called 
 the argumentum ad invidiam. And (a) Grotius, though learned, 
 was very unsound as a theologian. Owen on Satisfaction, 
 Works, vol. IX. p. 74, 293, has proved that Grotius is at least a 
 semi-Socinian, although he wrote against Socinus. In his work 
 "/>e Satisfactione Christi,''' on atonement, Grotius had taught, 
 as Owen shows, the correct doctrine of Christ's suffering the 
 legal consequences of our sin — the punishment; but afterwards, 
 (having read Crellius,) he rejects his former interpretations, and 
 in his annotations falls in with Socinus and Crellius in nearly all 
 their interpretations of the proof texts of the doctrine of atone- 
 ment. "The substance of his annotations on those places," says 
 Owen, "being taken out of Socinus, Crellius, and some others of 
 that party."— p. 301. Accordingly, every one knows the fact, 
 that Grotius is claimed and gloried over by the modern Unita- 
 rians, as their most illustrious champion. You will be able to 
 appreciate the authority of Grotius on a point where the essence 
 of atonement is concerned, when you consider that he falls in 
 with the infidel Jews in their exposition of the fifty-third chapter 
 of Isaiah, in application to Jeremiah the prophet and the afflic- 
 tions that befel him. For example, v. 6, " All we, like sheep, 
 have gone astray," &c. Grotius interprets, " We have all erred 
 from the days of Manasseh, some following some idols, others 
 others; and God permitted that he [Jeremiah,] by our grievous 
 crimes, should suffer most unworthy things." On v. 7, " And as 
 a lamb," (" wherewith," says Grotius, " Jeremiah compares him- 
 self") Chap. xi. 18. In v. 8, the phrase " for the transgression of 
 my people was he smitten," he explains thus, " for the wickedness 
 of my people I have stricken him, [Jeremiah,} in the Hebrew it 
 is, * stroke it on him,' that is, befel him, through the great error 
 and fault of the people, as is before said." 
 
 Now to this very transaction, Owen applies the term punish- 
 ment, as do almost all the world of Christians. My object in addu- 
 
108 
 
 cing these passages is, to show the reason Grotius had for main- 
 tain incr that the term punishment, poena, is applicable only to 
 suffering" for jjersonal sin. For if that be true, then Christ did not 
 and could not possibly suffer punishment at all — could never en- 
 dure penal evil, never having personally offended. Thus conve- 
 niently is dismissed the whole doctrines of the Christian atone- 
 ment. Grotius then is about as good authority on a question deeply 
 affecting the vitaLs of the Gospel, as Horace and Cicero, and Aris- 
 tides and Demosthenes, whom he calls to his aid. After all, 
 however, or rather before all this, Grotius in his treatise against 
 Socinus, most explicitly teaches the contrary. See Bib. Rep. II. 
 441. " Sed utomnis hie error dematur, notandum est, esse quidem 
 essentiale pcenas, ut infligatur ob peccatum, sed non item essenti- 
 ale ei esse, ut infligatur ipsi qui peccavit." That is, " But that 
 here, every mistake may be removed, it must be observed, that it 
 is essential indeed to punishment, that it be inflicted on account 
 of sin, but that it is not in like manner essential to it, that it be 
 niflicted on the very person who has sinned." Here is precisely 
 our idea of punishment on the same page. "Puniri alios ob ali- 
 orum delicta non audet negare Socinus." That is, " Socinus dare 
 not deny that some dixe punished on account of the sins of others." 
 And p. 467, " It is not simply unjust or contrary to the nature of 
 punishment that one be punished for the sins of another." Thus 
 Grotius expressly dares Socinus to deny the application of the 
 term punishment to suffering endured on account of other men's 
 sins. The precise thing which Mr. Barnes brought Grotius him- 
 self in to deny. 
 
 3. Mr. Barnes' third appeal is to the Bible, to show " that pun- 
 ishment is to be regarded as the evil inflicted by a just moral gover- 
 nor for personal offence. You will bear in mind that the only 
 question here is about personal offence. Is the word punishment 
 here applied where there is not personal offence — where the per- 
 son has not by iiis own act merited it. Can we say an unjust 
 punishment ? that a man was punished unjustly? Such a phrase 
 plainly is an application of the word punish to a person not deserv- 
 ing it by his own act. Let us open the Bible; Mr. Barnes says 
 there is no such application of the term. Now the very second 
 place where the word punish is used is such, Prov. xvii. 26, " to 
 punish the just is not good." Jer. xliv. 13, "I have punished Je- 
 rusalem by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence." — 
 Now it is undeniable many infants fell under these ministers of 
 punishment, who had not personally sinned. So in Jer. xxvii. 8, 
 and xxix. 32, "I will punish Shemaiah the Nehelemite, and hia 
 seed," 1. 18, " I will punish the king of Babylon and his land, as I 
 have punished the king of Assyria." Now every one knows that 
 in the execution of this threatening, infants innumerable were 
 involved in the calamity here called punishment. Shemaiah's 
 seed, who had no personal action in his sin, are included in 
 the punishment. I shall not multiply cases ; indeed this is the 
 
109 
 
 more general sense of the term. Gen. xix. 15, "Lest thou 
 be consumed in the iniquity [gnoii, punishment] of the city." 
 Did the infants of Sodom endure this punishment ? and had they 
 personally sinned 1 Jer. xxi. 19, " God layeth up his iniquity [Heh. 
 his punishment] for his children." Punishment then, often falls 
 on those who have not sinned personally. 
 
 So in the New Testament, " he is guilty of death." Was Jesus 
 personally deser^ving ] But Mr. Barnes says they thought so who 
 used the term. But the fact was, he did die, and that by appoint- 
 ment of God. Was he, enochos, guilty, liable to suffer? did the Fa- 
 ther's justice require him to suffer ? Jf so, then he was in God's sight 
 enochoSj guilty, liable to penal evil ; if not, he paid no debt of our 
 sin, and his suffering was as unrighteous, viewed as the decree of 
 God, as when viewed as the decree of men ! Did his people de- 
 serve to be punished — were they enochoi, guilty, justly liable 
 to punishment 7 — was punishnent the precise thing required 
 of them by the law? — and did Jesus meet the claim of law for 
 them ? Then punishment is the proper name of what he endured. 
 
 In other places the term implies obligation of some kind. But 
 in not one instance is there any expressed limitation of the phrase 
 to liabilities resulting from personal acts, although in nearly all 
 cases it is thus in fact. But this fact is only a negative proof that 
 the word never is used in any other sense. The case Ileb. ii. 15, 
 is at least not unequivocally so limited. I think neither the fear of 
 death nor subjection to the bondage of Satan is limited to personal 
 sins, but belongs to the sin of our nature. Acts iv. 21, " Finding 
 nothing how they might punish them because of the people." To 
 punish signifies here, simply to inflict suffering; that was their 
 wish, but nottfinding a plausible pretext, they desisted, fearing a 
 popular commotion. 
 
 4. Mr. Barnes' last appeal is to old Calvinistic writers. 
 Here {a) " The theory of one-ness or personalidentity with Adam" 
 is again brought 'forward. We have seen it exist only in the ima- 
 gination of those opposed to old Calvinism. (6) Mr. Barnes quotes 
 Turretin from the Bib. Rep. II. 440, he says, for the very opposite 
 purpose to that for which they quoted him. " Reatus theologice 
 dicitur obligatio ad poenam ex peccato." Guilt, among theologi- 
 ans, is defined, to be obligation to punishment on account of sin.'''' 
 But how does this prove that it is on account of sin committed by 
 the person who is held to punishment ? 
 
 (c) Mr. Barnes quotes Owen, Justi. XI. 246, (280) "Guilt in 
 Scripture is the respect of sin unto the sanction of the law where- 
 by the sinner becomes obnoxious unto punishment." Again, " The 
 guilt of it [sin] is nothing but its respect unto punishment from 
 the sanction of the law. Again, (on Justification, 280) he says, 
 " There can be no obligation to punishment, where there is no 
 desert of punishment." Again, "The guilt of sin is its desert of 
 punishment, and where is not f /its, -there can be no punishment 
 PROPERLY so CALLED." Now, Mr. Moderator, no man since the 
 
 10 
 
110 
 
 days of Paul, would so appal me by his opposition, as John Owen. 
 Can it be possible that I have so misunderstood himl Can 
 it be, that John Owen refuses to call that punishment which is 
 inflicted for the sin of another ! Let us look candidly and read 
 fairly. Immediately after the words first quoted here, it reads, 
 "And to be guilty is to be vTto bixoi rw OiZ, liable unto punishment 
 for sin, from God, as the supreme Lawgiver and Judge of all. And 
 so guilt or " reatus" is well defined to be " oblvgatio ad poinam, 
 propter culpam, autadmissam in se, aut imputat am, juste aut in- 
 juste." This may be thus translated, "an obligation to punish- 
 ment, on account of sin, either admitted against himself, or 
 imputed, ']i\sl\y or unjustly." Now the very object for which Mr. 
 Barnes quoted Owen, was to prove that guilt implies necessarily 
 personal ill desert. Had he quoted the seven consecutive lines, 
 he would have proved indubitably tliat personal ill desert is not 
 necessary to guilt; but that sin imputed brought guilt. Was 
 this fair dealing? Again, " There can be no obligation to punish- 
 ment, where there is no desert of punishment." Now this 
 would seem to intimate that Owen would not call a man guilty, 
 but for his one personal desert, the very reverse of what Owen 
 teaches. Now to be candid let Owen speak the whole sentence; 
 " Dignitas poenK [desert of punishment] and obligatio ad posnam, 
 [obligation to pimishment] is but the same thing in diverse words. 
 For both do but express the relation of sin unto the sanction of the 
 law, or if they may be considered to difi^er, yet are they insepara- 
 ble; for there can be no obligatio ad pcenam where there is not 
 dignitas pcEnfe." 
 
 By comparing the last quotation Mr. Barnes makes above, 
 marked well with small capitals, with the sentence fully and 
 fairly taken, you will see there is ground of complaint. " Sin 
 hath other considerations [besides its guilt] namely, its formal 
 nature, as it is a transgression of the law ; and the stain of filth 
 that it brings upon the soul ; but the guilt of it, is nothing but its 
 respect unto punishment from the sanction of the law. And so 
 indeed, " refl(^« culpse," is " reatus poense," [the guilt of sin, is, 
 "the guilt of punishment ;] the guilt of sin, is its desert of pun- 
 ishment. And where there is not this " reatus culpse" [guilt of 
 sin,] there can be no " poena," no punishment properly so called. 
 For " poena" is " vindicta noxae," "the revenge due to sin." Owen 
 thus distinguishes between the stain of its filth and the guilt, or 
 liability to its punishment. And on the next page he says, " that 
 our sins were so transferred on Christ, as that thereby he became 
 asham, hupodikos to Theo, reus, responsible unto God, and ob- 
 noxious unto punishment in the justice of God fur them." Punish- 
 mewf then, according to Owen, the Redeemer endured. What! 
 for " personal criminality ]" No. " Perfectly innocent in himself; 
 but he took our guilt on him, or our obnoxiousness to punishment 
 for sin." Why did brother Barnes attempt to press Owen into 
 such a sejrvice \ But I forbear. I am glad his quotations were 
 
Ill 
 
 not direct. I am glad he is indebted to the Chri-stian Spectator 
 for such garbled, a/id inaccurate, and unfair quotations. I am 
 glad no Presbyterian is reus huic culpse. (c) Ridgley is quoted 
 for the same purpose. " Guilt is an obligation, or liableness to 
 suffer punishment for sin committed." True; but committed 
 by whom ? By the person who is guilty ] Can none be guilty but 
 for " personal criminality 1" Ridgley, in the very next sentence 
 answers it. " Now since this guilt was not contracted by us, but 
 imputed to us." And p. 120, Vol. II. he says, " And let it be far- 
 ther observed, that we do not say that there is no punishment due 
 to original sin, as imiputed to us; for that would be to suppose 
 that there is no guilt attending it, which is contrary to what we 
 have already proved." 
 
 I must add a remark on the 5th and 6th concluding observa- 
 tions. He seems to wish to submit the terms and the things too 
 to common sense and common use, as the standard. But neither can 
 be admitted as umpire, when God's truth and the terms by which 
 it is expressed are at stake. Here Mr. Barnes remarks, " How can 
 a just government be sustained, in the ends of moral agents, if it 
 holds those guilty who are innocent, and punishes those who have 
 no ill-desert 1 This objection to the language is insuperable." 
 So it is: But whose language is it? No Calvinist ever held it. 
 We do not say that children are innocent. The reverse is our 
 doctrine. They have deeply-seated corruption in the heart, and 
 this is a result of their sin in their original representative, Adam: 
 and this doctrine of the Bible, " We can and do preach." 
 
 Again : Mr. Barnes objects to our doctrine, that it makes God 
 unjust. If the Bible did teach that Adam's posterity are guilty 
 and punishable for his fein, then it would teach such an unrighteous 
 doctrine, as to destroy itself " There is no place, says he, where 
 it is affirmed, 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 principles of common justice, as to 
 neutralize no small part of all the proof that could be brought for 
 the truth of a divine revelation." " It not only explains nothing, 
 removes no perplexity, but it compels us to ask the question, 
 How can this be just! How can it be right to charge the sins of 
 the guilty on those who had no participation in them"]" Now this 
 is the very objection urged by Dr. Taylor. " If this be just — if 
 the Scriptures teach such a doctrine, then the Scriptures are of 
 no use — understanding is no understanding — and what a God must 
 he be, that can thus curse innocent creatures 1 Is this thy God, 
 O Christian! Edwards, Vol. II. 561. If my brother will asso- 
 ciate himself with such men as Dr. Taylor of Norwich, I will be 
 honest enough, and kind enough to tell him he is in dangerous 
 company. If a Presbyterian minister inadvertently use the very 
 same identical arguments against the doctrine of our standards, 
 which are used by the great champion of Arminianism, justice to 
 the truth of God, and charity to the souls of men, equally demand 
 
112 
 
 the exposition of the fact : and no charge of exciting- odium shall 
 deter me from obeying- the calls of charity.to my brethren, and 
 justice to the truth. Who does not know that this is, and always 
 has been the stereotyped argument of Arminianism against Cal- 
 vinism? Who does not hear it reverberating through the land 
 continually 1 Who can point out a single Arminian pulpit in the 
 Union, where it is not the theme of perpetual vapouring 1 If 
 infants are liable to punishment on account of Adam's sin, then 
 God is unjust. 
 
 Now it might be sufficient refutation of this objection to iden- 
 tify it with a Dr. Taylor, either of Norwich or New Haven. But 
 lest it should be thought rather a cavalier-like treatment, it may 
 be proper to add the interrogation of Paul,' "Is God unrighteous 
 who taketh vengeance ?" For manifestly, the fact, that infants 
 suffer, — the fact that Christ suffered, in the government of God, 
 and by his express appointment, is undeniable : and this Arminian 
 objection lies not against any peculiar doctrine of Calvinists, but 
 against the broad, obvious, and appalling fact. 
 
 CHARGE Vni. 
 
 Mr. Barnes denies, " That Christ suffered the proper penalty of 
 the law, as the vicarious substitute of his people, and thus took 
 away legally their sins, and purchased pardon." 
 
 Proof 1. All the passages quoted under charge vi. and vii. are 
 referred to here. If the sin of thej^rsf 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 substi- 
 tute in the place of sinners ; not to endure its precise penalty, for 
 his sufferings were not eternal, nor were they attended with re- 
 morse of conscience, or by despair, which are the proper penalty 
 of the law; but he endured so much as to accomplish the same 
 ends as if those who shall be saved by him, had been doomed to 
 eternal death. That is, he showed that the law could not be vio- 
 lated without introducing suffering; and that it could not be bro- 
 ken 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 secured the proper honour to his character as a lover 
 of his law, a hater of sin, and a just God. He has shown that if 
 sinners do not avail themselves of the offer of pardon, by Jesus 
 Christ, they must experience in their own souls for ever, the pains 
 which this substitute for sinners endured, in behalf of men, on the 
 cross." Thus, no principle of justice has been abandoned ; no 
 claim of his law has been let down : no disposition has been evinced 
 to do injustice to the universe, by suffering the guilty to escape. 
 He is, in all this great transaction, a just moral governor, as just 
 to his law, to himself, to his Son, to the universe, wiien he par- 
 
113 
 
 dons, as he is when he sends the incorrigihle sinner down to hell. 
 A full compensation, an equivalent has been provided by the eiif- 
 fering-s of the Saviour, in the sinner's stead, and the sinner may be 
 pardoned." 
 
 On proof 1st, it may be proper to remark, — 1. It has been shown 
 that Mr. Barnes denies the existence of a covenant between God 
 and Adam, as a representative head of his posterity. (Charge v.) 
 Mr. Barnes denies, by consequence, that the first sin of Adam is 
 imputed to his posterity ; (Charge ii.) and that they are g-uilty, 
 i. e. liable to punishment on account of the sin of Adam. Proof 
 sufficient has been adduced on these several pomts : and also the 
 accused himself admits their truth, but denies their relevancy. He 
 sets up a defence against these several points of doctrine. 
 
 2. It has also been evinced, by good and sufficient proof, that a 
 parallel is drawn in Scripture, and in our standards, between Adam 
 and Christ, (who is therefore called "the second man,") in such 
 language and manner, as clearly shows, that, as the former was 
 constituted a covenant head and representative of his children, so 
 the latter is appointed, by the same divine authority, a covenant 
 head and representative of his children. The representative cha- 
 racter of "the second man," is as indubitably a doctrine of the 
 Bible and of our standards, as the representative character of the 
 first x'Vdam. The denial of the one, is a rejection of the other, and 
 vice versa. He, ilierefore, who denies the imputation of Adam's 
 sin, to those whom he represented, must deny, and does deny, the 
 correspondent imputation of Christ's righteousness, to those whom 
 he represented; and also the correspondent imputation of their 
 sins to their surety. 3. Now, it is in evidence — and no man can 
 read the defence of Mr. Barnes, without perceiving his admission 
 of it — Ihat he denies the transfer of legal relations; so that Adam's 
 sin passes over upon his children to their condemnation, and just 
 liability to endure punishment on its account. And so the sins of 
 Christ's people do not pass over upon him, by a legal imputation, 
 so that he, in the eye of the law, is held guilty, or liable to punish- 
 ment on their account. 
 
 BiJt T am perfectly aware it will be said — it has been said — this 
 is an inference of mine, for which Mr. Barnes is not accountable. 
 But it is not so. He does distinctly affirm, that no such legal 
 transfer is or can in right be made. Now, if no such imputation 
 is or can be made in any case, then none is made in this case; and 
 the sins of God's people are not charged in law to Christ as their 
 surety, so that he is accounted liable to the penal consequences: 
 and if he was not justly liable to punishment, of course God did not 
 appoint him to endure penal evil. This is in no other sense a 
 matter of inference from the doctrines he teaches, than if a man 
 should aver, that another had violated every precept of the deca- 
 logue, and it should hence be said, that he charged his neighbour 
 with the sin of Sabbath breaking. - 
 
 Proof 2nd. Here we have the explicit statement, God appointed 
 
 10* 
 
114 
 
 his Son "not to end are its precise penalty." Tliis is the tiling 
 charged. I have not supposed tliat Mr. Barnes denies that Christ 
 suffered pain and sorrow fur men. They who utterly reject and 
 scout the whole doctrine of atonement, admit that Christ suffered 
 for the sins of men. But they put their own explanation upon the 
 terms. Mr. Barnes admits that Jesus endured great and sore evils 
 on account of our sins; but he does not adnjit that these were 
 penal— ihey partook not of the nature of punishment— they were 
 not the result of a legal imputation to him of tlie sins of his peo- 
 ple. But to make the truth of this charge quadruply sure, it must 
 be observed, that three reasons are alleged, why Christ could not, 
 and did not suffer the precise penalty of the law. The possibility 
 of mistaking iiis meaning is thus placed entirely out of question. 
 
 1. The first is, that the sufferings of Jesus "were not eternal." 
 
 2. He did not experience "remorse of conscience." 3. His suffer- 
 ings were not attended by despair. Thus it is infallibly manifest 
 that Mr. Barnes teaches, as charged, that Christ did not suffer 
 penalty. Whatever he endured was not penalty, however dread- 
 ful the sufferings may have been. I shall therefore not dwell on 
 proofs, and especially, as the accused admits in his pleadings, ex- 
 plicitly and fully, the thing charged, as we shall see in remarking 
 thereon. Let us first, however, learn the doctrine of our standards 
 and of the Scriptures in this important matter. 
 
 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 fulfil it; endured most 
 o-rievous torments immediately in his soul, and most painful suffer- 
 ings in his body; was crucified and died." ^ 5. "The Lord Je- 
 sus by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he 
 through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully 
 satisfied the justice of his Father, and purchased not only recon- 
 ciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, 
 for all those whom the Father hath given unto hmi." Lar. Cat. 
 49. — " Having also conflicted with the terrors of death and tlie 
 powers of darkness, felt and borne the weight of God's wrath; he 
 laid down his life an offering for sin, enduring the painful, shame- 
 ful, and cursed death of the cross." Shor. Cat. 25. — "Christ exe- 
 cutetli the office of a priest, in his once offering up of himself a 
 sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, and reconcile us to God, and 
 making continual intercession for us." 
 
 On these remark, 1. Theo6;ecf of the sufferings of Jesus, which 
 by them he accomplished, was to satisfy divine justice — "he hath 
 fully satisfied the justice of his Father." It is, therefore, of com- 
 manding importance to know what the Father's justice demanded ; 
 or in other words, what God's law required of his own people who 
 had transgressed it. Will brother Barnes tell us what justice de- 
 manded of Christ's people, in order to its full satisfaction ? Can 
 any man be at a loss to say what the violated law requires 1 Do 
 not all men know that it demands the infliction of its penal sane- 
 
115 
 
 tioni Ctin jiistice ha satisfied— fidly satisfied — with any thing 
 short of this] Why, by the very terms, to stop short of the full 
 demand of law, is injustice: and can justice be fully satisfied 
 with injustice?- — with a partial meeting of its claims ] Clearly, 
 then, the very essential nature of justice demands a penal inflic- 
 tion — an infliction of the penalty — the whole penalty — and nothing 
 but the penalty of the laws; and any and every diminution from 
 this, is a sacrifice of justice. But now Christ satisfied fully the 
 justice of his Father; therefore, the claim of law upon its vio- 
 lators, Jesus met. It demanded punishment of them, he endured 
 it. Their sin, m its legal effects, its jninishment, he bore in his 
 own body on the tree. " The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us 
 all." In what sense could this be, unless as to its punishment — 
 " he bore our sins in his own body on the tree." Howf surely not 
 literally — not the pollution! Nay, but the fenal effects. He died 
 ♦' the just for the unjust" — in their legal room, enduring the penal 
 consequences of their sin. 
 
 2. What was it that the law threatened as the punishment of 
 sin"? What is the penalty of the covenant of works? Death, says 
 the Confession of our Faith — man was forbidden to eat "upon 
 pain of death." So the Bible, " in the day thou eatest thereof, 
 thou shalt surely die." The same truth is taught in the entire 
 system of bloody sacrifices from the days of paradise onward. All 
 proclaimed the wages of sin to be death : all taught that Christ 
 our passover must be sacrificed for us. 
 
 3. As to the nature of this penalty or death, it is obvious we 
 can have no precise and adequate ideas. W^e may say, he 
 " endured most grievous torments imm^ediately in his soul" — he 
 " was made a curse for us" — " it pleased the Lord to bruise 
 him" — he "made his soul an ofl^ering for sin" — "he conflicted 
 with the terrors of death and the powers of darkness, felt and 
 bore the weight of God's wrath." He was forsaken of God ; 
 but after all we know not what it was, his human body and soul 
 suffered, To raise an inquest after the amount of pain and 
 anguish, would obviously be worse than folly and vanity. God 
 has furnished us with no rule in his woj'd or in our nature, by 
 which to measure pain. It cannot be measured by duration. It 
 cannot be estimated by degrees of intensity. It cannot be told 
 by numbers or quantity. What the frown of heaven may be, we 
 cannot tell. What the human spirit, sustained by the almighty 
 power of the eternal Spirit in our blessed Redeemer, could 
 endure, and did suffer in that awful hour, no creature will ever 
 know. When we view the scenes of Gethsemane, and the sor- 
 rows of Calvary. — When we hear the declaration, "my soul is 
 exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." — When we see the "great 
 drops of blood falling down to the ground." — When we heaj the 
 prayer of agonized humanity: "Father, if it be possible, let this 
 cup pass from me." — When the final withdrawings of a Father's 
 love, as to its sensible exercises, leaves the soul to drink the bit- 
 
IIG 
 
 terness of wrath divine, and wring from tlie last agonies of ex- 
 piring humanity — the tomb-startling shriek, "My God, my God, 
 why hast thou forsaken me?" our feelings tell us justice must 
 now be satisfied to the full : the bitterness of that death, which 
 constitutes the punishment of our sin is over ; the law's whole 
 demand against our divine Surety on our account, is met and 
 fully paid. And' when we know, that it pleased the Lord to 
 bruise him thus, we see evidence full and clear, that he could not 
 thus suffer, unless he were justly liable to sutler — our sins were 
 charged in law against him, and therefore it pleased the Lord. 
 We ought to observe here, that the Hebrew for the word pleased^ 
 expresses satisfaction very commonly — complacency : As Psalm 
 xxii. 8. "He delighted in him." Pt--. xli. 11. '^^ Thou favourest 
 me." Is. xlii. 21. " The Lord is well pleased for his righteous- 
 ness sake." "So the Lord was jdeased to bruise him." Now there 
 is no reconciling of this v/ith the goodness of God, but by the glo- 
 rious and blessed doctrine that a claim of justice lay against him ; 
 which claim could in no conceivable manner exist, but through 
 the sins of his people, whom he represented, being imputed to 
 him, and he thus becoming liable to punishment on their account. 
 
 4. The inevitable consequence of his enduring for his own 
 sheep, for whom he laid down his life, the penal consequences of 
 their sins, is their deliverance from them. This results from the 
 very nature of God's justice. The law's entire claim against the 
 sheep of Christ's flock, their adorable Surety has liquidated. This 
 secures two results; his own deliverence from the mortal bondage 
 of the grave, for " it was not possible he should be holden of 
 death ;" and their pardon bought with blood. Jesus hath a right 
 to the release of his people from all the penal consequences of 
 their sins. Death hath no more right of dominion over them ; 
 for He has satisfied the law whose claim gave death all bis power, 
 and the grave all its terror. Pardon, therefore, — the remission of 
 sins — the omission to punish his dearly-bought f]ock, is to Jesus a 
 matter of pure justice. When he advocates their cause before 
 the divine throne, he puts in a claim of right. He asks no sacri- 
 fice of justice ; but prays the Father to do justice to him, in dis- 
 pensing pardon to them. Hence the love of God the Father is 
 displayed in the gift of such a Surety: {he grace of our Lord 
 Jesus in dispensing pardon. For to them from him it is all of 
 grace ; whilst to Him from the Father, it is all of debt ; and 
 hence " God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." 
 
 Such, Mr. Moderator, is the doctrine of the confession and of the 
 Bible. Such is the plan of redemption by the vicarious substitu- 
 tion of the Son of God in the law-place and room of his people, and 
 I can truly say, my soul is grieved to be forced to believe that my 
 brother does not believe it. 
 
 5. One other observation I desn-e to make. It is of a general 
 nature, viz. That every remedial scheme goes, as the very name 
 indicates, to establish the principle of the original institute. Now 
 
117 
 
 the covenant of works is the original institute in the present case, 
 and the great principle of it was, to give life to man, on the 
 ground of a perfect and full compliance with law. Perfect obe- 
 dience was to secure life. This failed in the hands of the first 
 Adam, and, in infinite mercy, God provided a mediator to remedy 
 the evils of the fall, by establishing the law as the rule of obe- 
 dience still. Jesus did so — he fulfilled the law in its precept, (as 
 we shall see hereafter,) and he exhausted the penalty :. hence he 
 claims the promised reward, even life everlasting, for all his peo- 
 ple ; on the basis of the original grant, in the first covenant. 
 Let us now attend to Mr. Barnes' defence, and 
 
 1. He alleges that three things are mentioned as included in 
 the penalty of the law, viz. eternity of duration to suflTering, 
 remorse of conscience and despair, which Christ could not, and 
 did not endure. As to the whole of this, it is plainly a metaphy- 
 sical distinction unknown to the Scriptures. They say nothing 
 definitely about remorse of conscience and despair, as descriptive 
 of the penalty of law. The former term is not found at all, and 
 the latter only once, and that not on this subject. But particu- 
 larly : (a) Eternity of suffering is essential to the penalty. This 
 has reference to amount, it is infinite, and its endurance infinitely 
 honours the law. But now the infinitely glorious, and holy, and 
 exalted Son of God could pay this infinite debt — could endure this 
 infinitude of divine wrath in finite duration. This is the plain, 
 and obvious, and common, and satisfactory answer to the univer- 
 salist and infidel objection against the doctrine of atonement, (b) 
 Remorse of conscience, as before intimated, is not a scriptural 
 phrase, and to settle its precise meaning, would, I presume, be as 
 difficult as to end the present controversy. Brother Barnes means 
 by it, that feeling which arises from personal criminality; mean- 
 ing by personal criminality, I presume, moral turpitude, and then 
 properly enough denies that Christ could experience it. But as 
 the Bible and our Confession do not render it necessary to go into 
 this metaphysic, I suppose wisdom dictates adherence to its sim- 
 ple language, (c) Despair is a term not so difficult to understand. 
 It is once used in Scripture — " cast down, but not in despair" — 
 where it seems to mean a high feeling of despondency : an appre- 
 hension of failure in the work before us. But in reference to 
 both these, I am satisfied, that all minute, metaphysical inqui- 
 ries into tlie nature of these feelings which agitated the agonized 
 soul of the Saviour are entirely improper ; and can lead to no pro- 
 fitable results. On the contrary, the statement already given is 
 clear, Scriptural, and ought to be satisfactory. The proper 
 penalty of the law is death — " thou shalt surely die." Jesus did 
 die under ihe curse of the broken law. 
 
 2. My only reply to the first four remarks under this head, is 
 that they all go to deny the penal nature of Christ's sufferings. 
 Webster's definition of punishment Jn reference to personal and 
 private offence, is again brought in, whilst his definition in refer- 
 
118 
 
 ence to public law, is left out of view. Under the second, he 
 says that the lang-uage of the Confession, that Jesus *' felt and 
 bore the weight of God's wrath," must be understood figuratively. 
 
 1 can only say, I am truly sorry at every attempt to pare down 
 and diminish our apprehension of the sufferings of Christ. I 
 must think they were beyond any conception we can have, and 
 the power of any language we can use. To say, "it was impos- 
 sible — that he should endure that proper penalty," is in my 
 apprehension, a perilous assertion. 
 
 His fifth remark begfins thus: "If Christ had endured the strict 
 penalty of the law, then the law would have no claims on us now. 
 If the debt was fully and literally paid, and all the penalty re- 
 moved, they for whom it was paid have a right to a discharge, 
 and are already innocent before God. The view, therefore, which 
 affirms that that penalty is truly paid, leads at once to all the evils 
 of Antinomianism." Here observe, (a) Mr. Barnes rejects in the 
 most express terms, the penal nature of Christ's death, (b) He 
 denies the doctrine of satisfaction altogether. He maintains that 
 Jesus did not render full return to the violated law — that all the 
 penalty is not removed. And, (c) to put the matter beyond all 
 doubt, he gives his reasons why he thinks it dangerous to teach 
 the doctrine of full satisfaction being rendered to divine justice 
 by the Saviour's death. The first, and which is the foundation of 
 all the rest, is that, if there had been full satisfaction rendered, 
 then, " all the penalty being removed, they for whom it was .paid 
 have a right to a discharge." Again he says, "When a law or 
 penalty is fully paid, the law has no further claims on men ; and 
 if the full penalty had been met by the substitute as really and 
 truly as if the criminal had himself borne it, then he has a claim 
 to a discharge, and his release becomes not in any sense a matter 
 of grace or favour, but a matter of right." The same is taught 
 under his sixth remark. "If this doctrine be true; if it be affirmed 
 that Christ endured the literal, complete, and proper penalty of 
 the law, then it follows that no gain has resulted to the universe 
 from his intervention. All that has been done, has been to tranS' 
 Jer the penalty, involving the same kind and degree of suffering 
 from the guilty to the innocent. Just as much suffering has been 
 endured on this supposition as though the elect had endured it in 
 their own persons in the eternal fires of hell." Hence it is clear 
 to a demonstration, that Mr. Barnes maintains a defective satis- 
 faction — that Christ's sufferings were not punishment at all — and 
 that they were not in degree and amount equal to the whole de- ' 
 mand of the law's penalty. This is yet more evident by a remark 
 a little below, where he agrees, "that a vast amount of suffering 
 in the universe has been prevented" — that Christ's sufferings 
 being so much inferior in amount to those deserved by his people, 
 have diminished by that excess, the total of pain endured in the 
 imiverse, and this is the chief glory of the atonement; but the 
 doctrine that he suflfered the full demand of law, "dims its moral 
 
119 
 
 luatre and glory." Here, unquestionably, is the idea of a relin- 
 quishment, in part, of the strict claims of law against the people 
 of God ; the penalty is not fully paid ; the lustre and glory of the 
 atonement consists in Grod's accepting something less than strict 
 justice required. Like a condescending and indulgent creditor 
 to an unfortunate endorser or surety, he compounds, and for a 
 partial payment releases both surety and principal. 
 
 Now, let us set in contrast with this, the words of our Confes- 
 sion. "The Lord Jesus hath fully satisfied the justice of his 
 Father." *' The justice," you will observe, not the benevolence 
 — but the JUSTICE of his Father is fully satisfied. Can a more 
 peremptory contradiction be framed in language, than is here ex- 
 hibited between brother Barnes and the Confession of Faith] 
 
 As the issue is fairly joined on this point, let us see what others 
 have held. And as Turretin is generally viewed as expressing 
 the sense of all orthodox Christians, let us hear him. " De satis- 
 factionis Christi veritate." Pars. L \ 9. " It is one thing for 
 Christ to have died usefully for us, i. e. for our good and advan- 
 tage; dino\hQx,forus by substitution, i. e. in our room and place ; 
 one thing, that he has been delivered up on account [propter pec- 
 cata,] of our sins incidentally, that also he might draw us off from 
 them ; another, causally and meritoriously, that by taking the 
 guilt of them [eorum reatum,] upon himself, he might also make 
 expiation by paying in his own body all the punishments due to 
 there" — [poBtias omnes illis debitas in corpore suo tuendo expie- 
 ret.] Thus Turretin teaches a full and proper satisfaction by 
 Christ's suffering the whole penalty — all the punishment due to 
 the sins of his people, and this as a result of his having taken 
 their guilt upon himself He immediately adds, "It is one thing 
 to speak of such kind of satisfaction, by which Christ shall have 
 satisfied all those things which were imposed upon him by the 
 will of God for procuring our salvation ; another, to speak of 
 penal satisfaction — [de satisfactione poenali,] and properly so 
 called, by which he shall have satisfied not only the will of God, 
 but also the divine justice, our punishments being assumed unto 
 himself, [assumptis in se nostris pcenis."] Here, again, Turretin 
 maintains that the satisfaction of Christ is penal, the punishment 
 due to us falling upon him ; and he says, " the question is not 
 concerning the first, which the adversaries do not deny ; but only 
 concerning the second, which they petulantly reject." His op- 
 ponents admitted some kind of satisfaction, but denied it was 
 penal — that its endurance was punishment — that Christ bore our 
 guilt, and satisfied the divine justice. Whether this be not the 
 precise point of brother Barnes' opposition, T leave his readers to 
 judge, adding only, that the opponents whom Turretin cites are 
 Crellius and Smalzius, distinguished Socinians. Again, Part IL 
 19, he says, "Neither can punishment [pcena,] be separated from 
 satisfaction, seeing Christ hath so bor-ne it [punishment,] most fully, 
 [plenissime,] that he has endured it entirely, and exhausted it 
 
120 
 
 altogether f'' and this he says Jesus suffered, not as from the hand 
 of the Father, but " from him as a judge out of justice, on account 
 of which he is said to be made a curse and sin" — "that we may 
 know that a commutation of debt had been made between us and 
 Christ." The italics are Turretin's own, and show most clearly 
 that he believed the Saviour bore our sin legally, as a matter of 
 justice, by cornmutaiioneyn debiti, and that he endured the pun- 
 ishment [poena,] most fully, entirely, and totally — plenissime, 
 omnino, penitus. Can JVIr. Barnes, or any other man, express 
 the idea more fully and entirely and totally, that Jesus, being 
 reus, liable on account of our sin, did endure the whole punish- 
 ment due to us? 
 
 Let us hear from him once more. Part VIII. 8, '' The objec- 
 tors endeavour to prove that on God's part satisfaction is impossi- 
 ble, because God every where in Scripture is represented as gra- 
 tuitously and mercifully forgiving all our sins. Now, if he remits 
 gratuitously, say they, in what manner could he either demand 
 satisfaction or remit .' what is more contrary to reniission than 
 true and full satisfaction. If you answer, that indeed remission 
 and satisfaction are repugnant, but in as much as satisfaction pro- 
 ceeds from him who either has procured, or ought to procure re- 
 mission, they can be perfectly consistent, seeing it is remitted to 
 one, but another satisfies for him ; they retort, that the answer is 
 vain — 1st, because a debt cannot be said to be remitted for which 
 that is given which fully satisfies; for what necessity of remis- 
 sion, where there is no longer any debt ; but there is no longer any 
 debt where already it has been fully satisfied; for, 2d, that a debt 
 may be remitted, it is not sufficient for the debtor to be set free, 
 although he hiuiself shall have paid nothing, but it is necessary 
 that the obligation itself be entirely extinguished, by the liberality 
 alone of the creditor, so that neither the debtor himself, nor the 
 person substituted in his place, may pay any thing to the creditor. 
 3d. If a person transfer a debt to himself, the debtor can very 
 properly be said to be commuted, but the debt cannot be said to 
 be remitted, seeing, at last, the creditor has received to a farthing 
 what was due. 4th. If Christ has paid in our place, in him, and 
 with him, we can be esteemed to have paid ; but if we are 
 esteemed to have paid, then God cannot be said to remit out of 
 grace, but of justice, because it would be unjust in God not to 
 absolve us, the payment bein^^ already made," Here is something 
 very plausible by way of objection, and I think it essentially and 
 substantially and identically the same with the objections of Mr. 
 Barnes. Now, Mr. Moderator, it is painful to tell the truth, and 
 but for the truth's sake, and for my brother's sake, and for the 
 church's sake, and for Christ's sake, I will add the last words of 
 this paragraph from Turretin : "Sic argutator Socinus." "Thus 
 argues Socinus." Ought not a Christian minister to be alarmed 
 when he discovers such coincidence of sentiment? 
 
 Two evil consequences are supposed by Mr. Barnes to follow 
 
121 
 
 the doctrine of full, legal satisfaction. 1. •* Eternal justijica' 
 iion.''^ But if we follow the Confession and the Bible, we must 
 inevitably escape this rock on which many have split and gone 
 down. Onf. chap. XI. ^4. "God did, from all eternity, decree 
 to justify all the elect ; and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die 
 tor their sins, and rise again for tiieir justification ; nevertheless, 
 they are not justified, until the Holy Ghost doth, in due time, ac- 
 tually apply Christ to them." "He that believeth not shall be 
 damned." No man is ever justified but by faith. If he believe 
 not — if he repent not — if he do not live in practical holiness — he 
 is not a justified man. But, secondly, and almost the same thing, 
 the doctrine of full, legal satisfaction, is charged -with leading 
 to Antinomianism. And it is not to be quet;tioned that this, 
 and the doctrine of election, and the doctrine of perseverance 
 in grace, if set by themselves, and detached from their kindred 
 doctrines of faith, repentance, regeneration, &c. become Antino- 
 mian. The doctrine of free grace in salvation is Antinomian, if 
 thus detaciied. And what principle of divine truth, if abused, 
 will not lead to ruin 1 Will not the blood of Jesus, if trampled 
 under foot, double the damnation of the impenitent sinner ] What 
 theni Shall we refuse to preach salvation bought by blood? 
 Now?, I ask, what peculiar tendency is there in the glorious doctrine 
 of full, free, and perfect satisfaction to the justice of God, by the 
 punishment of my sin in my blessed Surety — what tendency is 
 ihere here to Antinomianism T How can this lead me to love 
 sin ? When I hear the sighs of Gethsemane, and the groans of 
 Calvary, and the thought rushes in upon my soul — He suiters the 
 punishment due to my transgression — is there here any peculiar 
 motive to love sin and practice unholineFs] When 1 mark the 
 falling tear; the big rolling drops of ming'led sweat and blood; the 
 pierced hands and bleeding side and panting bosom and agonized 
 soul, and say to mj^self. He drinks the wrath of God ; the curse 
 of the broken law pours in upon his holy soul; it is the punish- 
 ment of my sin — is there here a motive to continued rebel- 
 lion T Ah ! my brother, if heaven can present to earth a motive 
 almighty to holy action, here it is, in the glorious doctrine that 
 Christ bore the penalty of law due to our sins. Take back, then, 
 your charge of Antinomianism. " Do we then make void the law 
 through faith 1 God forbid. Yea, we establish the law.'* Oh no ! 
 I am as ready as any man to go on a crusade against all the pol- 
 luted hosts of Antinomianism, who inhabit the holy land ; but 
 then my brother must not tear away the very cross itself. I can fol- 
 low only that banner; and if I didn't believe t.hat Christ had en- 
 dured the penalty — that Jesus had suffered the full punishment of 
 my sin, then, instead of following his cross, I should be seeking 
 one of my own, on which to endure for myself what' remains of 
 the law's just dem.and — my goul should be " exceeding sorrowful 
 even unto death." 
 
 One other remark here. Brother Barnes charges with Antino- 
 mianism, the doctrine that Christ sufferfed penally and to the full the 
 
 U 
 
punishment of his people's sine. This same charge was brought 
 against Paul's doctrine of grace; does not this seem to say that 
 our doctrine an] hid are identical] Would the same argument 
 be urged against both, if both were not the same? 
 
 As to the 7th item, it is necessary only to repeat, he therein 
 distinctly admits the satisfaction or sufferings of Christ to be, not 
 the proper penalty required by the law, but only a substitute in 
 the place of it. This is the thing charged. 
 
 On the three remaining subdivisions, in which Mr. Barnes has 
 thought proper to cut up the proposition of this eighth charge, I 
 have only two remarks. 1. He denies, as has been proved, 1 sup- 
 pose, the representative character of the second as of the first 
 Adam; that Christ was constituted the covenant head of his peo- 
 ple; and acted for them in a legal respect, bearing their liabilities 
 to obedience and suffering. This is what I suppose to be meant 
 by a vicarious substitute, and therefore consider the whole doctrine 
 of legal substitution as rejected in the notes. His affirming here 
 that he maintains the doctrine of Christ's vicarious substitution 
 and action for his people, only proves that he attaches to the terms 
 a meaning which is not common and which I am unable fully to 
 comprehend. 2. The other remark is, that I can see no just 
 ground for the reiterated complaints of injury and injustice. I 
 have stated 07ie distinct plain proposition. Mr. Barnes divides it 
 into four. He draws the inference that I charge hini with four 
 errors here instead of one, and believing that the ftftir are not 
 found in his book, complains of injustice. If it has not been proved 
 that he rejects the doctrine of our sin being imputed to Christ 
 and his suffering the penaltij of it, then the charge is not proved ; 
 but if that is established, then the whole charge is sustained and 
 no injustice is done. For in that case, even the three inferred pro- 
 positions are sustained, and the author's using some phraseology 
 apparently inconsistent with them is no evidence to the contrary. 
 It requires extreme caution in one who reads old orthodox works 
 occasionally to avoid in his own writings the use of words and 
 even phrases expressive of sound doctrine when he does not intend 
 it. 
 
 CHARGE IX. 
 
 Mr. Barnes denies " That the righteousness, i. c. the active obe- 
 dience of Christ to the law, is imputed to his people for their justi- 
 fication ; so that they are righteous in the eye of the law, and 
 therefore justified." 
 
 Proof 1. p. 28. (3) The phrase righteousness of God, is equiva- 
 lent to God^s plan of justifying men; his scheme of declaring 
 them just in the sight of the law ; or of acquitting them from punish- 
 ment and admitting them to favour. In this sense it stands oppo- 
 sed to man^s plan of justification, i. e. by his own works. God's 
 plan is by faith." " The word to justify, 6txatow, means pro- 
 perly to be just, to be innocent, to be righteous. It then means to 
 
123 
 
 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. It then 
 means to treat as if innocent^ to regard as innocen.t ; that is, to 
 pardon, to forgive, and consequently to treat as if the ofTence had 
 not occurred. It does not mean that the man did not commit the 
 ofFence, or that the law might not have held him answerable for 
 it; but that the offence is forgiven ; and it is consistent to receive 
 the offender into favour, and treat him as ifYie had not committed 
 it." 
 
 " In regard to this plan it may be observed, (1) That it is not 
 to declare that men are innocent and pure. That would not be 
 true. The truth is just the reverse; and God does not esteem 
 men to be different from what they are. (2) It is not to take part 
 with the sinner, and to mitigate his offences. It admits them to 
 their full extent, and makes him feel them also. (3) It is not that 
 we become partakers of the essential righteousness of God. That 
 is impossible. (4) It is not that his righteousness becomes ours. 
 This is not true; and there is no intelligible sense in which that 
 can be understood. But it is God's plan ^ov pardoning sin, and for 
 treating us as if we had not committed it; that is, adopting us as 
 his children, and admitting us to heaven, on the ground of what 
 the Lord Jesus has done in our stead. This is God's plan. Men 
 seek to save themselves by their own works. God's plan is to 
 fiave them by the merits of Jesus Christ." 
 
 Proof 2. p. 84, 85. " Even the righteousness 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, proceeds here 
 more fully to explain it. The explanation which he offers, makes 
 it plain that the phrase so often used by him, *^ righteousness of 
 God^'' does not refer to an attribute of God, but to his plan of mak- 
 ing men righteous. Here he says, that it is by faith in Jesus 
 Christ; but surely an attribute of God is not produced by faith in 
 Jesus Christ. It means God's mode of regarding men as righte- 
 ous through their belief in Jesus Christ. " God has promised that 
 they who believe in Christ, shall be pardoned and saved. This is 
 his plan in distinction from the plan of those wlio seek to be justi- 
 fied by works." 
 
 " Being justified. — Being treated as if righteous, that is, being 
 regarded and treated as if they had kept the law. The apostle 
 has shown that they could not be so regarded and treated by any 
 merit of their own, or by personal obedience to the law. He 
 now affirms that if they were so treated, it must be by mere fa- 
 vour, and as a matter, not of right, but of gift. This is the essence 
 of the Gospel. 
 
 Proof 3. p. 94, 95, as quoted under Charge IV (7) and p. 96. 
 ** God juflges things as they are ; and sinners who are justified, 
 he judges not as if they were pure^or as if they had a claim ; but 
 iie regards them as united by faith to the Lord Jesus^ and in this 
 
124 
 
 relation he judges that f^etf sJiould be treated as his friends, 
 though they have been, are, and alicuys will be personally xnide- 
 ser-ving. But it" the doctrine of tlie Scriptures was, that the en- 
 lire rijrliteousness of Christ was set over to them, was really and 
 i,ruly theirs, and was transferred to them in any sense, with what 
 propriety could the apostle say, that God justified the ungodly? 
 If they have all the riw-hteousness of Christ as their own, as really 
 .and truly theirs, as if they had wrought it out themselves, they 
 are not " ungodly.'''' They are eminently pure and holy, and 
 have a claim, not of grace, butof debt, to the very highest rewards 
 of heaven," p. D7. Unto lohoin God imputeih righteousness. — 
 Whom God treats as rigiiteous, or as entitled to his favour in a 
 \way different fronj his conformity to tiie law. This is found in 
 Psahn xxxii. And the whole scope and design of the Psalm is 
 to show the blessedness of the man who is forgiven, and whose 
 sins are notchargedonhim, but who is freed from the punishment 
 due to his sins. Being thus pardoned, be is treated as a righte- 
 ous man." 
 
 Proof 4. p. 127. By the obedience of one. — Of Christ. This 
 stands opposed to ihe disobedience of Adam, and evidently includes 
 the entire work of the Redeemer which has a bearing on the sal- 
 vation of men. Phil. ii. B. " He became obedient unto 
 
 ,death." 
 
 P. 212. " God's righteousness. TCot of the personal holinefs 
 ,of God, but of God's plan of justifying men, or ofdeclaring them 
 •righteous by faith in his Son. Here God's plan stands opposed to 
 .iheir effort's to make themsolves righteous by their own works." 
 
 J. The silence of this book of notes on the subject of Christ's 
 righteousness being imputed to his people for their justification, gives 
 ground to a strong presumption, that the doctrine is rejected by 
 its author. To this I know it will be objected, that it is hard to 
 condemn a man for what he deos not say. But then it ought to 
 be remembered that a faithful witness will ieW Xhe whole truth. 
 If a man tell not all the truth in the matter — if he keep back a 
 .part, even though what he does say is true, he is a false witness. 
 Jf. a commentator in expounding tiiose Scriptures which set forth 
 any leading doctrine of Christianity, leave that doctrine out of 
 view altogether, he is Justly esteemed a foe to ihe doctrine. Now 
 Mr. Barnes was bound in expounding this epistle, to make the 
 doctrine of the imputed righteousnessof Christ, and particularly his 
 active obedience, the prominent feature of his book. 'J'he epistle 
 to the Romans is a treatige, and the only one in the Bible, for- 
 mally, on the doctrine of justilication, and the marvel of marvels 
 is, that this volume of exposition does not once present it distinctly 
 and clearly to the reader. "The righteousness of Christ [his 
 fictive and passive obedience] imputed to us and received by faith 
 alone," is not once brouglit distinctly into view from beginning to 
 end. If it is, I am much mistaken; for after a careful perusal of 
 the whole, and an oft repeated inspection of those parts where 
 
125 
 
 this doctrine ouglit to be the radiant and the rallying: point, I con- 
 fess myself unable to find it. The word justification is sometimes 
 used, but a meaning is attached to it, as we shall see, not sanctioned 
 by Scripture usage nor the standards of our church. 
 
 2. Proof 1, is a part of the Note on i. 17. " For therein is the 
 rig-hteousness of God revealed," &c. and " the righteousness of 
 God'' is made to be "equivalent to God's plan of justifying men." 
 He had before mentioned two interpretations of the phrase : viz. 
 that it means the attribute ofGod^sju^iice; and his goodness or 
 benevolence ; both which he rejects, and then adopts this, which 
 surely bears no kind of resemblance to the terms to which it ia 
 declared to be equivalent. Yet these three, he avers, are the 
 only possible interpretations. How it is, that the plain, simple, 
 common sense and Bible meaning of the term righteousness should 
 never have presented itself to the brother's mind is to me matter 
 of astonishment. Do you ask what that isl 1 answer, in the 
 fourth meaning given to the Greek, dikaiosiine, by Hedericus, 
 viz. " Conformitas cum lege." Conformity with law. Compliance 
 with the rule of right — obedience. And as holy obedience includes 
 the moral affection of the heart, the assent of the understanding 
 and consequent action of the whole person ; so the Greek word 
 and its correspondent hehve^w, tsedek, includes such affection: and 
 hence they sometimes express benevolence, kindly feeling. The 
 law is a straight line; walking in the line marked out for us is 
 rectitude, straightness, righteousness. Deut. vi. 25 — " it shall be 
 our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments" — 
 xxiv. 13, " it shall be righteousness unto thee before the Lord thy 
 God." — xxxiii. 19, " shall they offer the sacrifices of righteous- 
 ness." Let any man just take his Bible and concordance and sit 
 down patiently to the investigation, and he will be surprised at 
 the almost universal applicability of this definition. Such, too, is 
 the general understanding of the term. Dr. Ridgley, Ml. 74, say?, 
 "the righteousness we are now speaking of, must be something 
 wrought out for us, by one who stood in our room and stead, and 
 was aljle to pay that "debt of obedience." And in the note Dr. 
 Wilson adds, "'Righteousness is taken ordinarily to signify a con- 
 formity to lavi's, or rules of right conduct. The moral law, which 
 is both distinguishable by the moral sense, and expressly revealed, 
 requires perfect and perpetual rectitude in disposition, purpose, 
 and action. Dr. Gill, on the place, says, it is "that righteousness 
 which he [Christ] wrought out by obeying the precepts, and bear- 
 ing the penalty of the law." A multiplication of authorities is 
 useless : there can be no dispute about the matter. Righteousness 
 is "conformity to law." And when spoken of God, in reference 
 to his own acts, it means his procedure according to his own will, 
 the supreme rule of right. When spoken of his acts and doings 
 for the benefit of men the same general idea is set forth. So Paul 
 speaks of "the righteousness of God being unto all and upon all 
 them that believe" — thai is, the righteousness which Christ said 
 
 11* 
 
12G 
 
 it became him to tulHl — his obedience to, hia compliance with, 
 law, which constitutes the title to life. 'J'his it is, that is revealed 
 in the gospel troin faith to faith : according to the promise, Isa. 
 Ivi. 1, — ^' for my salvation is near to come, and my rigiitcoutness 
 to be jevealed." xlvi. 13. "I bring near my righteousness; it 
 «haU not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry." In the pre- 
 ceding verse, he commands, "Hearken unto me, ye stout-hearted, 
 .that are far from righteousness" — "ye that follow after righteous- 
 11GSS and have not attained to it." Rom. ix. 30, 31, 32. Now what 
 does this following mean, but tiieir vain attempts to comply with 
 the law^s demands. Still righteousness, compliance with law, 
 was far off: But, " My righteousness is near, my salvation is gone 
 .4<irth." Isa, li. 5. In a thousand texts it is .clearly stated that 
 rigiiteousness is the title to life: righteousness the actual and ac- 
 tive obedience to law, and salvation are united as antecedent and 
 ,consequent. 
 
 That righteousness is active compliance with law is further 
 evident from Paul's whole train of reasoning here. Let us ana- 
 lyse it, for here lies the soul and 4ife of the gospel. First, he 
 says, i. 16, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. But 
 what is it in the gospel that gives it such almighty energy to 
 save? Second step in the process: v. 17. It reveals righteous- 
 ness; and salvation — eternal blessedness is the just reward of 
 righteousness. But whose righteousness is it? Man's! No ; for 
 man could not perfectly keep or comply with the law, and perfect 
 obedience only can be admitted by the law and rewarded with 
 life. No; it is God's righteousness; the very same which he has 
 so often promised to his people — "my righteousness shall be for 
 ever" — "their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord." "I bring 
 near my righteousness." But, if it be the Lord's, what avails it 
 tons? 3. It becomes ours by faith. It is proffered to us upon 
 the pledged faithfulness of God " from fiith," and becomes ours by 
 our humble, sincere, and true reliance upon this pledged faith- 
 fulness " to fiith," But where do you find this doctrine! 4. In 
 tiie prophecy of Ilabakkuk, ii. 4. " 1'he just by/aith shall live.'* 
 He who believes in the promise of God, wherein life or salvation 
 is offered on the ground of the Saviour's righteousness, and who 
 thus sets to his seal that God is true, and thus becomes, in deed 
 and truth, united to Jesus, being renewed and enabled thereto by 
 the Hoy Ghost in his regenerating influences — this man is justi- 
 fied by his faith as the instrumental prncnring cavse^ and by 
 Christ's righteousness as the meritorious rouse. 
 
 On this quotation from the prophet, which is Paul's text, Mr. 
 Birnes and I differ toto cmlo. He maintains tliat the point of the 
 text is to affirm the manner in which men live : I insist that it 
 atlirms the manner in which men are justified. He says, " it 
 does not refer originally to the doctrine of justification by faith" — 
 then PafiTs text and sermon (like many another unfortunate 
 preacher's) have little, if any connexion wiih each other ; for 
 
127 
 
 really I tliiiik lie preaches on that doctrine. No, says Mr. Barnes, 
 " but Its meaning is this : ' The just man, or the riohteous man, 
 shall live by his confidence in God.' " 
 
 This mistake as to the text of Paul, is the prime cause of that 
 want of perspicuity and system which pervades the whole book. 
 Now let us look into the njatter, and let us keep one precise point 
 in view. Mr. Barnes insists, that the text relates to the manner 
 of living: I, that it relates to the manner of justification. And I 
 observe that the prophet is speaking of the Gospel day. Having spo- 
 ken of the Chaldee persecutor, his mind is carried forward from 
 his watch tower, " to see what he will say unto me." "And the 
 Lord answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain 
 upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. [And yet it has been 
 misunderstood!] For the vision is yet for an appointed time ; but 
 at the end it shall speak, and not lie : though it tarry, wail tor it ; 
 because it will surely come, it will not tarry." And what is the 
 vision! What is the glorious doctrine, by the reception and belief 
 of which, verse 14, " the earth shall be filled with the knowledge 
 of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea!" Verse 4. 
 " Behold, his soul which is 1 itled up is not upright in him"— the protid, 
 "who follows after the law of righteousness," "is not upright," 
 righteous, just, justified — accepted of God : " but" — what ! Why, 
 exactly the opposite of this: and what is that! Is it a questio^i 
 about the iiwnner of living, or about being upright or just? As- 
 suredly the prophet says nothing concerning hoio the proud might 
 live; but he speaks of his want of righteousness, "his heart is not 
 upright;'^ and the opposite is uprightness — "but the just by his 
 faith shall live." This is the natural, simple, and plain translation 
 of the words, and is required to make up the contrast with the 
 previous part of the verse. The words may be accommodated, as 
 Owen says, and thus express the idea of the subsequent life of 
 faith. " Because the justijied by faith, do also walk by faith. Yet 
 the position of the terms, strictly require them to express the man- 
 ner of their becoming just, i. e. by ftiith hi the person promised in 
 the vision, viz. Christ. A Germane-English friend has this moment 
 furnished to me a passage or two from Luther's comment on this 
 text: which sliows that he understood the prophet as referring to 
 justification through faith in the promised Messiah. Luther's 
 complete works, Halle, 1741, Vol. VL p. ;^.157-58.— " At last, 
 Ilabakkuk finishes this sentence of the table, [verse 2] with the 
 words, ' But the just shall live by his faith ;' i. e. if one will live 
 and be just, he must believe the promises of God; vice versa, the 
 unjust dies in his unbelief If you will live and be saved, you 
 must believe this writing on the table, that Christ w ill come in his 
 kiogdom." Verse 20. — "Here you see that the prophets have 
 preached the faith of Christ, as well as we under the New Testa- 
 ment; and that Habakkukis even so bold asto condemn all works, 
 and ascribes life only to faith. He says plainly, the unbeliever 
 shdlljoot succeed; let him pray and work until death, still all his 
 
128 
 
 works are condemned, that they are of no use toliim, and shall not 
 help him; and the believer shall live, without works, by his tUith." 
 But a better authority than Luther, we have in the Apostle him- 
 self, for immediately afier stating his text, he proceeds to establish 
 it, by negativing the only other way of justification, and that which 
 the prophet had negatived in the preceding clause of the verse, 
 viz. by works. PVom this to the 19th verse, chap. iii. he shows, 
 by an induction of particulars, that works cannot secure life, by 
 making man just before God; and concludes, verse 20, "Therefore 
 by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his 
 sight." His conclusion is manifestly concerning justification; 
 and this is Paul's fifth step. He has now demonstrated that man's 
 righreousness — his works — his active obedience to law — not his 
 endurance of penalty — but his active obedience — cannot secure a 
 sentence of justification before God. Thus is set aside, as utterly 
 inadequate, the works, the active obedience of men. Clearly, tiien, 
 he believed that the righteousness which justifies, is compliance 
 with law; but man's is inadequate, and therefore another's must 
 come in its place. Whose shall come in the place of man's obe- 
 dience, or works, or righteousness 1 Certainly the righteousness 
 of God, which, in verse 17, he says is reveaied in the Gospel, and 
 which had been laid aside until he should demonstrate the insuffi- 
 ciency of man's. Therefore he here takes it up. " But now the 
 righteousness of God without the law is manifest," &c. This is 
 his sixth step : and the entire process of his reasoning, shuts us up 
 to the necessity of understanding " the righteousness of God, 
 which is by faith of Jesus Christ," in the same sense as we under- 
 stand the righteousness of men that has been rejected ; viz. com- 
 pliance — the compliance, or active obedience of Christ. The 
 seventh step is the medium through which it comes, viz. the " re- 
 demption that is in Christ Jesus." The satisfaction to the penal 
 claims of law, is indispensable to theavailablenessof his rigliteous- 
 ness, properly so called: and hence, it is the same faith resting 
 upon the atonement, that, in the strict sense, procures pardon; 
 which, resting on the righteousness of Jesus, procures justifica- 
 tion. 
 
 The same truth is established by the contrast in x. 3, 4, between 
 the righteousness of God and the righteousness of man. " For 
 they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to 
 establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves 
 to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for 
 righteousness to every believer." Here God's righteousness and 
 Christ's righteousness are the same : and from the contrast, it is 
 evident the term must be understood in the same sense, viz. con- 
 formity with law. But Christ is the end — fulfilment, by his per- 
 fect obedience, — of all law — to every believer. Unquestionably, 
 the righteousness which they went about to establish, was their 
 own works of obedience ; therefore Christ's righteousness is his 
 conformity with law ; and this is that which is revealed from faith 
 
129 
 
 to faith. Hence, Jesus Christ is said to be made of God unto ns, 
 wisdom and righteousness. And in Jer. xxiii. 6, lie is called "the 
 Lord our rig-hteousness." And Isaiah xlv. 24 — " In the Lord have 
 I righteousness and strength:" and Ixi. 10. — "He hath clothed 
 me with tiie garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the 
 robe of righteousness," Rev. xix. 8. — " To the Church was granted, 
 that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white ; for the 
 fine linen is the righteousness of the saints." But I waste words. 
 Let me only here touch the objection drawn from two Scriptures. 
 Rom. V. 9. " Much more being justified by his blood :" hence it 
 has been supposed that atonement, or redemption, is the same as 
 justification. Or in other words, that it is Christ's death, and not 
 his life of holy obedience, that justifies us. Cut I reply, that, en 
 to haimali, by his blood, does not necessarily mean the efficacious 
 cause. Yea, it rather marks the instrumental cause ; for there is 
 an ellipsis o^ through faith, as it is in iii. 25, through faith in his 
 blood, diates pisteos en to autou IiMimati ; and marks the medium 
 and instrument. And I admit that the atonement or satisfaction 
 by death, (which, properly speaking, secures pardon,) is indispen- 
 sably necessary to the justification of a sinner; inasmuch as with- 
 out it, the righteousness, or active obedien^e^ which is the proper 
 title to life, cannot be available to him. 
 
 The other passage is Phil. ii. 8. — " he humbled himself and be- 
 came obedient unto death." Here brother Barnes has been car- 
 ried away by the English translation. He thinks this an evidence 
 (p. 127) that Christ's obedience is suffering death — that death is 
 that to which he paid subjection. But the sense is, he became, 
 or rather simply he was submissive (hupekoos mechri thanaton) 
 until death — submissive, that is, to the law of God in all things, 
 until active obedience was finished : and this the word properly 
 signifies, and so is it generally translated in the New Testament. 
 
 Now, Mr. Barnes denies that God's people are righteous in the 
 eye of the lavv^ the active obedience of Christ being imputed to 
 tliem. " It is not that his righteousness becomes oursy This is 
 not true; and there is no intelligible sense in which that can be 
 understood.;" This is so explicit as to preclude comment. How 
 different this from Luther's language to his friend Spenlein; speak- 
 ing of Christ he says, " Ipse suscepit te et peccata tua fecit sua, 
 et suam justitiam fecit tuam ; maledictus qui hsp^ non credit." 
 Epist. An. 1516, torn. 1. Justifi. 28. That is, " He himself has 
 taken you. and made your sins hisown, and has inade his own 
 righteousness yours ; cursed be the man who does not believe it." 
 And Augustine to the same effect — *' he made our sins to be his, 
 that he might make Jiis righteousness to be ours." P. 27. 
 
 Under proof 2, he affirms that men are " regarded and treated 
 as if they had kept the law," but he carefully avoids the admis- 
 sion of Christ's righteousness passing over in law to their account 
 and constituting the ground of their justification. They are not 
 righteous at all, in any sense ; but only treated as if righteous. 
 
130 
 
 The idea of their having in their living Surety a right and title 
 to a sentence of justification he rejects. Their acceptance " must 
 be mere favour, and as a matter, not of right, but of gift." The 
 believer in Jesus has no right to heaven — did I not say truly — 
 this brother's doctrine, if true, u'ould render it impossible for the 
 believer " to read his title clear to mansions in the skies !" 
 
 Proof 3. Here again the idea of a title to heaven flowing from 
 union with Jesus is rejected. " Not as if they had a claim" — " if 
 the doctrine of Scripture was, that the entire righteougnrss of 
 Christ was set over to them, was really and truly theirs, and was 
 transferred to them in any sense, with what propriety could the 
 apostle say, that God justified the ungodly?" We cannot misun- 
 derstand this. Christ's righteousness is not transferred in any 
 sense to his believing people — it is not set over to them in law — 
 it is not theirs. His meaning is unequivocally certain by the rea- 
 son which supports it, viz. the old, standing, Socinian objection — 
 I say it with grief and mortification — that if the believer hath in 
 Christ a title, right, or claim to the highest rewards of heaven, 
 then there is no grace in the gospel. Purchased grace ! what an 
 absurdity ! 
 
 Proof 4. Turn back to the quotation from p. 127. There is the 
 whole comment on the phrase " By the obedience of one." On 
 which a real Calvinistic Presbyterian would have given his heart 
 full flow and let his pen run rampant. But there you have it, 
 text and comment, in five brief lines. Now I ask why this bre- 
 vity? Why is that by which many are made righteous, dismissed 
 thus cavalierly ■? Why is this, which he admits stands opposed 
 to the disobedience of Adam, hurried out of sight? If it stands 
 opposed, is it not the opposite of Adam's disobedience? And what 
 is the opposite of disobedience? is it not obedience? and what is 
 disobedience but want of conformity with law? Must not then the 
 obedience which is the opposite of this be conformity with law? — 
 active compliance ! Oh ! how could my brother shut his eyes against 
 this most glorious point of gospel truth? — a point on which all the 
 bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness converge to a focus, that 
 might make the eye of an archangel blench, and shrivel like a 
 parched scroll, the entire legions of lost spirits who can never say 
 through grace, " The Lord is my righteousness." 
 
 But so it is. Admitting the truth that the obedience of the one 
 is Christ's, and that it includes his entire work, he tries to turn 
 it off, by quoting Phil. ii. 3. " He — became obedient unto deatli" 
 — italicising obedient to make the reader think that all Christ's 
 work consisted in suffering. Ah ! this Parthian arrow is not me- 
 dicated with Presbyterian oil. 
 
 On the last quotation, p. 2P2, I have only to remark, that being 
 a comment on chap. x. iii. — "they b'ing ignorant of God's right- 
 eousness, and going about to establish their own righteousin^ss" — 
 it is very strange, that a commentator should say (and expect his 
 reader to believe him,) that, " Here God's plan stands opi^osod to 
 
131 
 
 their efforts" — " God's plan" — what a phrase ! the word plan is not 
 in the Bible, and I doubt whether a single man who ever read 
 this book of Notes, knows what the phrase God^s plan means. 
 Does not the apostle contrast God's or Christ's righteousness and 
 their righteousness? Why should the meaning be hid in an un- 
 scriptural phraseology ? And how could he say "I have uniformly 
 represented the doctrine as near as possible in the language of the 
 Scriptures?" 
 
 But it is time we should look into our standards. Conf. XL {1. 
 " Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justitieth ; 
 not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their 
 sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; 
 not for any thing wrought in them, or done by tliem, but for 
 Christ's sake alone : not by imputing faith itself, the act of believ- 
 ing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteous- 
 ness: but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto 
 them." ^2. "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his 
 righteousness," &c. §3. "Christ, by his obedience and death, did 
 fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did 
 make a proper, real, and full satisfaction, to his Father's justice in 
 their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for 
 them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead," 
 &c. Lar. Cat. 70. "Justification is an act of God's free grace, in 
 w'hich he pardoneth all their sin, accepteth and accounleth their 
 persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, 
 or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satis- 
 faction of (Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith 
 alone." See also 71 and 72, and Short. Cat. 33. 
 
 You will see, 1 — That the satisfaction rendered by Christ's 
 death, is uniformly distinguished from the obedience, or active 
 righteousness — " the obedience and satisfaction of Christ" — " his 
 obedience and deatii" — "his obedience and satisfaction" — " perfect 
 obedience, and full satisfaction" — "by his obedience and death." 
 And this is according to the nature of the case; for the preceptive 
 and penal claims of law are entirely distinct. Now, in perfect ac- 
 cordance with this distinction, observe, 2 — The obedience, as well 
 as the satisfaction, the life, or active righteousness, as well as the 
 death, in its efficacy to make satisfaction, are imputed to his peo- 
 ple; "the perfect obedience and full satisfaction, by God imputed 
 to them" — "imputing his righteousness to them." 3. The result 
 of God's imputing Christ's satisfaction, his death, to them is, that 
 they are free from the penal claim of law ; it has its satisfaction; 
 and thus Jesus hath a right to their release — pardon he has freely 
 to bestow : " he pardoneth all their sin" — " by pardoning their 
 sin." 4. The result of imputing Christ's obedience, his righteous- 
 ness, to them is, they are, not simply " treated as if righteous," as 
 brother Barnes says, but accounted^ righteous; the righteousness 
 of Christ is theirs — they have received it, and it is set down to 
 their account — he " accepteth and accounteth their persons righ- 
 
i;j2 
 
 teous in his siglit." Contraries never can agree ; this and the 
 "Notes" can never he reconciled. 
 
 On the ♦* Defence'' here I have little to say. The first three 
 observations are assertions that he has not denied, that the benefits 
 of Christ's works are imputed; that his active obedience is im- 
 puted ; that his people are riorhteous in the sight of the law. Now 
 I leave yon to judge whether I have not most incontestably proved 
 the opposite of the last two. As to the first, he does say, the bene- 
 fits are imputed; i. e. what he calls the benefits; but he assured- 
 ly excludes the glorious benefit of a title, a rights to heavenly joys, 
 as given to us in the imputation of the Saviour's righteousness to 
 us. And as to the third, he never admits that believers are right- 
 eous, by Christ's righteousness becoming, theirs ; it is not set over 
 to them — it is not transferred to them in any case. 
 
 His fourth observation, and summing up of the whole, is a repeti- 
 tion, and contains intrinsic and express evidence of the truth and jus- 
 tice of the whole charge. Paul, according to what is here said,, is not 
 rig-hteous — Jesus Christ's righteousness is not reckoned to Paul- 
 it is not his in any sense — he is treated as ?/ righteous — Christ 
 died in Paul's place, but he did not suffer the punishment due to 
 Paul — the penal chmn has never been liquidated; and although 
 in terms he says, "justice has been satisfied," yet his whole sys- 
 tem denies it. Nothing can be more explicitly asserted, than his 
 doctrine, that the sufferings of Christ were not penal — were not 
 punishment. Now it was penal suffering that the law required of 
 Paul, and this requisition has never been met, according to Mr. 
 Barnes. Justice, therefore, is not satisfied. In fact, it is very 
 nearly in terms a contradiction, to say that justice has any claim 
 of suffering, and yet that the suffering claimed is not penal. How 
 could the sufferings of Jesus satisfy the claims of justice against 
 Paul, if, as Mr. Barnes abundantly maintains, his sins were not le- 
 gally imputed to Christ, and the punishment of them inflicted upon 
 him 7 If it was not legally right — if there was not a proper, legal 
 claim of suffering against Jesus — if he was not in justice and in 
 laio bound, anrl liable tosuffer, was it right for God to put that cup 
 into his hand \ Or would not that be the definition of oppression, 
 injustice, and cruelty? 
 
 Proceed we to the Xth Charge, viz: Mr. Barnes also teaches, 
 in opposition to the standards, that "justification is simply pardon." 
 
 Proof 1. pp. 28, 29. (already quoted, p. 17,) " The phrase righte- 
 ousness of God is equivalent to GoiVs plan of jiistifi/ing wen ; 
 his scheme of declaring them just in the sight of the Into or of 
 acquitting them from punishment^ and admitting them to favour^ 
 
 2. " In regard to this plan, il may be observed (4) It is not that 
 his righteousness becomes ours. This is not true ; and there is 
 no intelligible sense in which that can be understood. But it is 
 God's plan for pardoning sin, and for treating us as if we had not 
 committed it." 
 
 3. p. 110. " Being now justified. Pardoned ; accepted as his 
 friends. 
 
133 
 
 4. p. 124. Unto justification. The work of Christ is designed 
 to have reference to many offences, so as to produce pardon or 
 justification in regard to them all," The comment on chap. v. 
 19. — "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, 
 so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous," is thus 
 summed up, p. 127, 128: "The sense of the verse is this: 'As 
 in consequence of the sin of one, the many became sinners, with- 
 out explaining the mode in which it is done; so the many became 
 righteous in the mode and on the terms which are explained"! 
 Righteous. Justified. Free from condemnation.' " 
 
 5. p. 182. "/if is God that justifieth. That is, who has par- 
 doned them, and admitted them to his favour; and pronounced 
 them just in his sight." 
 
 6. p. 217. " The moment a sinner believes^ therefore, he is jus- 
 tified ; his sins are pardoned; and he is introduced into the favour 
 of God." 
 
 Pardon is a release from obligation to suffer punishment. No 
 man can be pardoned until after he is guilty. He must be in a 
 state of condemnation to whom pardon is extended. And in this 
 state all human beings are by nature "bound over to the wrath 
 of God." Pardon is the release of this obligation. A pardoned 
 man cannot be again brought under obligation to wrath for the 
 same offence. That is mere respite; but pardon is an act of the 
 sovereignty, wherein a pledge of law and truth is given, that the 
 offender shall never be punished for that sin. 
 
 Now that Mr. Barnes makes the whole of justification consist in 
 pardon, forgiveness> remission of sins, is just as true as the asser- 
 tion I made in the ninth charge. For if he rejects, as I suppose is 
 proved, the active obedience of Christ, of course there is nothing 
 left but pardon. But let us attend to the other proofs in order. 
 
 1. He makes acquitting them from punishment, and admitting 
 them to favour," equivalent to justification. He makes the word to 
 justify to mean "to treat as if innocent, to regard as innocent, to 
 pardon, to forgive." This is the charge in terms. 
 
 2. Here he denies that the righteousness becomes ours, but that 
 it is God's plan for pardoning sin. This is again plain and positive. 
 
 3. Being now justified. "Pardoned; accepted as his friends." 
 In express terms, pardon and justification are made to be synony- 
 mous. 
 
 4. Again,."^pardon or justification" are synonymes. " Righteous. 
 Justified. Free from condemnation." Equally explicit. 
 
 5. It is God that justifieth. That is, " who has pardoned them." 
 There is here a fugitive expression, which seems to admit some- 
 thing more than pardon — " pronounced Xhemjust in his sight." If 
 this were not irreconcileable with the previous representations, it 
 might be admitted as evidence that the active obedience is in- 
 cluded in his idea of justification. But among contradictory witness- 
 es, equally respectable, we must be'determined by the majority. 
 
 6. Here again justification and pardon are terms of equal import 
 
134 
 
 The testimenies quoted and cited under the preceding charge 
 are the same on which I rely here to evince the difference in our 
 standards between justification and pardon. Nor is it necessary 
 to add any further remarks illustrative of their meaning. No man 
 can read them without perceiving that pardon has reference to the 
 penalty of law — it is its remission ; and tliat justification regards 
 the precept and amounts to a declaration on the part of the judge 
 that the person is legally possessed of the righteousness of the 
 law, and is therefore, on the score of justice and right, entitled to 
 the rewards of holy action — of obedience. 
 
 The scriptural sense of this term cannot be determined, but by 
 reference to Scripture : for justification is a modern Latin word, 
 coined to express a particular thought. We must, therefore, look 
 to the original terms of Scripture, if we will have the truth. Dr. 
 Owen, on Justification, p. 110, observes, that " in no place or on 
 any occasion is it [the Hebrew tsadah] used in that congregation 
 wherein it denotes an aciion towards, another, in any other sense, 
 but to absolve, acquit, esteem, declare, pronounce righteous, or to 
 impute righteousness, which is i\ie forensic sense of the word we 
 plead for ;: that is its constant use and signification, nor doth k 
 ever signify to make inherently righteous ; much less to pardon 
 or forgive; so vain is the pretence of some, that justification con- 
 sists only in the pardon of sin, which is not signified by the word 
 in any one place of Scripture." To sustain the truth of his remark, 
 he adduces a great many instances, and explains the only one 
 doubtful case. He then takes up the Greek word, dikaioo, and 
 says, " Neither iis this word used in any good author whateverj 
 to signify the making of a man righteous by any applications tq 
 produce internal righteousness in him: but either to absolve and 
 acquit, to judge, esteem, or pronounce righteous ; or on the con- 
 trary to condemn^ He quotes Suidas, who says, "/f hath two- 
 signijications, to punish and to account righteous^ 
 
 The " defence" suggests three remarks. 1st. The writer seems 
 here, and in many other places to confound innocence and right- 
 eousness. *' God determines to treat him hereafter as a righteous 
 man, or as if he had not sinned." Now, innocence is freedom 
 from guilt — the state and condition of a moral being, who has not 
 tranggres&ed. It is rather a negative than a positive quality or 
 condition. Adam, the moment of his creation was innocent. 
 Righteousness implies positive quality, activity in compliance 
 with law; and if the law prescribed a course of action and pro- 
 posed a reward, the compliance must cover the whole course — 
 the obedience must be entire and positive, in order to its being 
 entitled to the reward. Adam had rectitude of nature, and was 
 innocent, but he was not righteous — he had not that positive obe- 
 dience to which life was promised. Justification is the judge's 
 declaration that a man has this, and is justly entitled to the stipu- 
 lated reward. This all truly-regenerated persons — real be- 
 lievers, have in Christ Jesus their surety and friend, and God the 
 Father declares the fact — he justifies them. The second remark 
 
135 
 
 19^ that justificatioh is an act. It is done at once, and henceforth, 
 and for ever, the justified man remains bo. TJie act of justificai* 
 tion may be spoken of again and again ; and the sinner will be in 
 the greatt^day pronounced just. But the act of justification is an 
 eternal act, it is once andjor ever. Not so pardon to men. This 
 is repeated and repeated ; not indeed in reference to the same 
 sin. But as men in this state are perpetually failing and offend- 
 ing, they as perpetually are suing for and receiving forgiveness. 
 
 My third remark is, that in the very defence, he gives evidence 
 of the truth of the charge. The very concluding sentence proves 
 it. "In the very passages adduced by the prosecutor on this 
 charge, I have taught that God admits the sinner to favour, and 
 treats him as if he had not sinned, or were righteous." Here is 
 a reiteration of the very error charged, viz. that not sinning and 
 righteousness are the same thing. Why did he not affirm that 
 God accounts the believer righteous, because of " the righteous- 
 ness of Christ imputed to him, and received by faith alone 1" 
 Simply because it is opposed to his views : he does not believe 
 that his righteousness becomes ours, in any sense. 
 
 And now, Mr. Moderator, we are through the protracted argu- 
 ment of this important case. It has been long* and laborious : and 
 for the patient attention which has characterised your proceed- 
 ings, since the discussion, I heartily thank you: and from it, I 
 augur favourably as to the results. Yet as the magnitude of its 
 importance rises upon us, you will bear with me a little Ityiger in 
 a few observations, chiefly upon the difficulties in the way of 
 your arriving at a decision equally accordant with truth and 
 charity : the results likely to follow ; and the solemn responsi- 
 bilities that lie upon you. 
 
 The difficulties admit of classification. 1st. Those which 
 exist intrinsically in the nature of the case. 2dly. Those which 
 are extrinsic. And 3d. Such as are thrown in your way by the 
 abilities and skilful arrangements and arguments of the appellant. 
 
 I. Intrinsic. There are two. 1st. The contradictions, at least 
 apparently so, in the book itself You are, I trust, convinced 
 that such do exist; probably you are aware that attempts were 
 made in the Synod of Philadelphia, to perplex the subject by 
 them. It was alleged that if error was taught, the opposing truth 
 was also taught. But now if this were a sufficient defence, 
 would an errOrrst ever be condemned 1 Would not a Wily dis- 
 putant always take care to throw in some terms significant of the 
 true doctrine, for the very purpose of providing a shelter? It 
 must certainly be known to all conversant with the history of 
 these very errors, tliat this has ever been the course of their advo- 
 cates. They have" distinguished themselves by their ability in 
 the use of terms equivocal and therefore capable of an orthodox, 
 as well as a heterodox meaning. In rallying a routed army, and 
 securing their retreat, there is often more generalship displayed 
 than in gaining a victory. The retreat of the ten thousand 
 Greeks, entwined round the brow of Xenophon laurels more 
 
136 
 
 enduring than Caesar gathered on the plains of Pharsalia. The 
 true explanation of these inconsistencies has been already pointed 
 out, viz. that a man trained in the ecclesiastical literature of the 
 Presbyterian church cannot write at all without using somB 
 orthodox terms : a new nomenclature must be introduced for the 
 new doctrine, before the appearance of orthodoxy can entirely J|^^ 
 ibrsake the writings of its advocates. ^ 
 
 The second intrinsic difficulty is in the subject under discussion. 
 Some of their points run near tlie regions of metaphysics ; and 
 men versed in ecclesiastical controversies know, that errorists 
 love to lurk in the mists that hang on the mountain's brow, 
 whence they may descend. Centaur like, make incursions and in- 
 roads upon the peaceful inhabitants of the plain, and vanish away 
 into their metaphysical nebulae. The possibility of being involved 
 in such difficulties, has already been alleged as a reason why our 
 plain, common sense eldership shall not judge in such cases. But 
 this court will, I hope, bear in mind, that the essence of the whole 
 controversy lies in a few leading and plain truths, with which the 
 minds of all Presbyterians are in a good degree familiar. Let us 
 only be guarded against the possibility of being led into the fogs, 
 and we have nothing to fear. 
 
 II. The extrinsic difficulties are much more embarrassing, be- • 
 cause they lie in the spirit of the age. (1.) It rs a spirit of free 
 inquiry ; and this very characteristic, which constitutes the glory 
 of the age, is also in imminent danger of becoming its disgrace and 
 ruin. We think, or seem to think, we cannot give evidence of 
 independent thought, unless we treat with scorn the thoughts 
 and opinions of our fathers. All past ages were bound in mental 
 manacles ; the present is the only age which has burst away 
 from the forms and symbols of cloistered and hooded orthodoxy, 
 and taken a bold and decided stand on the side of mental inde- 
 pendence. What! bind our souls in chains forged in the dark 
 ages at Westminster! Cramp down the elastic spirit of the nine- 
 teenth century within the framework of the Cromwellian age ! ! 
 Yes, Mr. Moderator, this spirit of self-sufficiency, under the spe- 
 cious garb of freedom of opinion, is becoming alarmingly violent; 
 it is assuming a tittle of the features it displayed thirty years ago 
 in France. The most fell of all persecuting spirits is the bigotry 
 of liberalism. And you will find no small difficulty in resisting 
 the violence of popular clamours, if you pursue an even forward 
 course. The whole mass of irreligion is violent against eccle- 
 siastical discipline. The whole meretricious free-thinkers of the 
 day are on the side of error ; and so it always has been. But, (2) 
 you see this in the tendency to the anarchy of popular govern- 
 ment by mobs. Over otir entire country there prevails a power- 
 ful epidemic, attended often with a spasmodic excitability — a kind 
 of moral cholera, that seems to disregard the persons of men, and 
 seize the temperate as well as the intemperate. The state and 
 the church are agitated by it. What is a mob, but an appeal to 
 the fountains of power in the people, immediately ^ and irrespec- 
 
137 
 
 lively of the legitimate organs of action 1 And do we not see the 
 same things attempted in our church ? and in reference to this 
 very case too? What is the publication of a Defence before a 
 word of argument is published on the other side, but an appeal to 
 \he people — io popular feeling ? What mean tliese public con- 
 gregational meetings, to condemn the legitimate actions of the 
 legitimate organs of your church? " Is not this the mob spirit? 
 Now, Mr, Moderator, you must dare this menace, if you mean to 
 be faithful to Zion and her King. (3) But there is a third diffi- 
 culty before you. Money is powerfully corrupting in its influ- 
 ence ; and the present aspect of our church and of the world pre- 
 sents strong temptations to monied men to use the power they 
 have by it, in governing the church. Her charitable institutions, 
 her glory and defence, yet open this door to temptation. If you 
 are stern to the cause of truth, and thereby offend rich and liberal 
 free-thinking Christians, or reputable men of the world, will not 
 your Boards of Education and Missions suffer ? Will not such as 
 are opposed to strict orthodoxy, and to the trammels of creeds and 
 confessions, and to what they are pleased to call ecclesiastical 
 tyranny, set their faces against you, and combine together and 
 put down your Boards and Theological Schools by starvation, or 
 by erecting voluntary associations in the form of Education So- 
 cieties, Missionary Societies, and even Theological Seminaries 1 
 And may you not see the entire business of training and sending 
 forth your ministry, taken out of your hands, by the mere force of 
 money ? This difficulty also will call upon you to brace up your 
 moral nerves for the solemn vote you are soon about to give. 
 
 III. Among the difficulties thrown around you by the skill of 
 the appellant, mSiy be named, (l.)The allegation that the charges 
 are in some instances inferential, and that no man is responsible 
 for the inferences drawn by others from his doctrine. Under the 
 eighth charge, brother Barnes uses this argument, and sustains 
 himself by authority of the Assembly's minutes, vol. V. page 220. 
 And I should not say a word on the doctrine he sets forth here in 
 the name of the Assembly, (because 1 rest nothing upon mere in- 
 ference, in the charges or proof,) had he not made a good deal of 
 it. He thinks that if charges may be brought by inference, no 
 man is safe ; character is dependent upon false logic ; and he calls 
 upon the courts to crush such tyranny. But now, to be calm ; 
 every man is accountable for all legitimate inferences that may 
 be drawn from his language. If, indeed, when he sees the in- 
 ference to be fairly drawn, and denies and rejects the principles 
 and its results, he is of course not chargeable. But, if he hold to 
 the principle or language, from which mischievous consequences 
 follow, he must bear those consequences. If a man utter words that 
 give ground to unavoidable inferences, injurious to the character 
 of his neighbour, he may be prosec4ited for slander; and if so, it 
 is for the jury, not for him to say, whether the inferences are un- 
 avoidable, and the injury must follow. They will never allow 
 him to interpret his own language. If it is capable of an inter- 
 
 ^ 12* 
 
138 
 
 prelation, according to the ordinary meaning and use of termp, 
 which is not injurious, they are bound to put (,n it the most 
 favourable construction. " Charity Ihinketh no evil." But if, on 
 tbe contrary, all the circumstances being considered, they think 
 the words will bear no other construction ; or that the inferences, 
 injurious to his neighbour, will inevitably be drawn by every per- 
 son hearing or reading the language, they will find for the plaintiff. 
 !So, if an author's words are capable of an orthodox meaning, we are 
 bound in charity to put upon them that meaning; but if we can.' 
 not do it, we cannot be bound; the only plain sense of the terms 
 must govern us. This is the sense of tlie Assembly. They never 
 intended that a man's simple assertion, that when he affirmed 
 there are not three persons in the Godhead, he only meant there 
 were not three Gods, shall be received as an evidence that he did 
 not teach Socinian doctrine. Adopt such a rule. Let every man 
 have the right of explaining his own terms, and who will ever be 
 convicted of any error that will bring down censure upon liim 1 
 Would Arius or Pelagius ever thus have been condemned 1 Did 
 not they claim the right of explaining ? And were they allowed 
 it ] The principle which Mr. Barnes contends for, would indeed 
 put an end to all prosecutions for error ; but it would put out for 
 ever the light of the church's testimony against false doctrine. 
 
 2. It doubtless will be expected that I should take some notice 
 farther of the charges made by the author, in the language of his 
 Notes. And certainly, if a man take away the offence, we ought 
 to be satisfied. But you will bear in n)ind, that whilst he has 
 made some real improvements in phraseology, he has also said 
 that he has not changed one sentiment, lie has simply varnished 
 the pill that, in the taking, its bitterness may not be so offensive. 
 You will therefore, certainly, not be influenced in your decision 
 by this consideration. And more especially, because, even if real 
 changes were made, so as to remove every erroneous sentiment 
 f.om the book, still no present statements of his can justly consti- 
 tute any basis for your decision on a question of appeal. Here 
 nothing but the doctrines of the book, as it was originally taken 
 up, can come into view. On this basis afone the judgment of this 
 Assembly must be formed. If you shall find the errors taught in- 
 deed, which are laid in charge, you will say so, by sustaining the 
 d -cisicn of the Synod. Then, after that, you may bear confes- 
 sions and weigh the value of amendments. If Mr. Barnes will 
 th^n come forward and confess the truth, and renounce the errors 
 which you will have condemned, my soul will he glad, and my 
 heart will rejoice. But the question ofris^hf — when you respond 
 to the interrogations, do the proofs adduced by the prosecutor 
 establish his positions — on the question of right and justice, con- 
 cessions have no plea ; forgiveness must follow amendment, and 
 be subsequent to condemnation. So soon as j^/s^/ce has finished 
 1 e ' work, then, and not before, let her retire from the throne, and 
 then, and not till then, let mercy occupy it. And if there shall 
 be any business for her to do, in the name of the great King let 
 
130 
 
 her do it. But let her not attempt to usurp the place of justice, 6e- 
 fore she has finished her work, lest in her bowels of compassion for 
 one, she inflict wounds deep and deadly upon the whole church. 
 
 3. A third serious obstacle in the way of a correct decision is, 
 the allegation of the appellant, that these sentiments were always 
 held and tolerated in the Presbyterian Church. Now, however 
 plausible his defence here, and it is so in a high degree, yet you 
 will observe it contains a severe thrust at the character of the 
 Presbyterian Church. It insinuates that she glories in an ortho- 
 dox creed, but like another body that might be named, winks at a 
 heterodox clergy; that she is friendly to the broad and liberal 
 Christianity, which lets go all the truth in detail, whilst she glo- 
 ries over it in the aggregate. Now, if this insinuation be correct; 
 if such latitude of opinion (under the plausible pretext of free in- 
 quiry,) be allowed, and has been always allowed, that a man may 
 reject the covenants and deny imputation ; that he may hold all 
 the errors proved here, and yet be a good Presbyterian — if such 
 is the deceptive system we are under, then the sooner we shall be 
 torn into shreds the better. Let no union of knaves in the bond 
 of such hypocrisy, be called a Presbyterian churcli. Such never 
 can be a bulwark of truth. But I insist on it that this is a slander. 
 The Presbyterian church has always believed her own doctrines. 
 She has honestly professed them, and zealously maintained them, 
 and is not now prepared to abandon them, and put her light under 
 a bushel. 
 
 4. But fourthly, brother Barnes seems to think that between us 
 there is no substantial difference — the substantial facts of the 
 case he holds, just as I do. It is only a dispute about words ; at 
 most a difficulty in philosophy : And this he has repeated so often, 
 and reiterated with such frequency as satisfies me he really has 
 worked himself into the occasional belief of it. That he wishes 
 you to believe it, I have no doubt. He feels his cause resting 
 tor success in this precise attempt. If he can induce this vene- 
 rable body to think, that these charges relate to minor and com- 
 paratively trifling matters, his point is gained. Gallio will dis- 
 miss the parties, that he may attend to the weightier concerns of 
 his government: such as to determine the exact amount of relative 
 criminailty between A and B, in an assault ; or whether C or D 
 displayed the least or most villany in a trade about lands or houses. 
 
 You must, I am persuaded, have observed that this is Mr. 
 Barnes' main object in his entire defence. We agree, says he, in 
 the substantial facts of the case — there is no difference but in 
 terms and modes of explanation. But now, Mr. Moderator, if this 
 be so; if brother Barnes and those who think with him do sub- 
 stantially agree with the other side ; and if we hold the phraseo- 
 logy and the modes of explanation, which are set forth in the 
 standards, why will our brethren introduce new terms and modes 
 of explanation, to the utter destruction of peace and harmony 1 If 
 we are the weak brethren, who are made to stumble at terms, 
 and are grieved, and injured, and wounded by new phraseology, 
 
140 
 
 which means substantially the same, where is charity 1 Will she 
 insist on the new nomenclature, or the new philosophical expla- 
 nations, when she sees such distractions and heart-burnings are 
 the necessary consequence? Suppose for a moment, there is no 
 substantial difference : then where are our brethren, who have 
 created this logomachy — this war of words ! (For I take it, that 
 no man is so mad and bewildered with new liglit, as to deny that 
 the innovations are from that side of the house.) Are not tliey 
 who deny any substantial difference, and yet persevere in ad- 
 herence to the new terms, guilty of sin in violating the law of 
 love, by wounding the conscience of their weaker brethren? Ilow 
 can they persist in this course which so distracts the peace of 
 Zion ? If they honestly think it is a mere war of words, let our 
 assailants — the man who begun this war, the man who introduced 
 the new and objectionable phraseology — let them take it away. 
 They can do it, according to their own declarations, without any 
 sacrifice of principle. They mean the same thing that we do. 
 Then let them speak the same words. If siZ;/WeZ/t means the 
 same that shibboleth does, why will our brethren rend the church 
 by pronouncing the aspirate ! Is the hissing sound to them a 
 matter of such deep importance, that it must be uttered even at 
 such fearful, expense 1 Ah, Mr. Moderator, if the children of 
 Judah speak half in the language of Ashdod, it is because they 
 have formed nnholy alliances with those who are not friendly to 
 the peace of Jerusalem. There is a substantial difference in the 
 sentiment, or our brethren would not be so unreasonable and so 
 uncharitable as to turn the otherwise peaceful domain of our 
 Zion into an arena of perpetual strife. Oh, no, they yee' that their 
 innovations are worth contending for, for they as honest-hearted 
 men, would not contend for them, at such fearful cost. Had 
 not brother Barnes been allied in sentiment with the New Eng- 
 land Ashdod, he would not speak their language. Had he not 
 found out their riddle, he would not plough with their heifer. 
 Yes, sir, the difference is substantial, it is vital, it is fundamental. 
 Every one of these charges has been proved true. The principal 
 ones, Mr. Barnes expressly admits to be true. He does teach, 
 that mankind are not sinners prior to voluntary action — they are 
 indeed so placed that they will sin so soon as thoy act volunta- 
 rily, — but they are not chargeable with sin until they do so act — 
 2. That Adam was ignorant of law and moral relations. 3. That 
 men do not lie, 6?/ nature, under an insuperable inability to do 
 the will of God, but only they are unwilling, and they can turn 
 as soon as they please. 4. That faith, saving fniih, is an act , 
 of the mind only, and not a holy habit or abiding principle of 
 action, and the act of Abraham's mind itself, not the Messiah's 
 righteousness, but the act of mind was reckoned to him for 
 righteousness. 5. Having represented Adam so ignorant, he 
 denies, of course, that God had made a covenant with him. 
 The whole doctrine of the covenant of works he admits that he 
 does not believe. Adam was not the covenant head and repre- 
 
141 
 
 scnlative of his people. They did not "sin in him and fall with 
 him." No other relation existed hetween him and them, than 
 between a drunkard and his children. Consequently, 6. He 
 denies imputation ; the transfer of legal relations cannot take 
 place in any case, but by the voluntary action of man. Conse- 
 quently, 7. No guilt attaches; there is no liability to punish- 
 ment on account of Adam's sin, until after men voluntarily 
 transgress ; their own act constitutes the only legal connexion 
 with Adam. Th,en, and not before, they are guilty. Conse- 
 quently, as the Bible runs a parallel between the first Adam 
 and the second Adam^ 8. Mr. Barnes denies that Jesus suffered 
 the punishment of his people's sin. He admits (so do Socinus 
 and Crellius,) who could deny it? he admits, indeed, that 
 Christ suffered; that he died for men, and that they are delivered 
 by his satisfaction; but then he peremptorily denies that his 
 sflfferings were ^CTiflZ — he did not endure the proper penaZfy of 
 the law — he was not punished for our sins. Consequently, de- 
 nying the representative character of Adam and Christ, 9, He 
 must deny, and he does deny, the imputation of Christ's righte- 
 ousness to his people, just as he denied the imputation of 
 Adam's sin. They are treated as if righteous; but they are not 
 so. His righteousness is not theirs in law; it never can become 
 so ; no such transfer can take place. And tenth znd lastly, he 
 teaches that justification is simply pardon — pardon bought in- 
 deed ; but bought without paying the only adequate price, viz. 
 the penalty due to his people's sins, and so not bought at all. 
 Such is the system of doctrine taught in these Notes. Now, 
 Mr. Moderator, I do honestly, and in the fear of God, and in 
 love to brother Barnes, declare my belief, that this leads by a 
 straight forward, direct, and short road r6 downright, desolating, 
 damning Socinianism. If this system is true, then I'll be a 
 Unitarian. I'll embrace the deistical system of the perfectabiliiy 
 of human nature, as the easiest mode of escape from all these 
 perplexing theological controversies. This system presents 
 such of its advocates as are gracious men, to my mind like a 
 boat and crew suspended by a cable, a mile and three-eighths in 
 length, from the lower extremity of Grand Island. There they 
 hang on the bellying surface of the mighty river, just over 
 Niagara's roaring cataract and the yawning gulph below — there 
 they hang and row with all their might down stream, and are 
 only prevented from the fearful ruin by the strength of the cable. 
 This cable, Mr. Moderator, is the grace of God, but for which 
 this mistaken crew would speedily make the fearful plunge into 
 the horrible gulf of Socinianism. Now cut this cable, and 
 Where's the crew? Put into this boat men who are not anchored 
 to the throne of God by the very cords of truth which this sys- 
 tem denies, and ihe moment you let them ^o, where are they ? 
 Oh, let us do our duty in endeavours to dissuade our brethren 
 from such mad experiments. If this system pervade our church, 
 where will our children be ? True, if they are bound by tho 
 
142 
 
 coVda of a Saviour's love, they will be saved in despite of their 
 efforts to row themselves over the cataract; But then, why 
 teach them so to labour? Will such a system of error be a 
 likely means of fastening them with such cords 1 Hence i set 
 out, and therefore do I invoke this Assembly to interpose th6 
 salutary discipline of God's house, for the arrest of this system. 
 Let it here meet such a sentence as will deter all to whom your 
 influence extends from such terrible experiments. I repeat it, 
 I have no unkind feeling to gratify. I do most cordially recipro- 
 cate all the benevolent expressions brother Barnes has uttered 
 in the close of his defence. He has greatly won upon the best 
 feelings of my soul, in the progress of this trial. And the mo- 
 ment he shall cease to dig under the foundations of our Zion, 
 and labour to shake the pillars that support the lofty dome, 
 that moment my arms are open to his embrace, and my hand 
 and heart are his, in any warfare he may plan against the ene- 
 mies of her King. 
 
 Now in this thing, Mr. Moderator, my hopes are realised. 
 The Son of God has thrown a solemnity around this discussion 
 of no ordinary character. He has therein taught us that when 
 the church, in her legitimate courts, comes up to the line of 
 duty, and dares to discuss and decide in favour of the truth, she 
 may expect the God of truth to direct her councils. In the 
 Presbytery and in the Synod, (except when efforts were great 
 and violent, and persevering, to prevent the doctrinal discussion) 
 there was perfect harmony and peace. The past hisloty, there- 
 fore, of this case calls upon you, in the language of encourage- 
 ment to meet fairly and decide according to truth on the faie of 
 this system. What ma^ be the 
 
 n. Results is the next general classification of my con- 
 cluding remarks. 1. Upon the original parties in the case. And 
 this particular 1 mention chiefly, to entreat you to leave it out of 
 view entirely in the formation of your opinions on the merits of 
 questions respectively. What is the present prosecutor? — or 
 what is the present appellant 1 Is it not the truth of God, after 
 which you are to seek, and in favour of which, you are to 
 decide? And shall fear, favour, or affection, for either party, 
 have any thing to do with the formation of your judgment! 
 *' God forbid : Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar." 
 *' What is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord ?" (2) Upon 
 yourselves. This too I mention for the same reason. The 
 members of this house have no right to ask how their votes may 
 possibly affect their individual interests, in reference to charac- 
 ter, to worldly business^ to social relations, to personal friend- 
 ships. Nothing of all this, I am persuaded can influence an 
 honest Presbyterian in such an important case: only so far as 
 he may be involved in the general interests of Zion should any 
 man allow his interests to influence his course of action now. 
 If this Assembly decide as the court appealed from decided, 
 they know what they have to expect ; and nothing but a high 
 
143 
 
 sense of duly can sustain under it. (3) To the chu>rch, tba 
 results must be important: and no man can foresee them. She 
 is only in a small degree under your care. Her King is in 
 the midst of her, and she is safe. Yet, // this Assembly shall 
 DECIDE nothing — absolutely woM/;?^ .• then a perpetuity of dis- 
 traction and controversy must follow — turmoil and strife; and 
 floods of error will succeed to floods of error ; discipline is 
 broken down and rule is gone : the world will sneer at our want 
 of nerve, and all sorts and descriptions of errorists will shout 
 peans of victory. For you will observe, that indecision is victory 
 to them. Error is arraigned at your bar; if it be not condemned^ 
 it will of right claim the verdict, and the whole world will 
 grant the award. But if, on the contrary, this Assembly shall 
 DEoipE these great questions: if they shall sustain the deci- 
 sion of the Synod ; then the distractions and controversies 
 wijich have sprung up with these innovations wmU cease in a 
 great degree ; the Spirit of God having thus lifted up the sttind- 
 ard of your constitution against them, the floods of error will 
 fall back broken, though foaming, from the rock, and die away 
 in the murmurs of a peaceful sea: discipline will be restored, 
 and subscriptions to your standards will not be accounted an 
 idle form : the world will stand afar off, awe-siruck at the 
 majesty of truth, and confess that God is in Zion. If this 
 Assembly shall not decide, if some middle course be taken — some 
 compromise — some bartering for pride and consistency of charac- 
 ter : and these distractions in consequence, continue, then it 
 appears plain to me, that many of the best sons of the church, 
 wearied with war, will go off in detail, and find in other denomi^ 
 nations, less agreeable to their judgment in general, that peace 
 which INDECISION of counsel in their own, refuses to give. On 
 the contrary, if you will decide in favour of Truth, and your own 
 standards, a few and but a few will go " out from us, because 
 they are not of us." Their own strong predilections for another 
 system of ecclesiastical government, and another system of doc- 
 trine will lead them to a more upright course : they will formally 
 become, what in reality they are: and we shall have peace 
 within our borders. 
 
 From this would result union in counsel and energy in action. 
 The Presbyterian church would then arise in her strength, and 
 *' come up to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord 
 against the mighty." She would indeed ♦' look forth as the 
 morning; fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an 
 army with banners." (4) To the welfare of our common coun- 
 try; to the cause of general benevolence; and to the world's 
 salvation, the results must be most felicitous. The God of pro- 
 vidence and grace has prepared this church and this country for 
 some great and glorious ends : and in the signs of the limes, we 
 read ilie approach of great eveats. In their production our 
 church, I lionesUy believe, must stand proudly — no, humbly 
 pre-eminent. She has powers for great good, and she is pre- 
 
144 
 
 Daring for it. Let me entreat you, to use the language of the 
 Pittaburgh Memorial — let me entreat you to turn your eye 
 upon the aspect of the world. Lo ! what an inviting field for 
 benevolent enterprise. And is there a body of believers in the 
 whole church militant, invested M'ilh so many of the qualifica- 
 tions to enter it, and gather the rich harvest of glory to our 
 divine Redeemer, as the Presbyterian church 1 The posi- 
 tion of our country points us out — the position of our church 
 points us out — the position of the world points us out — the 
 voice of unborn and unsanctified millions calls us to the 
 conflict. The Lord of Hosts himself has gone down into 
 the plains before us, and chides our long delay. Now we ask, 
 brethren, what causes this delay ? Why, when "the armies of 
 the living God begin to consolidate," and himself gives the 
 Wdlchward, " Truth and Victory'''' — oh, why this delay 1 Ah ! 
 there is division in the camp ! "There be some that trouble 
 us." //i/?oya//o/i distracts our counsels, alienates our affections, 
 turns the sword of brother in upon brother, and the Master's 
 work remains undone. Do you ask, " how shall the evil be 
 remedied?" we reply, "Let this Assembly come up to the 
 work of reform. Let them establish the ancient landmarks of 
 truth. Let ihem unfurl the banner of the constitution." Yes, 
 Mr. Moderator, let your standards mark the centre of your 
 camp — its affections and it? energies, let them all rally round 
 that banner, and you are an invincible host. What a legion of 
 trained bands you could soon pour forth upon the territories of 
 <larkness and death, if it were not for your internal distractions? 
 For the peace of our Zion, then, and the world's welfare, I 
 entreat you to condemn this system of distracting doctrines, and 
 thus to restore peace and union to a torn, and lacerated, and 
 bleeding church. Thus shall the energies expended in doruestic 
 commotions, be directed upon the foes of Zion, and the increment 
 of our power be inversely as the diminution of our numbers. 
 
 in. Solemn indeed are the responsibilities that now rest upon 
 this Assembly. This is to you an hour of no ordinary interest 
 Never, perhaps, has a body of ministers and elders met on thi. 
 continent, to whose acts and doings, so much importance has 
 been attached, and to whom so large a number of the friends 
 and the enemies of truth and order, are looking up with intense 
 anxiety. Never, perhaps has so much ardent supplication 
 ascended to the throne of divine mercy on behalf of any General 
 Assembly. Let a knowledge of this fact encourage you lo 
 faithfulness in the solemn duties of your station. And let us 
 alt bear in mind that there is " a great white throne," b-efore 
 which we must each one, for his own personal and official con- 
 duct, give an account to Hifn, whose eyes are as a flaming fire, 
 and who will rectify all our mistakes, and pronounce a judgment 
 according to tiuth, that shall stand for ever. To you, is now 
 committed the final issue of this case on earth, and to Him in 
 heaven. 
 
 the: end. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 NEW-SCHOOLISM IN THE SEVENTEENTH, COMPARED WITH NEW- 
 SCHOOLISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 The followinsf harmony of affiliated errors, is drawn up 
 chiefly from Dr. Thomas IScott's translation of the official history 
 of the Synod of Dort, held in 1618 — 19 ; in which the Remon- 
 strants or followers of James Arminius were condemned. It is 
 here appended, in the hope that it may assist in convincing- the 
 reader, that there is nothing new under the sun — that new light 
 is old darkness — and that war and error, and truth and peace, are 
 nearly allied. 
 
 I. State of the Belgic churches, 
 prior to the introduction of 
 the new theology. 
 " In the Reformed churches 
 of federated Belgium, how great 
 an agreement had, in the pre- 
 ceding age, flourished, on all 
 the heads of orthodox doctrine, 
 among the pastors and doctors 
 of the Belgic churches; and 
 moreover, how great order and 
 decorum * * * had always been 
 preserved in the government of 
 the same, is too well known to 
 the Christian world, for it to be 
 needful to set it forth in many 
 words. This peace and har- 
 mony of the Belgic churches, 
 lovely (in itself) and most pleas- 
 ing to God and all pious men, 
 certain persons had attempted 
 to disturb, with unbridled vio- 
 lence, but not with great suc- 
 cess ; (persons) who having de- 
 
 13 
 
 State of the American Presby- 
 terian churches, prior to the 
 introduction of the new theo- 
 logy. 
 
 In the Presbyterian churches 
 in this Federated Union, there 
 prevailed a goodly measure of 
 harmony, prior to the introduc- 
 tion of the improved theology. 
 For a time, in our western bor- 
 ders indeed, some disturbances 
 occurred from the rash and 
 hasty admission of men into her 
 ministry, during that first scar- 
 city of ministeis. Efforts were 
 made, and with partial success, 
 to thrust in illiterate men, and 
 men ill grounded in the great 
 doctrines of the Confession. But 
 these were suppressed by ihe 
 timely interposition of the pro- 
 per church courts. A few he- 
 terodox men were cut off", and a 
 considerable number of minis- 
 
146 
 
 APPE>DIX- 
 
 serted popery, but being not 
 yet fully purified from its lea- 
 ven, had passed over into our 
 churches, and had been admit- 
 ted into the ministry in the 
 same, during- that first scarcity 
 of ministers." p. 8. 
 
 These disturbances having 
 been suppressed, '' afterward 
 James Arminius, pastor of the 
 most celebrated church at Am- 
 sterdam, attempted the same 
 thing, with great boldness and 
 enterprise." p. 8... 
 
 lers who had been thus hastily 
 admitted, were excluded, and 
 formed a new body. But the 
 general condition of the church 
 was that of peace and union in 
 the truth. Early in the nine- 
 teenth century, matters took a 
 turn tending towards disorder; 
 but the leaven was kept under, 
 and outward peace and good 
 order prevailed. 
 
 11. Disturbances — their causes — novel doctrines. 
 
 " James Arminius, a man, in- 
 deed, of a more vigorous genius, 
 (excitatioris) but whom nothing 
 pleased except that which com- 
 mended itself by some show of 
 novelty, so that he seemed to 
 disdain those things received 
 into the Reformed churches, 
 even on that very account, that 
 they had been received. * * * 
 Afterwards he began openly to 
 propose and disseminate variojs 
 heterodox opinions nearly relat- 
 ed to the errors of the ancient Pe- 
 lagians, especially in an expla- 
 nation of the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans: but by the vigilance of 
 the venerable Presbytery of 
 that church, his attempts were 
 speedily opposed, lest he should 
 be able to cause those disturb- 
 ances in the church, which he 
 seemed to project." p. 9. 
 
 " Some pastors who were in- 
 timately acquainted with him, 
 gloried that they possessed an 
 entirely new theolofjy. His 
 scholars, having returned home 
 from the university, or having 
 been removed to other univer- 
 sities, petulantly (proterve) in- 
 sulted the Reformed churches, 
 
 That the peace of the Pres.- 
 byterian church is now disturb- 
 ed, will not be disputed. Our 
 ecclesiastical atmosphere is 
 greatly agitated. It may be a 
 profitable question, From what 
 causes T May we not safely in- 
 fer the cause from its effects? 
 If a controversy now exists, and 
 throws the whole community 
 into commotion, and, upon close 
 examination, we find the s«6- 
 ject matter of the controversy 
 identical with principles which 
 are known to have produced, 
 controversy of a similar charac- 
 ter in a distant age, can any 
 reasonable man hesitate to be- 
 lieve in the existence of the 
 same causes'! Assuredly, novel- 
 ties in doctrine and measures 
 are the present causes of pre- 
 sent controversies. " Innova- 
 tion distracts our councils." If 
 Mr. Barnes was content to re- 
 ceive the doctrines of our Con- 
 fession of Faith in their plain, 
 and obvious, and commonly un- 
 derstood sense, the cause of con- 
 troversy, 60 far as he is involved 
 would not exist. If he was 
 content to labour within the 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 147 
 
 by disputing, contradicting- and 
 reviling their doctrine." p. 11. 
 
 On p. 20, Dr. Scott lias this 
 note. " Nothing can be more 
 evident than this fact, that the 
 followers of Arminius aimed to 
 subvert, or exceedingly to mo- 
 dify, the doctrine of the autho- 
 rised writings of the Belgic 
 churches; and that the others 
 wanted no alteration to be made 
 in that doctrine." 
 
 "Finally, very many new 
 things in the government of the 
 churches occur every where in 
 this fbrmular (formula.^ So 
 that from the same, it might 
 appear, that nothing other was 
 proposed by those men, than 
 that they might make p11 things 
 new, not only in doctrine, but in 
 the external government of the 
 church by rites." p. 50. 
 
 * * * They presented a second 
 remonstrance to the Illustrious 
 the States, in which, with in- 
 credible impudence, they endea- 
 vour to remove from themselves 
 the crime of innovation, and to 
 fasten the same on those pas- 
 tors, who most constantly re- 
 mained in the received doctrines 
 of the churches." p. 63. 
 
 " But moreover, because some 
 persons having gone out from 
 among us, * * * * * they have 
 grievously, and altogether dan- 
 gerously, disturbed the Belgic 
 churches, before most flourish- 
 ing, and most united in faiih 
 and love, and in these heads of 
 doctrine, have recalled ancient 
 and pernicious errors, and 
 framed new ones: and publicly 
 and privately, both by word and 
 by writings, have scattered 
 them among the common peo- 
 ple, and have vehemently con- 
 tended for them : have made 
 
 "frame-work" of the Constitu- 
 tion he would find a harmoni- 
 ous co-operation of all true 
 Presbyterians. 
 
 The reader will perceive that 
 novelty and haughty resistance 
 to received opinions, by the in- 
 troduction of ancient Pelagian- 
 ism led to distraction. Nothing 
 can be more evident than this 
 fact, that the brethren of the 
 new school do aim to subvert, 
 or exceedingly to modify the 
 doctrine of the authorised writ- 
 ings of the Presbyterian church, 
 and that the others want no 
 alteration to be made in that 
 doctrine. 
 
 Another point of resemblance 
 is violent attempts now made 
 to misrepresent the orthodox 
 views, e. g. it is strenuously 
 insisted on, that we teach the 
 absurd doctrine of personal iden- 
 tity with Adam. This absurd- 
 ity has been fathered on Ed- 
 wards, with the obvious design, 
 thereby to neutralize his influ- 
 ence in other points. The same 
 is averred in reference to living 
 orthodoxy. We all deny it; 
 but still the opposition say, we 
 do believe it. We challenge 
 the proof, and there is none. 
 Still the calumny is reiterated. 
 
 The reader will also remark 
 that, as the Remonstrants final- 
 ly discovered, that the orthodox 
 were the innovators : so now it 
 is ascertained that the Confes- 
 sion of Faith is semi-Pelagian, 
 (see Beecher's trial.) 
 
 Still another point. The new 
 doctrines find their way to light 
 in a commentary on the Epistle 
 to the Romans. (See Stu- 
 art's Commentary and Barnes' 
 Notes.) 
 
 Let us now attend to the par- 
 
148 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 neither measure nor end of 
 inveigliing against the doc- 
 trine hitherto received in the 
 churches, by enormous calum- 
 nies and reproaches." p. 127. 
 
 ticulars of doctrinal innovation. 
 We shall not find, indeed, a 
 perfect aofreement in the detail ; 
 but it will appear that in the 
 main points, the ancient and the 
 modern new schools are identi- 
 cal. 
 
 Doctrines of the Sijnod of Dort. 
 Original sin. 
 "As all men have sinned in 
 Adam, and have become expos- 
 ed to the curse and eternal 
 .death, God would have done no 
 injustice to any one, if he had 
 determined to leave the whole 
 human race under sin and the 
 .curse, and to condemn them on 
 account of sin." — p. 87. No 
 Presbyterian can be at any loss 
 to see here the precise doctrine 
 of his own church. 
 
 Errorists condemned by them. 
 The Synod condemned all 
 who teach that ' All men are 
 taken into a state of reconcilia- 
 tion and the grace of the cove- 
 nant ; so that no one, on account 
 of original sin, is liable to dam- 
 nation or to be damned ; but 
 that all are exempt from the 
 condemnation of sin.' — p. 10-1 
 
 Who teach that ' It cannot 
 properly be said, that original 
 sin suffices of itself for the con- 
 demnation of the whole human 
 race, or the desert of temporal 
 and eternal punishments.' — p. 
 111. To see how much like 
 this is the modern doctrine, see 
 p. 104, of the argument. 
 
 The will. — The ability doctrine. 
 
 " Therefore, all men are con- 
 ceived in sin, and born children 
 of wrath, indisposed (inepti,) to 
 all saving good, propense to 
 .evil, dead in sin, and the slaves 
 of sin ; and without the grace of 
 the regenerating Holy Spirit, 
 they neither are willing nor 
 able to turn to God, to correct 
 their depraved nature, or to 
 dispose themselves to the cor- 
 rection of it." — p. 105. 
 
 " In which manner, (or for 
 which reason,) unless the admi- 
 rable Author of all good should 
 work in us, there could be no 
 hope to man of rising from the 
 all, by that free will, by which, 
 
 Condemned are they " who 
 usurp the distinctions of im- 
 petration and application, that 
 they may instil this opinion into 
 the unwary and inexperienced; 
 that God, as far as pertained to 
 him, had willed to confer equally 
 upon all men, the benefits which 
 are acquired by the death of 
 Christ: and that some rather 
 than others (pra? aliis,) should 
 be partakers of the remission of 
 sins and eternal life, this discri- 
 mination depended on their free 
 will, applying to themselves the 
 grace indifferently ofiered." — p. 
 103. 
 
 '* Who teach that ' Man unre- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 149 
 
 when standing', he fell to ruin." 
 p. 110. 
 
 "And that others, who are 
 called by the ministry of the 
 gospel, do come and are con- 
 verted, this is not to be ascribed 
 to man, as if distinguishing- him- 
 self by free will (libero arbitrio) 
 ft-om others, furnished with 
 equal or sufficient grace, (which 
 the proud heresy of Pelagius 
 states,) but to God, who, as he 
 chose his own people in Christ 
 from eternity, so he also effec- 
 tually calls them in time ; gives 
 them repentance and faith." — p. 
 107. 
 
 The reader will here perceive 
 the doctrine of our church as it 
 has been held from the first, and 
 is taught in our Confession. 
 Man has neither the ability nor 
 the will to convert himself. 
 
 generate is neither properly nor 
 totally dead in sins, or destitute 
 of all power for what is spiri- 
 tually good; but that he can 
 hunger and thirst after righte- 
 ousness of life, and offer the sa- 
 crifice of a broken and contrite 
 spirit, which is accepted by 
 God.' "—p. 112. 
 
 " Who teach that 'Grace and 
 free will are partial causes con- 
 curring at the same time to the 
 beginning of conversion ; nor 
 doth grace, in the order of cau- 
 sally, precede the efficacy of the 
 will ; that is, God doth not effec- 
 tually help the will of man to 
 conversion, before the will of 
 man moves and determines it- 
 self.' "—p. 115. 
 
 The reader must see here the 
 old doctrines of Pelagius, re- 
 vived by the Arminians, and 
 now strenuously thrust upon us 
 as new theology. iVlan has the 
 ability; the will only is wanting. 
 
 3. Faith a grace. 
 
 " That some, in time, have 
 faith given to them by God, and 
 others have it not given, pro- 
 ceeds from his eternal decree. 
 For, ' known unto God are all 
 his works, from the beginning 
 of the world.' Acts xv. 18. Eph. 
 i. 11. According to which de- 
 cree, he graciously softens the 
 hearts of the elect, however 
 hard, and he bends them to be- 
 lieve; but the non-elect he 
 bends, in just judgment, to their 
 own perversity and hardness.' " 
 p. 88. 
 
 "Thus, therefore, faith is the 
 gift of God ; not in that it is 
 offered to the will of man by 
 
 Faith an act of the mind. 
 
 " For the proof of this thing, 
 he [Gomarus,] produced his own 
 very Vv'ords, written out from 
 the hand writing of the same 
 Arminius, in which he asserts 
 that in the justification of man 
 before God, the righteousness of 
 Christ is not imputed for righte- 
 ousness ; but that faith itself, or 
 the act of believing (t3, credere,) 
 by the gracious acceptation, 
 (acceptationem, acquittal,) was 
 that our righteousness, by which 
 we are justified before God." 
 p. 23. 
 
 In view of this doctrine the 
 Synod condemn those " Who 
 teach that, ' in the true conver- 
 
 God, but that the thing itself sion of man, there cannot be 
 is conferred on him, inspired, new qualities, habits, or gifts, 
 
 13* 
 
150 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 infused into liim. Not even that 
 God only confers the power of 
 believinn^, but from tlicnce ex- 
 pects the consent, or the act of 
 believing-; bat that he who 
 worketh both to will and to do, 
 vvorketh in man both to will to 
 believe, and to believe itself, 
 (et velle credere et ipsum cre- 
 dere,) and thus he worketh all 
 things in all."— p. 109. 
 
 " In order to give them alone 
 justifying faith, and thereby to 
 lead them to eternal life — that 
 he should confer on them the 
 giftoffaith."— p. 100. 
 
 infused by God into his will ; 
 and so faith, by which we are 
 first converted, and from which 
 we are called the faithful, is not 
 a quality or gift infused by God ; 
 but only an act of man.' " — p. 
 113. 
 
 For proof that this error is 
 part of our new theology, the 
 reader may consult the preced- 
 ing Argument, p. 54, die. where 
 he will see evidence of remark- 
 able coincidence. Mr. Barnes 
 does indeed deny that faith is a 
 work, whilst he affirms it to be 
 " his own act.' Dr. Wilson, 
 however, proves it upon him be- 
 yond cavil. See p. 59. 
 
 4. Faith not a condition of 
 election. 
 
 " This same election is not 
 made from any foreseen faith, 
 obedience of faith, holiness, or 
 any other good quality and dis- 
 position, as a prerequisite cause, 
 or condition in the man who 
 should be elected ; but unto 
 fiith and iinto the obedience of 
 faith, holiness," &c. — p. 89. 
 
 The doctrine condemned in 
 the opposite column is some- 
 times avowed publicly in this 
 nineteenth century. 
 
 Faith a condition oj" election. 
 
 The Synod condemn those 
 " Who teach that * election of 
 individuals to salvation, incom- 
 plete and not peremptory, is 
 made from foreseen faith, re- 
 pentance, and sanctity and piety 
 begun; and, therefore, faith, the 
 obedience of holiness, piety, and 
 perseverance, are not the fruits 
 and effects of immutable elec- 
 tion to glory, but the conditions 
 and causes required before- 
 hand.' "—pp. 95, 96. 
 
 Doctrine of perfect satisfaction 
 maintained. 
 
 Which punishment we 
 
 cannot escape, unless the justice 
 of God be satisfied." 
 
 "2. But as we cannot satisfy it, 
 and deliver ourselves from the 
 wrath of God, God of infinite 
 mercy gave to us his only be- 
 jrotten Son as a Surety, who, 
 lh.it he might make satisfaction 
 for us, was made sin and a curse 
 
 Doctrine of perfect satisfaction 
 denied. 
 
 The Synod condemn those 
 " who teach" that God the Fa- 
 ther destined his own Son unto 
 the death of the cross, without a 
 certain and a definite counsel of 
 saving any one by name (nomi- 
 jiatione,) so that its own neces- 
 sity, utility, and merit oriousness, 
 (dignitas) might be established 
 unimpaired (sarta tecta) to the 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 151 
 
 on the cross for us, or in our 
 stead." 
 
 " 3. This death of the Son of 
 God is a single and most perfect 
 sacrifice for sins ; of infinite va- 
 lue and price, abundantly suffi- 
 cient to expiate the sins of the 
 whole world." 
 
 " 4. Finally, because his 
 
 death was conjoined with the 
 feeling of the wrath and curse 
 of God, which we by our sins 
 liad deserved." P. 99. 
 
 Reader, are not the above the 
 very doctrines of the Presbyte- 
 rian Confession on the points 
 handled] Here mark, 
 
 1. We deserved punishment. 
 
 2. Christ suffered punishment. 
 
 3. Justice required ^er/ecfsa- 
 tisf action. 
 
 4. Christ, by sufifering, per- 
 fectly satisfied justice. 
 
 Punishment, therefore, to the 
 tvhole extent of the law's de- 
 mand against his people, Christ 
 did endure. The doctrine of 
 full satisfaction is here clearly 
 taught. That this is explicitly 
 denied by Mr. Barnes, (and 
 others,) see "Argument," p.ll2. 
 
 In the opposite column, have 
 you not the present new doctrine 
 of an indefinite atonement — an 
 atonement that secures the sal- 
 vation of no one 1 An atonement 
 that " atones God!" 
 
 Will the reader also give at- 
 tention due to Dr. Scott's note? 
 How admirably it suits " our age 
 and land !" 
 
 How great the astonishment 
 and strong the disgust of some at 
 these statements, the public 
 press and the ecclesiastical as- 
 semblies of our church may tes- 
 tify. 
 
 benefit obtained (impetrationi) 
 by the death of Christ, and be 
 perfect in its measures, (nume- 
 ris) and complete and entire, 
 even if the obtained redemption 
 had not, in fact, been applied to 
 any individual." P. 101. 
 
 "3. Who teach that ' Christ, by 
 his satisfaction did not with cer- 
 tainty (certo) merit that very 
 salvation and faith, by which 
 this satisfaction of Christ may be 
 effectually applied unto salva- 
 tion ; but only that he acquired 
 of the Father, pov.er, and a 
 plenary will, of acting anew 
 with men, and of [prescribing 
 whatever new conciitions he 
 willed, the performance of which 
 might depend on the free will of 
 man ; and therefore it might so 
 happen either that none or that 
 all might fulfil them." Now 
 these think far too meanly of the 
 death of Christ; they in no wise 
 acknowledge the principal fruit 
 or benefit, obtained by it, and 
 recall from. hell the Pelagian 
 heresy." P. 102. 
 
 On this Dr. Scott has the fol- 
 lowing note, viz. 
 
 " That so large a body of learn- 
 ed theologians, collected from 
 various churches, should unani- 
 mously, and without hesitation, 
 and in so strong language, de- 
 clare the error here rejected to 
 be the revival of the Pelagian 
 heresy, may indeed astonish and 
 disgust numbers in our age and 
 land, who oppose something, at 
 least, exceedingly like this, 
 against the doctrines called 
 evangelical ; but it should lead 
 them to reflect on the subject, 
 and to pray over it. Are they 
 not, in opposing Calvinism, re- 
 viving and propagating the he- 
 resy of Pelagius 1" 
 
152 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 IV. The Policy, including in some measure the Morality of the 
 
 New Theology. 
 
 In the Seventeenth Century. 
 1. Concealment of views and 
 glosses upon them. 
 
 Arminius was educated at 
 Geneva ; but, renouncing' the 
 doctrines of the school in which 
 he had been educated, he at first 
 " paved the way for himself to 
 this thing [his novelties] by pub- 
 licly and privately extenuating 
 and vehemently attacking, the 
 reputa lion and authority of the 
 most illustrious doctors of the 
 reformation, Calvin, Zanchius, 
 Beza" — p. 9. And Mosheira 
 says, " Arminius taught his sen- 
 timents publicly." But after- 
 wards when about to be intro- 
 duced into the professorship of 
 Theology at Leyden, and " the 
 Presbytery of Amsterdam re- 
 fused to consent to his dismis- 
 sion," he endeavoured to cloak 
 and cover over his- real senti- 
 ments. His dismission was final- 
 ly obtained, "yet upon this con- 
 dition, that a conference being 
 first held with Dr. Francis Go- 
 marus, concerning the principal 
 heads of doctrine, he should re- 
 move from himself all suspicion 
 of heterodoxy by an explicit de- 
 claration of his opinion." 
 
 In this conference " he unre- 
 servedly condemned the princi- 
 pal dogmas of the Pelagians 
 concerning natural grace; the 
 powers of free-will, original sin, 
 the perfection of man in this 
 life, predestination, and the 
 others" — "at the same time he 
 promised, that he would teach 
 nothing which differed from the 
 received doctrines of the church- 
 es." 10. 
 
 In the Nineteenth Century. 
 
 1. Concealment oj" views, and 
 glosses upon them. 
 
 Mr. Birnes was educated at 
 our Geneva. How far he has 
 adhered to the doctrines of 
 Princeton the reader must judge 
 for himself. It is remarkable 
 also that his opmions, most at 
 variance with the standards and 
 the seminary, appeared in their 
 most obnoxious form "in an ex- 
 planation of the epistle to the 
 Romans." Some others have, 
 in like manner, turned their 
 backs upon their teachers, and 
 refused their instructions. 
 
 In the last General Assembly 
 it was incidentally remarked by 
 the present prosecutor, that 
 young men sometimes had gone 
 to Princeton after studying else- 
 where, with the precise design 
 to inoculate with new divinity. 
 This produced some excitement, 
 was denied, and proof demand- 
 ed. The proof was promptly 
 given on the floor, and the evil 
 probably does not now exist. 
 Such conduct needs only to be 
 held up to public view, to secure 
 a just sentence upon it. 
 
 In the conferences held with 
 Mr. Barnes, about the time he 
 was received into the Presbyte- 
 ry of Philadelphia, by members 
 and by a committee of Presby- 
 tery (though he refused to hear 
 them as a committee,) he de- 
 clared, and still declares, that 
 he holds to the doctrines of the 
 church, and is not conscious of 
 teaching any thing materially 
 at variance with them: the 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 153 
 
 " May 6, 7, 1602. In the be- 
 ginn'mg of this [his professor- 
 ship] he endeavoured by every 
 means to avert from himself 
 any suspicion of heterodoxy ; 
 so that he defended by his sup- 
 port and patronage in public dis- 
 putations [October 28,] the doc- 
 trine of the reformed churches, 
 concerning' the satisfaction of 
 Christ, justifying faith, justifica- 
 tion by faith, the perseverance 
 of those who truly believe, the 
 certitude of salvation, the im- 
 perfection of man in this life, 
 and the other heads of doctrine, 
 which he afterwards contradict- 
 ed, and which at this day are 
 opposed by his disciples. (This 
 he did) contrary to his own 
 opinion, as John Arnoldi Corvi- 
 nus [one of his followers] in a 
 certain Dutch writing ingenu- 
 ously confesses." p. 10, 11. 
 
 " But when he had been now 
 engaged in this employment as 
 professor, a year or two, it was 
 detected, that he publicly and 
 privately attacked most of the 
 dogmas received in the reformed 
 churches, called them into doubt 
 and rendered them suspected to 
 his scholars." 11. " Most of the 
 young men coming from the 
 University of Leyden, and the 
 instruction of Arminius, being 
 called to the ministry of the 
 churches, in the examination 
 indeed concealed their opinion 
 by ambiguous methods of speak- 
 ing." p.^ 21. " They added that 
 declaration of their own opinion 
 concerning the same articles, 
 which they under the ambiguous 
 covering of words concealed, 
 that $30 it might appear to the 
 more unskilful not much distant 
 from the truth." p. 36. 
 
 reader of his Notes and of the 
 preceding argument must judge 
 in this case. He will also ob- 
 serve that for some years after 
 the first difficulty, nothing ap- 
 peared to excite alarm and call 
 forth contentions in the churches. 
 Comparatively there was a sup- 
 pression of the obnoxious senti- 
 ments. — It now appears, it was 
 a fire only kept under, not ex- 
 tinguished. We are now told 
 the sentiments have never been 
 changed. They are held now 
 by him as they always were. 
 
 Now the point here, to which 
 the reader's mind is directed is 
 simply this, and the comparison 
 is not meant for Mr. Barnes only 
 but for those in general who 
 hold with him, the inconsistency 
 of these views, and their main- 
 tenance with a profession of ad- 
 herence to the Confession of 
 Faith and Catechisms of our 
 Church. 
 
 If there was no concealment 
 now under ambiguous terms, 
 would the Church be then dis- 
 tracted 1 Is not the fact of re- 
 sistance to the right of examina- 
 tion proof undeniable, that men 
 are afraid to be examined ? Do 
 the orthodox shrink from a full 
 and unreserved exposure of their 
 views? 
 
154 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 2. No difference in fundamentals — public peace and private 
 
 war — delay. 
 
 At the annual meetings of 
 the Synods, reports were usu- 
 ally presented, in which griev- 
 ances, if any existed, were ar- 
 raigned by the Presbyteries. In 
 16U5,the new theolog-y was pre- 
 sented. •' Arminius bore this 
 very grievously, ((cgerrime) 
 and strove with all his power 
 that this grievance should be 
 recalled; which, when he could 
 not obtain, by the assistance of 
 the Curators [Trustees] of the 
 University, he procured a testi- 
 monial from his colleagues, in 
 which it is declared, " That in- 
 deed more things were disputed 
 among the students, than it was 
 agreeable to them ; but that 
 among the professors of sacred 
 theology themselves, as far as 
 it appeared to them, there was 
 no dissention in fundamentals." 
 
 When a committee of the 
 Presbytery waited on Arminius, 
 " in order either that satisfac- 
 tion might be given by him in 
 a friendly conference, or the 
 whole affair might be carried 
 before a lawful Synod. To 
 these (persons) he answered, 
 *' That he himself had never 
 given just cause for these ru- 
 mours; neither did it appear 
 prudent in him to institute any 
 conference with the same per- 
 sons, as deputies, who should 
 make the report concerning the 
 matter, unto the Synod ; but if 
 they would lay aside this cha- 
 racter, (personam,) he would 
 not decline to confer with them, 
 as private pastors, concerning 
 ths doctrine ; on this condition, 
 tht if, perhaps, they should too 
 
 Here you see three points of 
 resemblance between the an- 
 cient and modern policy con- 
 nected with the same doctrines. 
 
 1. Every method is practised 
 to prevent a doctrinal discussion 
 and decision in the proper eccle- 
 siastical bodies. Any kind of 
 discussion was tolerable, but 
 that which might lead to an ec- 
 clesiastical decision on the doc- 
 trinal points. Nor can the 
 reader of the history be at any 
 loss for the reason of this course. 
 They were the groiving- party, 
 and delay was an increase of 
 their strength. Hence, though 
 the fire of new-light broke out 
 in 1602, all the efforts of the 
 orthodox failed of bringing out 
 an ecclesiastical decision until 
 1619. Thus for nearly seven- 
 teen 5'^ears did they baffle and 
 procure delay. 
 
 2. The reader Vvill see an- 
 other point of policy; viz. they 
 regretted the prevalent disputa- 
 tion: it "was not agreeable to 
 them." So now. The very 
 men who have revived these 
 errors, cry out for peace — " let 
 us alone — what have we to do 
 with thee." The art of cre- 
 ating mischief, and imputing it 
 to others, seems inseparable 
 from those errors. A notable 
 instance I here record, as I have 
 not seen it elsewhere recorded. 
 For some ten years, the bre- 
 thren of the Philadelphia Pres- 
 bytery, had met for prayer in 
 Dr. Greert's study, on Monday 
 morning. After the new theo- 
 logy became rife, its advocates 
 drew off, and formed an opposi- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 155 
 
 little agree among themselves, 
 they would report nothing of 
 this to the Synod. As the de- 
 puties judged this to be unjust, 
 and as the solicitude could 
 not be taken away from the 
 churches by a conference of 
 this kind, they departed from 
 him without accomplishing their 
 purpose," p. 12. 
 
 " VVlien they had met to- 
 gether, the Remonstrants re- 
 fused to institute the conference 
 with the other six pastors, 
 as with the deputies of the 
 churches of Holland and West 
 Friezland, such as they showed 
 themselves to be by letters of 
 commission, (Jidei,) but they 
 should seem to be adversaries 
 of the churches ; — unless these 
 would lay aside that character." 
 p. 39. 
 
 3. Braving a trial, and 
 
 " He, (Arminius) neverthe- 
 less persisted in his purpose ; 
 so that he at length exclaim- 
 ed, that he wondered, seeing 
 various rumours of liis errors 
 had gone about through the 
 churches ; and the conflagration 
 excited by him, was said to 
 -ise above the very roofs of the 
 churches; that he yet fou.i:! no 
 
 tion prayer-meeting ; they broke 
 this form of brotherly commu- 
 nion, and yet, the matter was so 
 managed, by some body or no 
 body, that the imj)ression pre- 
 vailed generally, that the old 
 school brethren had refused to 
 pray with the new. So com- 
 pletely did this device succeed, 
 that my brother-in-law. Dr. 
 Dickey, who laboured much to 
 heal the breach, came to me 
 with the deep impression upon 
 his mind that the old school 
 brethren had drawn off and re- 
 fused to pray with the others, 
 and he was exceedingly hurt by 
 it, and upon being correctly in- 
 formed, was exceedingly sur- 
 prised. 
 
 3. One other point. The 
 matters in controversy are non- 
 essentials — " there was no dis- 
 sention in fundamentals." This 
 is now the cry — it is only a 
 dispute about terms — or philo- 
 sophical distinctions — not wor- 
 thy of serious notice. 
 
 Well, if our brethren really 
 believe so, they can easily prove 
 the sincerity of their belief, by 
 abstaining from the use of their 
 terms and distinctions. Does 
 not the perpetuity of their con- 
 tending, prove that they at least 
 think the matters worth con- 
 tending for 1 
 
 then shrinking from it. 
 
 Mr. Barnes in the Presbytery 
 of Philadelphia, invited, time 
 after time, a regular trial. The 
 same has been clamorously 
 called for by others on the same 
 side : a notable case of which 
 bravo occurred in the General 
 Assembly of 1834. But now, 
 vdien their own request is 
 granted — when charges are pre- 
 
156 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 one, who dared to lodge an ac- 
 cusation against liim. Goma- 
 rns, in order to meet this boast- 
 ing, undertook to prove that he 
 had taught such an opinion con- 
 cerning the first article of our 
 faith, namely, concerning the 
 justification of man before God, 
 as was opposed to the word of 
 God, and to the Confession of 
 the Belgic churches." p. 23. 
 
 Yet he was unwilling to meet 
 it, for " When Arminius under- 
 stood this, [that a Synod was 
 about to be called] he procured, 
 through Utenbogardiis, — that 
 the annual Synods themselves — 
 should be deferred." p. 24. 
 
 The orthodox petitioned again 
 for the calling of a Synod [the 
 civil government then held the 
 power to call] (June 23, 1608.) 
 To this petition, tlie Illustrious 
 States declared, that they had 
 determined, in the next Octo- 
 ber, to call together a provincial 
 Synod for this purpose, [viz. to 
 decide these doctrinal disputes.] 
 When this had been made 
 known to the churches, all the 
 pastors attached to Arminius 
 were again admonished, that 
 each of them would lay open to 
 his classis, [Presbytery,] his 
 considerations, that the same 
 might be lawfully carried to the 
 approaching Synod. But they, 
 as before, so now also each of 
 them, dechned this with • one 
 consent, with their accustomed 
 evasions." p. 24, 25. 
 
 sented, behold what patience- 
 exhausting efforts have been 
 made to evade a trial. For the 
 evdence of such efforts you are 
 referred to the Introduction, pp. 
 vi — ix. of this little volume: and 
 also to tiie history of the case» 
 under appeal, before the Synod 
 of Philadelphia — see Minutes, 
 p. 10-19. You are also referred 
 to the Barnes case, as it pre- 
 sented itself before the General 
 Assembly of 1831. What ex- 
 traordinary efforts were then 
 made to evade a decision 1 
 True, some of the orthodox 
 joined in the compromise, which 
 every man now sees was a com- 
 promise, by the temporary sa- 
 crifice of truth ; but then, it 
 was because they could not pro- 
 cure a fair and full decision on 
 the doctrinal points. The men 
 who chiefly ruled in that As- 
 sembly were on the other side, 
 and their weight led to that dis- 
 astrous compromise. Let any 
 candid man ask himself, where- 
 fore this shrinking fromadoctri- 
 nal decision? Can ingenuity, 
 consistently with truth, return 
 any other answer than this .' 
 viz. The new side feel con- 
 scious of departure from the 
 standards of the Presbyterian 
 church, and cannot abide a com- 
 promise, that may result in a 
 legal decision 1 
 
 4. Refusing subscription to the Confession. 
 
 •' The Synod also commanded 
 all the pastors, for the sake of 
 testifying their consent in doc- 
 trine, that they should subscribe 
 the Confession and Catechism 
 
 Parallel to this is the case of 
 the non-subscribing Presbyte- 
 rians in the Synod of the West- 
 ern Reserve, and elsewhere. 
 The General Assembly has 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 157 
 
 of those churches, which, in 
 many classes [presbyteries] had 
 been neglected, and by others 
 refused." 
 
 " The pastors also who had 
 embraced the opinion of Armi- 
 nius, every where in the classes 
 refused to obey the mandate of 
 the Synod, concerning the sub- 
 scription of the Confession and 
 Catechism."— p. 14. 
 
 taken order, and required all 
 her ministers to express their 
 reception of the Confession and 
 Catechisms, by answering the 
 questions prescribed. With this 
 rule and order they have never 
 been able to secure compliance. 
 It is believed that ministers have 
 sat in the Assembly itself who 
 had not adopted the Confession. 
 
 5. Claim for toleration. 
 
 " The remonstrants judged, 
 that no more certain method of 
 concord could be entered on, 
 than a mutual toleration, by 
 which each party might be per- 
 mitted freely to teach and con- 
 tend for his own opinion con- 
 cerning these articles." — p. 46. 
 " Such a toleration," adds Dr. 
 Scott, in a note, " amounted to 
 an entire abolition of the Belgic 
 Confession and Catechism, 
 without any previous interfe- 
 rence of those Synods, classes, 
 and Presbyteries, which were 
 essential to their form of church 
 government." 
 
 No man conversant with 
 church affairs, can be at any loss 
 to tra,ce the resemblance here. 
 In this land is a Constitution 
 forming a visible bond of union 
 — its principles are republican 
 — but many citizens desire other 
 principles, and proceed to create 
 a civil government on monar- 
 chical or aristocratical princi- 
 ples. They appoint their offi- 
 cers, they disseminate their doc- 
 trines, &c. Our government 
 interferes, and they claim free 
 toleration — is it not a free coun- 
 try! " Such a toleration amounts 
 to an entire abolition." Is not 
 this what some desire 1 
 
 6. Misrepresentations of the Orthodox views. 
 
 "In this [their Remonstrance] 
 they placed before them [the 
 civil rulers,] the doctrine of the 
 Reformed churches, concerning 
 the divine predestination, and 
 the perseverence of the saints, 
 unfaithfully (mala fide,) and not 
 without open and atrocious slan- 
 ders, that by this means they 
 might render it odious to the 
 illustrious orders."— -p. 36. 
 
 14 
 
 Similar to this you may find 
 facts at present existing. See 
 the attempt, still persevered in, 
 of representing the old school 
 as teaching the doctrine of a 
 personal identity with Adam — 
 teaching the odious doctrine of 
 fatalism, leading to all the abo- 
 minations of Antinornianism — 
 the doctrine of physical depra- 
 vity — opposition to revivals of 
 
158 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 religion — opposition to the tem- 
 perance reformation, &:c. 
 
 Dr. Scott adds the note, " It 
 seems a sort of right Inj pre- 
 scription to Anti-Calvinists, to 
 misrepresent and bear false wit- 
 ness against the Calvinistic doc- 
 trines, and those who hold 
 them ; I would that no Calvinist 
 had ever imitated them in this 
 respect" 
 
 7. Laxness in religious belief and associations, and in morals. 
 
 " Hence the pastors attached 
 to Arminius began even pub- 
 licly to defame the received 
 doctrine. Among these, a cer- 
 tain person (called) Adolphus 
 Venator, was not the last ; who, 
 besides that he was of too little 
 approved a life, {vitcR minus 
 probatcB,) openly and by no 
 means in a dissembling manner, 
 scattered abroad Pelagian and 
 Socinian errors with incredible 
 impudence, publicly and pri- 
 vately ; for which cause he was 
 suspended from the office of 
 teaching, by the legitimate 
 judgment of the churches of 
 North Holland, and a few other 
 pastors whom he had dravrn 
 over into his opinion." — p. 29. 
 " Yet this man did Arminius 
 take as one of his coadjutors in 
 the convention of the states, to 
 debate before them the points 
 of doctrine." — page 30. " And 
 when the orthodox wished to 
 have him excluded, ' Arminius 
 vehemently struggled against 
 it,' and succeeded." — p. 81. 
 
 After the death of Arminius, 
 (October [19, 1609,) the whole 
 power and influence of his fol- 
 lowers were exerted to procure 
 the appointment as his succes- 
 sor of *' Conrad us Vorstius, a 
 professor of Steinfurt, a man for 
 many years justly suspected by 
 
 Here you will observe, 1. A 
 disregard of the censures of the 
 church, when a party purpose 
 was to be answered. 2. A de- 
 termination to sustain the man, 
 even though immorality was 
 added to error in procuring his 
 suspension. 3. Very serious 
 and alarming errors did not dis- 
 qualify from a professorship of 
 theology, in the opinion of the 
 RemonstranLs. Vorstius was 
 unquestionably a Socinian; and 
 he had before sufficiently let 
 out his poisonous doctrines ; yet 
 they pressed his appointment by 
 all possible means. Is there not 
 here indubitable evidence of 
 elective affinity between the 
 errors set forth above, and the 
 soul-destroying doctrines of So- 
 einus ? 
 
 Now it is not intended here 
 to intimate a disposition on the 
 part of our new school brethren 
 to favour either immorality or 
 Socinianism. I have proved co- 
 incidence of doctrines in some 
 specilic points, and here hold up 
 the beacon of warning. Lax- 
 ness of principle must lead to 
 laxness of practice ; and, there- 
 fore, all error hath an immoral 
 tendency. 
 
 It is perfectly obvious, more- 
 over, that the denial of original 
 sin and imputed righteousness, 
 
APPENDIX. 159 
 
 the Reformed churches of Soci- of itself leads to confidence in 
 
 nianism." — p. 36-46. "To pre- the flesh, and so to immorality, 
 
 vent this, the orthodox laboured And that subscription to a creed 
 
 with all diligence, and king- which is not sincre and true, is 
 
 James I. of England, wrote and a dereliction from correct prin- 
 
 used all his influence against ciple, and may lead to farther 
 
 it." — p. 44. deviations. Let us avoid all 
 
 evil and all appearance of evil. 
 
 Let these cases of coincidence in doctrine and policy be duly 
 considered, and then let the reader ask himself, do they not prove 
 identity of system? Is not the new theology of the nineteenth 
 identically the same with the new theology of the seventeenth 
 century'? It will, I know, be said, that the writer exhibits ano- 
 ther example of tlie policy he condemns. He is endeavouring to 
 excite odium against the brethren on the other side. He denies 
 and disclaims it. He does, indeed, ardently desire to excite 
 odium against the /fl^se doctrines; but simply with a view to their 
 condemnation, as they were condemned by the Synod of Dort, 
 and to the deliverance of his brethren both from the errors and 
 from the policy to which they lead. If such shall be the result, 
 as he fondly hopes, then we shall soon be able to say, " Walk 
 about Zion, and go round about her; tell the towers thereof. 
 Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her palaces, that ye may 
 tell it to the generation following. For this God is our God for 
 ever and ever ; he will be our guide even unto death." 
 
Pnnctton Theological Seminary-Sp«r Library 
 
 1 1012 01145 271 
 
 
 Date Due 
 
 
 ■■illMMrrnwya - — 
 
 
 
 
 PW™*| 
 
 
 
 
 ^UMi^itr^ 
 
 
 
 
 .»i#fV ylTTq- 
 
 'S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f)