It is not satisfactory that the sermon says, that "Christ died in the place of sinners;" that it speaks of "the merits of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ," of "the love of Christ," of "putting on the Lord Jesus Christ," of being "willing to drop into the hands of Jesus, and to be saved by his merit alone," of God, "sprinkling on the

soul the blood of Jesus, and freely pardon

ing all its sins;" since this language may be used, and is actually used by some who explicitly deny, that Christ took the law place of sinners, bore the curse of God's law in their room and stead, and that they are saved only by the imputation to them of his perfect righteousness.

On the whole, the Presbytery express their deep regret, that Mr. Barnes should have preached and published a discourse, so highly objectionable, and so manifestly, in some of its leading points, opposed to the doctrines of the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church; they earnestly recommend to Mr. Barnes, to reconsider and renounce the erroneous matter contained in his printed sermon, as specified in the foregoing decisions of Presbytery: and with a view to afford time to Mr. Barnes for reflection and reconsideration, in reference to the errors

of his sermon, and for opportunity for such of the brethren, as may choose to converse freely with him on the subject, the Presbytery do suspend their final decision on the case, until their next stated meeting."

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

By the first part of the reference the Presbytery expressed, not only that had passed in the case of Mr. a willingness, but a desire, that all Barnes, should repass under the inspection, and receive the approbation, the censure, or the correction of the supreme court of the Church. The parties in the Presbytery had been, through the whole of this unhappy and embarrassing concern, directly and earnestly opposed to each other; and many pages of the minutes were filled with protests and responses, reasoning on the subjects of difference, and each party seeking to establish the correctness of its opinions, and the solidity of the ground on which it rested its acts and proceedings. At first, there was a considerable majority of the Presbytery in favour of Mr. Barnes; but subsequently to his reception and installation, the majority was changed, and became decidedly adverse to his cause and its advocates. It was wished that the principles and do

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

while it had the ascendancy in the Presbytery, should undergo the review of the Assembly. Notice, moreover, of no less than three complaints had been given, which although their details were not known at the time the reference was made, yet it was known that they all related to certain proceedings and decisions of the Presby tery, the true character of which could be learned only from the records. The minutes of the Synod also, in which some of the proceedings of the majority that voted for the reception and installation of Mr. Barnes had been censured, accompanied the other documents. Now, let any impartial mind decide whether, in this reference of the Presbytery, there was not manifested a frank and honourable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

adopted by the Assembly. In this report, it is intimated that "the explanations" given by Mr. Barnes of the "unguarded and objectionable passages" of his sermon, should have satisfied the Presbytery. Now it does seem to us a little marvellous, that the explanations given in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, of the doctrines contained in the Confession of Faith, by the very men who framed the Confession, may be rejected as erroneous, and yet that the explanations of Mr. Barnes and his coadjutor, should be considered as sound and satisfactory. Search the annals of heresy, from the days of Arius, Pelagius, and Socinus, to the present hour, and you shall find invariably, that explanations have protected the hereticks, and baffled the church in her attempts to discipline them, for years in succession. The truth is, that he who preaches and prints a sermon, or publishes an essay, which requires elaborate explanations to reconcile it with the fundamentals of the Christian system, may be set down at once, as a man unsound in the faith, without danger of mistake; and for the justice of this position we again appeal to the history of heresy, in every age of the church. A really orthodox man will very rarely need to make any other explanations than those which accompany his statements; or if he has incautiously said something that is erroneous, he will acknowledge it as soon as it is pointed out; and by an open, candid, and unequivocal avowal of his faith, in regard to what he has misstated, put an end at once to all suspicion and all controversy. Mr. Barnes might long since have done this, if he had been prepared to do it. But has he done any thing like it? We think not. His printed explanations all go to defend and justify what he has said in his sermon. Hence, when we first heard these explanations in the Synod, we said, and

others also said, that the explanations did not remove, but confirm our belief that their author held sentiments in conflict with the standards of our church. He complains of "the little influence which his explanations had on the final sentence" of the Presbytery. The true cause of this little influence we have here assigned.

The Assembly chose to "travel out of the record," in recommending a division of the Presbytery. It is the exclusive prerogative of Synods to divide Presbyteries, and there was no complaint before the Assembly that the Synod of Philadelphia had neglected their duty in this respect. Mr. Bradford indeed had "presented a paper [to the Presbytery] relative to the propriety of requesting Synod to divide Presbytery." This was done at the meeting in April, about a month before the meeting of the Assembly; and the paper "was, on motion, laid on the table until the next stated meeting of the Presbytery." Perhaps this minute of the Presbytery met the eye of some member of the committee; or perhaps information was obtained in some other way, that it would be agreeable to Mr. Barnes and his friends, now that they were no longer a majority, that the Presbytery should be divided: and the Assembly thought proper to let the Synod know what their duty would be, when an application should be made for this purpose. This, if not unconstitutional, was certainly, we think, a very singular proceeding.

With respect to what the committee and the Assembly are pleased to denominate "the abstract points, proposed to the Assembly, for their decision in the reference of the Presbytery," we think the refusal to settle the controversy in regard to these, was, by far, the most objectionable thing in the whole award. These abstract points were no other than

practical principles, on which the Presbytery of Philadelphia had been obliged to act in the case of Mr. Barnes; and that the Presbytery had made a wrong decision in regard to these principles, and in consequence of this, had pursued a wrong course, in nearly the whole of their proceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes, subsequently to his installation, was the basis and the substance of the complaints laid before the Assembly. Other Presbyteries also were divided and thrown into parties, by a difference of opinion among the members, in regard to these practical principles. Yet the Assembly say "if they be answered, they had better be discussed and decided in thesi, separate from the case of Mr. Barnes"-Abstract principles to be discussed in thesi, seems to us somewhat like tautology in language. But the words in thesi here, we suppose are to be interpreted (although we must think it a new version of the terms) to mean that the principles must be discussed "separate from the case of Mr. Barnes." And why separate from the case of Mr. Barnes? If Mr. Barnes was innocent, no decision on abstract points could possibly injure him. Yes, but it was seen that a decision of these abstract points would really implicate either him or the Assembly; and therefore, however important to the peace and order of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, and of several other Presbyteries under the care of the Assembly, it was resolved not to touch them. Was this the performance or the dereliction of duty? Let every reader answer the question for himself.

THE BIBLE, TRACTS, AND MISSIONS.

The three following short articles are taken from the London Evangelical Magazine for October

In the spring of 1829, Timothy, the hawker, called at my house with his wares. My servants, who recommend the Scriptures when ever they have an opportunity, talk ed with this man on the value of the New Testament, and advised him to buy a copy. "Of what use can it be to me," said he, "when I cannot read ?" " Yes, it may be of great service to you. You can car ry it to your lodgings and have it read, or you can send it to your family, some of whom can read it. It will do good. Buy one." The man attended to this advice, and carried the book to his lodgings.

We saw nothing more of this man until autumn, when he returned and earnestly entreated a copy of every kind of book we could give him. "You can form no idea," said he, "of the good that book has done which I had here in the spring. There are more than thirty of us who mess together at the same lodgings, and at the time when I first took home the New Testa ment, these men spent almost every night at the public house, and returned intoxicated; but now the scene is quite altered. Scarcely a man leaves the lodgings in the evening. There are three among us who can read, and they take it by turns, and the others sit around and listen to them. There is no drunkenness in our party now."

Oh, what an interesting scene would this group have presented to the eye of an apostle! Thirty poor villagers collected together from various parts of the coun