the midst of heaven will cry with a voice which shall echo to ocean's farthest waters, Wake! Isles of the south, your redemption is near, The strength of his chosen in love will appear. ART. VIII.-CASE OF THE REV. MR. BARNES. The way of Salvation, a Sermon by the Rev. ALBERT BARNES. THE case of the Rev. Albert Barnes before the presbytery of Philadelphia, has awakened a painful interest in almost every part of the United States. Believing, as we do, that the treatment which he has received from some truly pious men, has resulted from an undue attachment on their part to certain technical terms and philosophical opinions in theology; and that Mr. Barnes, while he employs other terms and adopts a different system of mental and moral science, agrees with his opponents in all those cardinal doctrines of the gospel, which they are so properly anxious to defend; we hope it will not be thought obtrusive in the Christian Spectator, to offer a few remarks designed to promote a spirit of concession upon minor points, between men who are all devoted to the same great cause of evangelical truth and holiness. If there ever was a period when such an appeal ought not to be made in vain, when the Presbyterian and Congregational churches of our country were called upon, as by a voice from heaven, to lay aside all contentions, and to walk together in mutual forbearance, that period is the present. On the continuance of harmony among these churches, and among the men of influence who control their counsels, are suspended nearly all the momentous interests involved in the operations of the American Bible, and Tract Societies, the Sunday School Union and the Board of Foreign Missions; for it is well known, that nine tenths of all the money and effort devoted to these noble objects of benevolence, are contributed by the churches to which we have alluded above. these churches, too, at the present period, the influences of the Holy Spirit are descending with a power and copiousness, entirely without a parallel since the great revival of religion nearly a century ago; and we need not say, that nothing is so fatal to the continuance of such influences, as party strife and personal animosities between men, who are bound by their profession to walk together in love. We hope, then, it will not be thought unkind or improper to remind those who seem bent on driving Mr. Barnes from the On presbytery of Philadelphia, that they are taking upon themselves a responsibility of no ordinary character; since the principles on which they act, if carried out into full operation, must create a total disruption in the Presbyterian Church throughout the United States, and a consequent sacrifice, to an immense extent, of some of the dearest interests of the Redeemer's kingdom, both at home and abroad. We state the subject thus strongly, because every one, we suppose, understands, that the case of Mr. Barnes is not that of an individual merely. The real question at issue is, whether New-England Calvinism shall any longer be tolerated in the Presbyterian Church of this country. It is well known that a party in that church, and we are far from wishing to impeach their motives,have long witnessed with jealousy and apprehension, the rapid progress of New-England sentiments within the bounds of their communion. At length, as if resolved to try the question under circumstances the most unfavorable to themselves, they have ta ken their stand in the case of a gentleman, whose ministrations were recently followed by one of the greatest revivals of religion ever known in this country; who was called from the former scene of his labors to the city of Philadelphia, by the unanimous choice of one of the oldest and most distinguished churches of our land; and who brought with him from the presbytery to which he previously belonged, the amplest testimonials to his piety and worth, to the soundness of his faith, and the fervor of his zeal in the cause of evangelical religion. As far, then, as the character of the individual, his former standing in the church, and the wishes of his people are concerned, it is impossible to conceive of any case, where an impeachment could be less called for or expected, than the present. The attack on Mr. Barnes is, therefore, a warfare against principles; and the question is now to be decided, whether any and every man may be driven from the Presbyterian Church under the painful imputation of heresy, simply for maintaining opinions in which he is supported by the names of DwIGHT and FULLER; and in which he coincides with the thousand clergy of NewEngland, and more than half that number in the Presbyterian Church itself. In considering this question, it will be proper to advert, for a moment, to the doctrines in which Mr. Barnes and his opponents agree; and then to examine those in which they differ. From the published writings of Mr. Barnes, and, indeed, from the sermon before us, it appears that he agrees with his accusers in maintaining the doctrine of the Trinity, the decrees of God, the entire depravity of man by nature, the vicarious atonement of Christ, and justification through faith in his blood; of regeneration by the direct and special influences of the Holy Spirit, of personal election, of the final perseverance of the saints, and the eternal punishment of all who die impenitent.* The points on which Mr. Barnes differs from his opponents, may be reduced to three. I. He denies the doctrine of LIMITED ATONEMENT; and maintains, that the sacrifice of Christ, was, in its own nature, applicable to every individual of our race. II. He denies the doctrine of PHYSICAL DEPRAVITY, and maintains that man's only inability to perform his duty, consists in an aversion of the will. III. He denies the doctrine of IMPUTATION; and maintains that punishment, in the proper sense of the term, is inflicted by God, solely on the ground of personal ill-desert. On the two first points, our remarks shall be brief. If Mr. Barnes is to be driven from the Presbyterian Church for maintaining, that the atonement is in its nature applicable to all men, and that man's inability consists in an aversion of will, the passages must be pointed out in the Confession of Faith, which condemn these doctrines, and assert the opposite. In respect to the former of these doctrines, Mr. Barnes says, "I may safely challenge any man, to point out the place in the whole book, where it is affirmed, that the work of Christ in its original applicability is necessarily confined to any number or class of men." This challenge has not been met, and never can be. Mr. Barnes however is far from denying that there is a limitation in respect to the atonement. But this limitation belongs not to its applicability, or sufficiency, but to its actual application, by the renewing influence of the Spirit. The following remarks, which he makes in his answer before the Synod of Philadelphia, ought to be entirely satisfactory to every one on this point. To the Redeemer's sufferings and death contemplated apart from the actual purpose to apply his merits, I chose, in accordance with many writers, to apply the word atonement. The actual application of his work, I supposed might be appropriately expressed by the word redemption. It was not thought that this was a departure from scripture usage. The word atonement occurs but once, as applicable to the death of Christ in the new testament; the word redemption often, and this latter word it is supposed *We are aware, that the opponents of Mr. Barnes have charged him with not believing in the doctrine of justification by faith alone, because that doctrine was not distinctly brought forward in his sermon. But surely we are not to look for a whole body of divinity in a single discourse, Besides it is involved in the doctrine, that men are justified solely by grace through the blood of Christ. This is the doctrine of justification by faith insisted on by Paul, as opposed to justification by works. Mr. Barnes in his answer before the Synod of Philadelphia, has given his fullest assent to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. always with reference to the purpose to apply it. It did not seem then to be a gross violation of the scripture usage to describe by the word atonement a thing which may and must be contemplated-the highest and best gift of God-the sufferer, the bleeding victim, the atoning sacrifice; still less can it be seen how this usage can be construed into an offense against the Confession of Faith. In all our standards of doctrine the word atonement never occurs. Nor is it the purpose of the standards to describe the thing which I wished to express by the word-the original independent applicability of the sufferings of Christ. The Confession of Faith states only its application. For that it uses the word redemption. It affirms of that, that it is limited-and was intended to be limited. That the sermon never denied and by what rule the protestants have arraigned me, for using a word not in the Confession of Faith, and in a sense in which I chose to use it in accordance with the best writers; and used in describing a thing which the Confession does not profess to describe but which it in no instance denies; how this can be a grave offense against our standards does not appear. If this is the measure by which justice is to be meted out every where, it will not be difficult to find crimes under the most orthodox exterior, and heresy, where any order of men may have an insatiable thirst to find it. On the second point, viz. that man's only inability consists in aversion of will, Mr. B. appeals to the Confession of Faith, chap. ix. v. 2, 3. "Man in his state of innocency had power to will and to do that which is good and well pleasing to God. Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of WILL, to any spiritual good accompanying salvation, so as a natural man being altogether AVERSE from that which is good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself." On this extract from the Confession, Mr. Barnes makes the following remarks, in his answer before the Synod. In this passage the following things are thought worthy of observation. 1. That here is an express and formal definition of what the framers of the constitution meant by inability. This is the object of the chapter-to explain the state of man since the fall, in reference to obeying the law of God. 2. That they expressly affirm that the difficulty is in THE WILL, "having lost all ability of will."-Nor do they mention any other difficulty or obstacle in the way of man's conversion, but what lies in the will. That is, evidently implying that if the will were right there were no other obstacle; which is the same as saying, in the language of the sermon, that the "only reason why sinners are not converted, is because they will not be." 3. That the effect of the fall is to render them averse to holiness, “being altogether averse from that which is good."-And 4. That this aversion is the definition and guage of man's inability. "Being averse from that which is good, is NOT ABLE," etc. Now they evidently meant to say that man's aversion to holiness was the cause, the measure, and the extent of his inability. Nor is any other cause mentioned. It is true the words unable, inability, etc. are elsewhere used in the Confession. But it is a fair rule of interpretation, that when a word has been expressly and formally defined, it is to be understood elsewhere in the same book subject to the definition. It is certainly possible, that a man reading the word unable in the Con fession, may have learned to suppose that it meant all kinds of inability possible, and having done so, will be likely to charge every man with heresy, who was so unfortunate as to take his view from the place where the word is formally defined. Nor would any reference to the proper place of defining, save from the anethemas of set and formal" protestations." The author of the sermon, supposed that the framers of the Confession were houest men; that when they formally define a word they adhere uniformly to that definition; that when the word occurs in the standard it is to be taken subject to the limitations which they themselves have affixed to it. In the case before us, he supposes that they have formally, in the proper place, defined men's inability as consisting in the will; that it is because man is averse to holiness, that he does not obey God; that this aversion is the measure of his inability. Nor do they ever refer to any other notion of inability than this. And it is believed still, that the true doctrine of the Confession of Faith, as it is of the bible, and the sermon, is that the reason why men do not repent, and believe, is because they will not come to Christ that they might have life. It is not a little remarkable, that the Protestants should have referred to the very passage in the Confession of Faith, which teaches the identical doctrine contained in the sermon; and should then have declared their unwillingness to receive a man who believes it. And it is not less wonderful, that men skilled in cautious and experienced polemics, should have ventured their names on an accusation of heresy, and adventured formal charges of guilt, to be preserved on the records of the Presbytery, for maintaining a doctrine in the very words of the Confession of Faith. To these statements respecting the two first poinst at issue, we see not what answer can be given. In relation to the third point, Mr. Barnes frankly acknowledges that as he understands that formulary, he has departed from the Confession of Faith. The Larger Catechism declares, that "all mankind SINNED in him (Adam) and FELL with him in that first transgression." This is the doctrine of imputation as held by the old Calvinists. The meaning of the passage is perfectly plain. No language can declare more expressly, that Adam's act with its ill-desert, were truly and properly that of his descendants. Now it is well known to the public, that Mr. Barnes is not alone in rejecting this doctrine, as thus understood. We believe there is scarcely an individual in the Presbyterian church who maintains it. It is disclaimed in behalf of Presbyterians by the conductors of the Biblical Repertory; under whom, as professors of the theological seminary of the Presbyterian church, Mr. Barnes received his education for the ministry. They choose indeed to retain the term imputation, but they use it in a sense totally different from that in which Mr. Barnes employed it, when he denied that doctrine. They perfectly agree with him and their NewEngland brethren in declaring that the act and ill-desert of Adam's sin, do not "strictly," "truly," or "properly" belong to his descendWhat difference then remains on this point between Mr. Barnes and New-England men on the one hand, and the respected instructors of the theological seminary of the Presbyterian church on ants. |