CHAPTER
XXII
BARNES'
FIRST TRIAL
DR. TAYLOR'S Concio ad
Clerum was preached in the chapel of Yale, on the 10th of September, 1828. On
the 8th of February, following, a discourse was delivered, in the Presbyterian
church, in Morristown, New Jersey, which fills a place as important in this
history, as did that of Dr. Taylor, in the annals of New England theology. The
preacher, the Rev. Albert Barnes, was a young pastor, whose earlier years had
been passed under the teachings of the Methodist Church. After passing through
college, he made a profession of religion, and united with the Presbyterian
Church. A few days afterward, he entered Princeton Seminary, as a student of
theology. After entering upon the ministry, he became pastor of the church in
Morristown. Here, in the midst of an awakening, Mr. Barnes preached, from Titus
iii. 4-7, his discourse entitled "The Way of Salvation." In the
following winter, it was published, "at the suggestion, and chiefly at the
expense of a few friends; simply with the hope of giving a. more fixed
impression of the views then expressed." This "prefatory
advertisement" was dated, December 26, 1829, more than ten months
subsequent to the delivery of the discourse; a lapse of time, which, takes with
the manner and avowed motives of the publication, precluded the plea of haste or
inadvertence, as to the sentiments presented.
At this time, the name of
Mr. Barnes was before the people of the First Church in Philadelphia, as
successor to the Rev. Dr. James P. Wilson; who was then in infirm health, and,
shortly afterward, died. This circumstance at once directed attention to the
sermon. The Rev. Wm. M. Eagles published, in the Philadelphian, some strictures,
in which he placed the sermon and the Confession in juxtaposition, and showed
that, on the fundamental points of original sin and the atonement, the two were
irreconcilably at variance. A reply soon appeared, from the pen of Dr. Wilson;
and a discussion of some length ensued, between the reviewer and the defender of
the sermon.
In the mean time, a
congregational meeting was held, in the First Church, and a call voted to Mr.
Barnes. This call was submitted to the Presbytery of Philadelphia, at its stated
meeting, in April; and leave asked to prosecute it, before the Presbytery of
Elizabethtown. In opposition to this request, the venerable Dr. Green urged the
erroneous doctrines of the printed sermon. An attempt was made to preclude any
discussion on that discourse; on the ground that it was equivalent to an
arraignment and trial of Mr. Barnes, for heresy, whilst he was beyond the
jurisdiction of the Presbytery. This motion was, however, rejected, by a vote of
thirty-seven to ten; and the discussion proceeded. The objections urged against
the sermon were, that, whilst it purports to state the way of salvation, no
mention is made of the cardinal doctrine of justification; that the author
contemptuously
rejects the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's first sin; that he intimates
that the first moral taint of the creature is coincident with his first moral
action; that he denies that Christ sustained the penalty of the law; that he
affirms that the atonement had no specific reference to individuals, and secured
the salvation of no man; that he limits the inability of the sinner, to an
indisposition of will; and that he declares his own independence of all
formularies of doctrine; notwithstanding his professed adoption of the
Confession of Faith.
On the part of those who favored the call, there was a studied evasion
of the doctrinal issue. The Rev. Dr. Thomas McAuley, the Rev. Mr. Sanford, Dr.
Ely, and others, admitted, in general terms, that there were some things in the
sermon, equivocal, and some erroneous. But, it was denied that the Presbytery
had any right to inquire into Mr. Barnes' doctrinal views; and much was said of
his excellent character and piety. The cry of "Persecution!" was
raised; and the imprudence, of offending a church so influential and important
as the First, was pointed out. Dr. Green and the Rev. Joshua T. Russell, the
President and Secretary of the Board of Missions, were admonished that the
Board, would suffer, in consequence of the part they took in opposition, a
threat to which the subsequent history gave profound significance.
Upon the question, permission to prosecute the call was granted, by a
vote of twenty-one to twelve. The minority entered a protest, in which
they set forth the errors in doctrine contained in the sermon. To this no reply
was made.
On the 18th of June, following, a special meeting of the Presbytery was
held, "for the purpose of considering the subject of the reception of the
Rev. Mr. Barnes, and to do what may be deemed proper, in his installation."
This meeting was not held in the customary place, but in the lecture-room
of the First church, apparently with a view to exert an influence on the
minority of Presbytery. Upon the presentation of Mr. Barnes' testimonials of
dismission from the Presbytery of Elizabethtown, it was moved that he be
received as a member. After some discussion, Dr. Ely moved, that the motion now
under consideration be postponed: that, before deciding on it, any brother of
the Presbytery, who may deem it necessary, may ask of the Rev. Mr. Barnes such
explanations of his doctrinal views as said brethren may deem necessary."
This motion was rejected.
In the course of the discussion which followed, Mr. Barnes rose, and
proposed to make some explanations of his doctrinal views. This, he said, he was
willing to do, voluntarily, but not in compliance with a demand; which he held
the Presbytery had no right to make.
In making these
explanations, he occupied some five minutes. He acknowledged that his sermon was
defective, through oversight, on the doctrine of justification. And yet, its
theme was, the way of salvation! His further remarks, shed no light on the
questionable passages; but only tended to confirm the conviction that his views
were radically at variance with the Confession.
At another point in the
discussion, Mr. Barnes joined with Dr. Ely, in a proceeding, but little to the
credit of either party. Dr. Ely having constructed a series of ambiguous
statements, on the points at issue; be was authorized by Mr. Barnes to submit
them to the Presbytery, as an exhibition of the faith of the latter. The paper
thus submitted, "with the approbation and signature of Mr. Barnes,"
was couched in the following terms:
That he does believe and
teach,
"1. That God regarded
and treated Adam, in the garden of Eden, not as an insulated individual, but as
the head and father of all his race; so that his trial was a virtual trial of
all his race, and his sentence a virtual sentence on his race.
"2. That, by a divine
constitution, such a relation subsisted between Adam and every one of his
posterity, that his first act of sinning was to secure, and, by acting in this
relation, Adam did secure, the bringing of every descendant of Adam into an
estate of sin and misery, in which it was rendered morally certain that they
would righteously suffer all the evils which God actually brings upon them; and
would, every one of them, so soon as capable of moral agency, commence a course
of sinful moral agency, which would be interrupted by nothing but regeneration.
"3. That there is
SOMETHING, whether it be called, tendency,
disposition, principle, or, depravity,
in man, which renders it certain, as a result from Adam's fall, that the
first moral action, and every subsequent one, of every descendant of Adam, by
natural generation,. will be sinful, until the subject of this depravity is
transformed by the Holy Ghost.
"4. That this depravity
of man is such that no one of our race ever did, or ever will, repent and
receive the Lord Jesus Christ, without being both PERSUADED and, spiritually and
morally, ENABLED by the Holy Ghost so to do.
"5. That all men, in
their native state, possess all the requisite natural faculties for serving God
perfectly but are wholly destitute of that right disposition, or moral nature,
which is requisite to the serving of him acceptably.
"6. That Christ
suffered, in the place and stead of sinners; and that believers are justified,
or judicially declared to be righteous, solely and entirely on account of
Christ's vicarious righteousness, and of his exclusive merits; which, after they
have been given to the believer, are judicially
reckoned, and in this sense IMPUTED to him.
"7. That the doctrine
of justification should have been more distinctly and prominently brought forth,
in his sermon; and that the omission of it was probably owing to this truth,
that he had never any difficulty,
in his own mind, on the subject, and that no
controversy existed, in the place of his former charge, about this all
important doctrine.
"8. That Christ did not
suffer the identical pains, which
sinners would have suffered; and in this
sense he was not punished; but
that, in the stead of sinners, he a divine and human person, suffered for
sinners, that which the wisdom and justice of God deemed an adequate
equivalent, or vicarious suffering, to satisfy divine justice, in the place
of the punishment merited by the ungodly."
It was not until two
years after these proceedings that the "Hawes correspondence" took
place; so that to Dr. Ely, is to be awarded, at least, the palm of originality,
in the device here exhibited. One thing, it clearly demonstrated: that Mr.
Barnes and his friends did not oppose inquiry into his theological sentiments,
so much because of the supposed infringement upon his liberty; for that point
was surrendered by the very presentation of this paper, as, because of the
embarrassing questions which might be proposed, should he be brought under
examination; and the erroneous sentiments which he might, thus be constrained
to avow. It was easy to construct phrases of very specious seeming; if no one
were allowed to ask precisely what the language was meant to convey or conceal.
Dr. Ely's paper was
evidently designed for popular effect; and no doubt served its purpose. To the
theologian, who is at all familiar with the Pelagian controversy; especially, in
its more recent New Haven phases, the creed here exhibited, when interpreted in
the light of the circumstances in which it originated, is an avowal of essential
agreement with the system of the New Haven divines.
After several days'
discussion, Mr. Barnes was received; by a vote of thirty to sixteen.
The Rev. Brogun Hoff then
submitted a paper of charges against him, for unsoundness in the faith, as a bar
to the installation. This paper the moderator pronounced to be out of order; as
being the introduction of new business, at a pro re nata meeting. In this decision, he was sustained by the
house, against an appeal taken by Dr. Ely; who, on this point., sided with the
minority. All obstacles being thus overcome, the requisite arrangements were
made; and, on the 25th of June, Mr. Barnes was installed.
Against these proceedings,
the minority complained to the Synod of Philadelphia. In the Synod, the case
occupied nearly two days of deliberate investigation. In the course of it, a
member put the following question, "Mr. Barnes, it is stated in one of the
answers of. 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, which is
commonly called, original sin.’—Mr. Barnes, do you believe this?" To
which Mr. Barnes replied, "I do not."
The Synod, after a full
hearing of all the parties, including the reading of an elaborate paper, by Mr.
Barnes, decided, by a large majority, to sustain the complaint; condemned the
Presbytery of Philadelphia, for not allowing the examination of Mr. Barnes, in
connection with his printed sermon, previously to his reception ; and referred
the complainants back to the Presbytery, with an injunction to it "to hear
and decide on their objections to the orthodoxy of the sermon of Mr. Barnes, and
to take such order, on the whole subject, as is required by a regard to the
purity of the Church, and its acknowledged doctrines and order."
Such changes had now taken
place, in the Presbytery, that the opposers of the new theology were in a
decided majority. Upon the adjournment of Synod, a system of tactics was
commenced by
the minority, with the design to nullify the decision of Synod and defeat the
majority of Presbytery, over the details of which we draw the veil of silence.
At first, the attempt was
made to carry matters by a surprise movement, at an adjourned meeting, which, as
it happened, was appointed for some purpose, twenty-five hours after the
adjournment of the Synod at Lancaster. This failing, and the subject being made
the occasion of a called meeting, nearly three days were spent in dilatory
motions, designed to preclude all action, unless the Presbytery would surrender
the principle, that it had a right to examine and judge the sermon of Mr.
Barnes, apart from any judicial process against the author. When, at length, the
obstacles thus interposed were overcome, and the Presbytery was about to proceed
to an examination of the sermon, the minority entered a protest, declaring such
a proceeding unconstitutional, and that, if persisted in, "the undersigned
must withdraw from all participation in such proceedings, and complain to the
next General Assembly." In the. sequel, however, it appeared that this
withdrawal merely meant silence on the doctrinal questions, involved in the
discussion. The protesting members claimed, and exercised, freely, the right to
take part in all questions of order; and, in a word, whenever any opportunity
occurred, to embarrass the proceedings. They also asked, and the Presbytery
granted them the right to dissent, protest and complain, against its
proceedings; which, otherwise, they could not have done, as willfully refusing
to take part in them.
As the discussion of the
sermon was about to commence, Mr. Barnes inquired, whether he had a right to
appeal to the Assembly, and thus arrest the proceedings. Being answered in the
negative, he presented a paper, avowing the authorship of the sermon, and
offering himself for trial; either on the ground of common fame, or, upon
charges made by a responsible accuser, or accusers. This request the Presbytery
declined to grant; for reasons which were entered at length on the minutes. Mr.
Barnes, then, asked leave of absence from the remaining sessions. He stated that
he was confident of being able to make such explanations of his sermon as would
satisfy the Presbytery of its entire harmony with the Confession of Faith; but,
that, upon advising with his friends, he had determined not, then, to do it! His
request was granted, at the same time that he was most importunately
entreated, by Dr. Green and others, to remain, and give the explanations, which
he professed himself so able to do, and which were so necessary to the peace of
the Church.
He had, previously, asked
whether he was entitled to vote, upon the questions involved in the examination
of the sermon. This question was answered in the negative, a decision
undoubtedly erroneous; and which was carried, by the votes of his own party,
with a few others, against the prevalent sentiments and votes of the majority.
At length, the Presbytery
was allowed to proceed to examine the sermon, and a paper offered by Dr. Green
was read by paragraphs, amended and adopted. In this paper, the sermon was
charged with errors of a dangerous tendency, on some principal points of
Christian theology; especially, on original sin, the atonement and
justification.
It was now moved by Mr.
Engles, " that Dr. Green, Mr. McCalla, and Mr. Latta, be a committee to
wait on Mr. Barnes, to communicate to him the result of the deliberations of
this Presbytery, in the examination of his sermon, and to converse with him,
freely and affectionately, on the points excepted to, in that sermon; in the
hope and expectation, that the interview will result in removing or diminishing
the difficulties which have arisen in his case; and that they report at the next
meeting of Presbytery."
The minority had been
silent, during the doctrinal discussion. They now resumed activity, and opposed
this motion, as involving a direct insult to Mr. Barnes. It was, however,
adopted by the Presbytery; whereupon the minority gave notice of complaint to
the General Assembly.
The committee took an early opportunity to wait on Mr.
Barnes, at his study, in a body. He received them with courtesy; but refused to,
hold any communication with them, as a committee, on the subject of their
appointment; but said that he was willing to converse with them, individually,
and in a private capacity. After remaining about an hour, they rose to leave;
when he handed them a paper, stating the reasons of his refusal. These were, in
brief, the asserted unconstitutionality of the course of the Presbytery ; and
his unwillingness, by any act, to recognize it as of binding force. '
The committee made report of
these facts and submitted Mr. Barnes' written answer, to Presbytery, at the
stated meeting, in April, 1831. After discussion, it was resolved to refer the
whole case to the General Assembly. The reference was accompanied with
complaints from Mr. Bradford and from the minority against these proceedings. In
the latter paper, the former majority give the following account of the
impropriety of their own action, in refusing to entertain the charges, as a bar
to the installation:
"No sooner had Mr.
Barnes been received by this Presbytery, on the 23d of June, than a paper,
containing formal charges against him, for unsoundness in the faith, and signed
by Ashbel Green, D. D., the Rev. Wm. M. Engles, the Rev. George C. Potts, the
Rev. Alexander Boyd, the Rev. Brogun Hoff, the Rev. A. H. Parker, the Rev.
Charles Williamson, and others, was presented to Presbytery, ‘with a view to
arrest the installation; and it was decided by the Moderator, that the paper
containing the charges could not be admitted, at a special meeting, as the
commencement of a trial; because out of order.' This decision, the undersigned,
of whom the Moderator referred to is one, now judge to have been incorrect;
because that special meeting was called, not only to receive Mr. Barnes, but to transact any business relative to his installation. These charges should have
been constitutionally disposed of, either by declaring them irrelevant, or by
taking the requisite steps for trying Mr. Barnes on the same."
It will be remembered that
these charges were only tabled, as a last resort, in bar of the installation,
after the Presbytery had utterly refused to allow an examination, either of Mr.
Barnes or his sermon. These brethren now acknowledge that the refusal to
entertain those charges was a violation of the rights of the members presenting
them. Yet they now complain to the Assembly, because the brethren thus injured
did not accept of the false position in which, by this confessedly wrongful act
they were placed; and prosecute Mr. Barnes, after installation, upon charges
which, upon the face of them, were seen to have been tabled" with a view to
arrest the installation." Furthermore, these parties complain to the
Assembly against their brethren, for exercising a right of examination,
conferred upon them by a judicial decision of the Synod; against which, if these
complainants felt aggrieved by it, their only proper remedy was in an appeal
from the Synod to the Assembly. Failing of this, they were utterly without a
reasonable pretext for opposing the proceedings of the Presbytery; much more,
for complaint to the Assembly.
If the case was to be decided upon its merits, by the supreme tribunal, the complainants had small prospect of success. Their confidence was based on other grounds; and was not disappointed.
