Quote
Jim_M said:
I thought Albert Barns was about as reformed as they come, ditto the baptist.

Concerning Albert Barnes:

Quote
He held a prominent place in the New School branch of the Presbyterians, to which he adhered on the division of the denomination in 1837; he had been tried (but not convicted) for heresy in 1836, the charge being particularly against the views expressed by him in Notes on Romans (1835) of the imputation of the sin of Adam, original sin and the atonement; the bitterness stirred up by this trial contributed towards widening the breach between the conservative and the progressive elements in the church. He was an eloquent preacher, but his reputation rests chiefly on his expository works, which are said to have had a larger circulation both in Europe and America than any others of their class. (Source: Wikipedia)

His Notes on Romans is not particularly Reformed at all, judging by what you've quoted of it, which is why he was ever tried for heresy to begin with.

As for Peter Pett, whom you call "the baptist," I cannot find any information about him.

Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.