don. Supposing that universal pardon is entitled to the preeminence that is given to it by the Reverend Appellant, that it is so important that to deny it would be little short of solemn apostasy, then our Church has been unfaithful, and all our distinguished ministers, in ancient and modern times, have been unfaithful stewards of God's word; for what voice has been lifted up to proclaim this tenet of universal pardon, as the doctrine of our Church. How completely have the people been kept in ignorance of this tenet, if it is so important; for, according to the Reverend Appellant the Confession is silent on it, and our people know nothing of it. I marvel that when he said this it did not lead him to infer that he must be wrong in his idea of the light in which our Church regards this doctrine: for, whatever he may think of the ancient Confessions which he brought forward, they are laid aside, in regard to the Church in general. Who among our people thinks of looking at them? Another has been substituted in their place. It is stated, that this new Confession is in nothing contrary to the former Confession, but agreeable to it; and, therefore, no inquiries are made into the former; and, from the one end of Scotland to the other, all the ideas formed, as to the views of our Church, are derived from the Westminster Confession. Is such a state of things, that which would have been permitted to remain had not the Confession been explicit upon every point that it was important for our people to know; ask, Sir, our elders and people, what they think of the doctrine of universal pardon, and they will tell, with scarcely a dissentient voice, that, whatever may be said of it, And they are right, it is not the doctrine of our Church. Sir. Is the Confession silent when it says, "Some men are Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." "The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice ?" Is it silent, Sir, in such expressions as these, and in many others which I might quote? But, to my mind, there is nothing more clear than that which I have read, and which was well commented on at the bar, by members of the Presbytery. In this 6th section of the 3d chapter of the Confession of Faith, we are taught, that the elect of God are appointed unto glory from all eternitythey who are elected, it might have been supposed, would have been kept free from all manner of evil-would be preserved from that common ruin in which the children of Adam are involved;—but we find that they, being fallen in Adam, means are provided for their being brought to glory; for they are redeemed by Christ-they partake of the benefits which God, in his infinite mercy, foreseeing the fall, had secured for them; and neither are any other redeemed by Christ. I will not dwell on explaining the word redemption, on which much stress has been laid, very unnecessarily. I might appeal to all theological writers on the subject for its meaning, and to none more readily than to President Edwards. (Here the Rev. Doctor read an extract from President Edwards' works; but as he did not mention the place from which it was taken, we are unable to give it here.) Now, Sir, according to this explanation of redemption, it is quite manifest that if we apply it to that article, to which I have been alluding, there is a positive exclusion of any but the elect from sharing in the interposition of Christ. But, then, Sir, we are told, that we must explain the Con> fession by a reference to former Confessions, which are very explicit, it is said, in supporting the doctrine of universal pardon. Now, Sir, it is by no means fair to pick out a passage here and there from either these old Standards, or from any work whatever, and hold up the isolated passages, or words, as containing the doctrine referred to, in their detached form, and away from the train of thought in which they were introduced. We have have had too much of this already to-night. I heard with pain, Sir, passages taken from the works of well-known authors, whose sentiments there can be no doubt are opposed to the tenets under review, and these passages held up as supporting the doctrine of universal atonement and pardon. But most of all did I listen with pain to the extracts made from the works of that distinguished individual, whose sudden removal from this world cast a greater gloom over the land than any similar event has ever occasioned, and whose death is a loss of no ordinary kind to our national Church. Sir, considering the very prominent part which he took in the discussion of these very doctrines, and the decided opposition which he gave to them, I must say, that it seemed to me indecent to bring forward any isolated passages from his works, even had the passages quoted been infinitely stronger than they were, in support of these doctrines. I am sure that there was but one feeling of repugnance and scorn at the step which was taken in bringing these passages before you; and sure I am, that the Rev. Gentleman, instead of aiding his cause by this step, took the most effectual means to injure it, by bringing fully into our recollection the able and masterly exposure which he had made of this error, so prevalent among us. 7 Sir, in regard to Scripture, it is unwarrantable to take passages, as I have said these passages were taken-spiritual things must be compared with spiritual things. The meaning of one passage must be illustrated by another—the mean, ing of one word must be discovered by its use somewhere else: and so with regard to the Standards also, we must not take particular sentences here and there, and take them away from the connexion in which they were placed, and then say they exhibit the doctrines of universal pardon and atonement. I shall notice some of those passages which have been taken. The first I notice is that from the Geneva Confession; from which a quotation is made in the answers, at the 58th page. It is there said, "Thus of his free mercy, without compulsion, he offered up himself as the only sacrifice, to purge the sins of all the world." There the sentence stops in the answers; but there the sentence does not stop in the Confession; and had it been prolonged, you would have found that the object of the Confession, here, was only to show the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, and to expose the errors of the Roman Catholic church in regard to the Mass, and not at all to state any thing as to the extent of the atonement, for the words are, "He offered up himself as the only sacrifice to purge the sins of all the world, so that all other sacrifices for sin, are blasphemous, and derogate from the sufficiency hereof." Now, Sir, I find another passage in this Confession, which I beg leave to read to the Synod, article II. "For when through our father Adam's transgression wee were become children of perdition, there was no meanes to bring us from that yoke of sinne and damnation, but onlie Jesus Christ our Lord, who giving us that by grace which was his by nature, made us through faith the children of God." Now, I mark this passage, in order to shew you what Jesus Christ gave. He gave to be ours that which was his by nature, that we may be the children of God. And this is equivalent to deliverance from the yoke of sin and condemnation, and all this is obtained through faith. Now, Sir, can it be supposed that the Confession understands that there is a possibility of deliverance from sin, without that deliverance issuing in our being the children of God. I might say also, from that same Confession, where it speaks of the duties of magistrates, "The society of Christes Church wherein. standeth onlie remission of sinne purchased by Christ's blood, to all them that believe, whether they be Jewes or Gentiles." Can there be a plainer statement than this, that remission of sins stands only in the church of Christ. mak the full satisHere again is the But here is some As to the Confession of 1560, you have a quotation from it on page 58th of the Appellant's Answers. "But yet we avow that he remained the only well-beloved and blessed Sonne of his Father, even in the middest of his anguish and torment quhilk he suffered in bodie and saul to factioun for the sinnes of the people." sufficiency of Christ, and nothing more. thing more, for there is a connecting with the sacrifice of Christ the everlasting purgation and satisfaction which it has purchased-connecting with the death of Christ, not only the removal of a barrier, but blessings infinitely more valuable. This is all the Appellant has taken out of the Confession of 1560. But I think that Confession contains a great deal more in opposition to the doctrine of universal pardon. Here is a passage which should have satisfied the Reverend Appellant that he was wrong in his views. I think it was once read this evening, and I observed that no remark was madę upon it. Now, the whole quotation is the 3d article, which is "Of original sin"-" Be quhilk transgressioun, commonlie called Original sinne, wes the Image of God utterlie defaced in man, and he and his posteritie of nature become enimies to God, slaves to Sathan, and servandis unto sin. In samekle that deith everlasting hes had, and sall have power and dominioun over all that have not been, ar not, or sal not be regenerate from above: quhilk regeneratioun is wrocht be the power of the Holie Gost, working in the hartes of the elect of God, ane assured faith in the promise of God, re |