and this I hold to be so of the essence of faith, that is to say, so necessarily implied in the existence of true faith, that no person can be regarded as in the belief of God's testimony who is not conscious to it.

It is manifest, that no one can consistently hold, that God has given to every man, in Jesus Christ, all things pertaining to life and godliness, and at the same time not hold the doctrine of the assurance of faith as now stated. In this sense, therefore, I admit that if it be a relevant charge to infer penalties, to hold the doctrine, that assurance is of the essence of faith, and necessary to salvation, then does there lie a just charge against me— -but I do not admit, on the contrary, I distinctly deny, that the doctrine of assurance of faith, now stated, is inconsistent with the truth of God.

I feel more difficulty in arguing this point from the Scriptures than either of the others, because the Scriptures everywhere assume that to believe God's expressed love, and to be assured of it, are the same thing; indeed it would appear a very strange addition to any authoritative declaration of God, to say, that it was not only to be believed, but that we must be certain it is true. I say this, because I have heard it asked how it should be the case that the Scriptures say so little on the subject of assurance, if it be a matter of so much importance. As I understand the record, there is a demand for assurance every time it is said, Thus saith the Lord-but it has naturally arisen from the limitation of the atonement, that, those holding that doctrine, should appear to themselves entitled to distinguish between the certainty of the truth of what God says, and the assurance of his love to themselves personally.-On their views they were so entitled. Those, likewise, who admitting the extent of the atonement, saw not its results, as placing all men under grace, and including them in the same forgiveness, were, upon another ground, led to make the same se

paration; seeing that on their system, no one is entitled to rejoice directly in the revealed love of God, but is ever kept at a distance by the inquiry whether he has, indeed, savingly complied with the conditions required of him. But, though on the one system, the denying that the atonement has been for all, and on the other system the denying that the atonement has accomplished remission of sins for all, have led to separating between the certainty of a truth of God's word, and the certainty of our own personal interest in his love, it is manifest, that where neither of these errors is held, but the true character of the atonement as to its extent and its meaning, is recognised, there can be no indulgence extended to any uncertainty in the individual, as to his personal interest in all the promises of God, revealed to be believed; nor can the darkness, or deadness, or want of enjoyment in God, of any one within hearing of the sound of the gospel, be ascribed to any other cause than the direct disbelief of that which the mouth of the Lord hath spoken. It is obvious, therefore, that with the views of the work of God in Christ, above stated, I must ever seek to make my hearers feel themselves placed between the alternatives of, on the one hand, believing God, and rejoicing in his love, as that of a reconciled Father in Christ; or, on the other, remaining uncertain of God's love to them, through making God a liar-so that I can never allow any place to the distinction" I do not doubt God, I only doubt myself" or any similar expression, by which people have lined out for themselves a middle space between dwelling in the light of God's love, and underlying the condemnation of rejecting God's truth. That imaginary middle space is, alas, but too fearfully crowded with the multitudes of perishing sinners, who are slumbering in the fancied security of their lowly estimate of themselves, and saying peace, peace, to their own souls, on the strange ground, that they are not so presumptuous as to think that they have a certain foundation for peace.

As the doctrine which I hold on the subject of assurance of faith, so necessarily arises out of the other two doctrines, which I have already vindicated from the charge of being contrary to the Holy Scriptures; and as any one who will be satisfied with that vindication will not feel any need of adtional quotations here; and as any one not satisfied with it, can only make an exception in favour of this doctrine of assurance, on ground which I would not take, and do not think to the glory of God, (I refer to what is so often said, that Christ is freely offered, that it is kept secret for whom he died; but that the freeness of the offer is a sufficient foundation for an appropriating act of faith in us,) not desiring, I say, the admission of the doctrine of assurance on any such ground, and wishing rather it should appear, as is the truth, to stand or fall with the doctrines now stated on the subject of atonement and remission of sins, I would close this part of my answer to the libel, with a few words to prevent misconception, on a subject, often confounded with that of assurance of faith, but nevertheless quite distinct from it.

The subject to which I refer, is the assurance of being in a state of salvation; an assurance having reference to the distinction between believers and unbelievers-converted and unconverted-regenerate and unregenerate persons; and the object of which is the fact concerning the individual, that he himself belongs now to the class of saved ones. It is obviously quite a different contemplation, to be beholding the glory of God's holy forgiveness shining in the face of Jesus Christ, and reflecting it back with the response of the Spirit of adoption, crying, Abba, Father, which is the condition of assurance of Faith, from being looking inward on oneself, and comparing the past with the present, and gathering the points of contrast between them, saying to oneself, whereas I was once blind, now I see-whereas I was dead, I now live-whereas I was a

stranger to the commonwealth of Israel, I am now a fellowcitizen with the saints, and of the household of God.

It is no doubt, when abounding in the assurance of faith, that, if the eye turns inwardly, and the thoughts are directed to our own state, we shall also enjoy the assurance of being in a state of salvation; but still the two assurances are distinct in themselves, and I at present feel it to be important to refer to the distinction, because, whilst I hold assurance to be of the essence of faith, I do not hold that the converted person is necessarily always in a condition of assurance as to his being in a state of salvation; inasmuch as I do not hold it to be impossible for a converted person to be, at times, so overcome of the temptations of Satan, causing darkness, through the flesh, as it may be to stand in doubt of the first principles of the oracles of God; and it is manifest that if brought into such darkness, and such unbelief, there must be the interruption to the blessed consciousness of being a child of God, and an heir of glory.

I say, I refer to this subject, although there is no reference to it in the libel, desiring that my views on these subjects, in their relation to each other, should be distinctly understood. If this present recognition of the possibility of interruption of the sense of adoption, be understood, as in any way qualifying what I have already said as to the nature of faith, when it is in exercise, I shall regret it-in my own mind, I see the widest possible distinction between the admission that a regenerate person may, for a time, be so overcome of Satan, as to stand in doubt of that truth which is the anchor of his soul, and in this way lose the consciousness of security-and the assumption, that without any doubt at all of the word of God, and while not hesitating to admit all that is there spoken of Christ-the assumption, that, in such a case, a man may consistently say, that he doubts whether he himself has an interest in the love of God-and I believe, that the mind that draws

E

back from the demand for assurance, and feels it to be some relief to be told that one may be saved without it, will not welcome it as any concession, to have it admitted that, in the way of doubting the direct testimony of God, there may be an occasional season of darkness and uncertainty, from falling into this awful sin.

I have now concluded all that I have felt it expedient, for the present, to say, in reference to the statement that the doctrine of universal atonement and pardon, through the death of Christ, as also, that the doctrine, that assurance is of the essence of faith, and necessary to salvation, are contrary to the Holy Scriptures; and have sought to rest the matter on this ground, that either these expressions are intended to state doctrines which I do not hold, in which case I need not be careful to consider them—or, that assuming them to express what I do hold, the assertion that they contain any thing contrary to Scripture, is untrue, and the libel consequently irrelevant—I trust I have been enabled to be explicit in my statements, and that my brethren are put in a condition to judge me with reference to the substantial truth of what I hold and teach, and not with reference to any ambiguous and unexplained form of words; and I trust also that they will be enabled to judge, unfettered by any previous impressions, which the discussions connected with these views may have made; and if, after all, the distinctions which I have sought to mark, be not sufficiently broad or apparent to strike at once, that they will not withhold that measure of patient consideration, which may be needed to put them in full possession of my meaning.

II. I now proceed to consider the question of relevancy on the several points of doctrine above mentioned, with reference to the Standards of the Church.

To defend any doctrine from the charge of being contrary to the Confession of Faith of any church, differs from