we are aware of: they understand the subject as well as we do they know when they are well served and ill servedbut the last sermon I heard from him, I heard with pain; there was a degree of ingenuity in it, but it was applied to twist the word of God. Some of us might have been his father; and, without any great arrogance, I may say, that we had as much divinity as he has before he was born; and we may be allowed to have made some addition to it during the thirty years he has been in the world.

If we

We are far from appealing to the word of God on this ground; it is by the Confession of Faith that we must stand; by it we hold our livings. I might just as well judge of any Act of Parliament, by the speeches made on both sides of the question, as proceed, as Mr. Campbell has done, in referring to the previous Confessions: as well might a minister refer to the decrees of the Council of Trent. can say, that Mr. Campbell's opinions are inconsistent with the Confession of Faith, we must come to a most painful and distressing conclusion; we must hold the doctrine libellous. Mr. Campbell has not to come and tell us now what the Bible says. When the Presbytery of Dumbarton induct ed him into his living, he subscribed the Confession of Faith, with the most august ceremonies of religion; and the parish has a right to have the Scriptures interpreted according to the Confession of Faith. I have no doubt as to the course we ought to pursue, and conclude with finding the libel relevant."

"It will be necessary for me to make but a very few remarks. It is with very great pain that I rise on this occasion. I have had much intercourse with Mr. Campbell, and I regarded him as a dear brother in the Lord; but the tenets he now holds are inconsistent with the Confession of Faith, and with something still higher-that from which it derives its authority-the faithful record of the Amen. I, therefore, hold, that there is no difficulty at all; for I believe, that if any opinions are distinctly condemned by the Standards of our Church, these are of Mr. Campbell's. I have no hesi tation in admitting, that assurance is what a believer may attain to; but I would tremble to say, that no man is a believer but he who has assurance at all times and in all cir

cumstances. As to universal pardon, although I would not say that I would judge of a doctrine by the consequences of the doctrine, yet, from my own observation, I have been led to conclude, that it is tending to break down the defences of morality. I have, therefore, a duty which, as a minister, I must fearlessly discharge. I sit down, Sir, with pain, when I reflect on the time in which I have enjoyed hallowed and blissful intercourse with Mr. Campbell; but the doctrines he now holds are contrary to the Standards of the Church which I have sworn to uphold till the last breath of my existence. I have nothing further to say, but to conclude with finding the libel relevant."

The Rev. Mr. Story, of Roseneath.

After

"At last meeting, Sir, I dissented from the finding of the Reverend Court, on the ground, recorded in your minutes, that it did not contain specifically libellous matter. hearing Mr. Campbell's explanations, I am still of the same opinion. The libel accuses Mr. Campbell of teaching doctrines contrary to the Scriptures and to the Standards; it will, therefore, not do to say, that we have nothing to do with the Scriptures; for I hold that it was, therefore, necessary for Mr. Campbell to prove, that his doctrines were consistent with Scripture. I have been surprised that none of the brethren have adverted to the candour with which he has treated the Presbytery. Instead of putting them to trouble, he has come forward and candidly confessed what he does hold. This should have drawn forth the warmest admiration... Of the nature of that defence, Sir, I was ignorant, until I heard it read this day; and, in justice to Mr. Campbell, I may add, there was not one word of it composed on Thursday last. Had I been his counsellor, I would not have given him such counsel as he has followed. Some of his parishioners have brought a charge against him; as a pastor, it became him to require a specific charge. I, for one, would have listened for hours, had you entered into the matter. I will, therefore, claim what I would willingly have granted to another; for, to say little is to say nothing.

The fundamental question is, does God hate or love his A reverend father, well qualified to speak on this subject, alluded to the subject of reprobation. Is this

creatures.

decisive of God hating his creatures? If so, then I hesitate not to say, that I would renounce the Standards as contrary to the gospel. I say that it is contrary to all natural religion, to say that the infinite mind hates any of its creatures. The question is, has God expressed his love to all his creatures? Is there a man, woman, or child to whom God has not exhibited some kindness? Is there a man here who could venture to say, that there has existed a being to whom God has not shown some kindness? The question then is, what is the kindness God is ever manifesting? And I adopt Dr. Graham's rule of interpretation, that Scripture cannot contradict itself. If God endured with much longsuffering, the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.' Did these vessels of wrath never experience his kindness? I hold that no sinner has a right to exist in the universe of God;I hold that Adam, the moment he sinned, did not merit a moment's existence; why, then, was he permitted to exist, but in virtue of the mediation of Christ? There must, then, be some connexion between Adam and the whole human race-in his body were contained the elements of all future generations; I say more, I say that in him was contained that which entered into the constitution of our Lord's humanity; there, then, is a fundamental point. The question to which am speaking is not, are all men pardoned? but is there any man, woman, or child, that has no connexion with Christ? Is there any one that has merited kindness from God? most unquestionably not. The only channel, then, through which such kindness could flow, is through Christ. I beseech you to observe, that the very existence of Adam, after sinning, depended on the fact that the Son of God should die in his nature.

As it is late, I must refer but shortly to the Standards. If Adam had been dealt with according to his iniquities, what would he have met with? He would have met with no kindness from God. Now, it is a first principle that the Holy Spirit holds communication with the sons of men only through the work of the Lord Jesus Christ; and if his work be limited to the elect, there could be no communication between the Holy Spirit and the non-elect. Now, the Confession is quite explicit on this point, that there are influences of the Spirit exerted on those that are non-elect. (Chap. x. 4.)

Now, you will observe, that I hold this principle described in this portion of the Confession to be identical with the truth that our Saviour has a connexion with all men who have descended from Adam-call it atonement, call it pardon, call it any thing. I will never cease to teach what I know many around me teach, that there is a connexion between every man and Christ; I hold that the very same blood which flows in the veins of the most reprobate-(Mr. Story was here interrupted by the Moderator)-what I mean to say is, that there is a connexion between Christ and every person of Adam's race, which does not exist between him and other races of beings. It must be seen, therefore, that in the explanation given of what Mr. Campbell teaches, I hold that there is nothing contrary to the principles I have laid down, or to the Confession of Faith, which I am ready to declare to be the confession of my faith; for in it you have certainly no contradiction of these principles.

But with regard to the other point libelled, in the major proposition; there is in the libel obviously a misconception as to the assurance of faith. The distinction drawn in the answers to the libel, and in the Confession, is most distinctly that there is a difference between the assurance of faith and the assurance of personal salvation. Mr. C. declared this last to be not so of the essence of faith as to be ever present with the believer, but that an assurance of the object of faith is essential to faith. Now, I hold that this is the doctrine of the Reformed Churches, and of all who are regarded as of authority in these matters. For example, the words of Patrick Hamilton, the martyr, are, They that believe not that their sins are forgiven them for Christ's sake they believe not the gospel." This is strongly recommended by John Knox, who is the channel of its communication to the Church.

66

66

My sure belief that God both may and will save me" is the answer to the question, What is faith, in Melville's Catechism.

What is the right faith? "It is a sure persuasion and stedfast knowledge of God's tender love toward us," &c. Calvin's Catech., Quest. 111th. "A sure persuasion of the heart, that Christ by his death hath taken away our sins," is the answer given to the same question in Davidson's Cate

chism, which was approved of by an Assembly of this Church.

As to the Act of 1720, it is contrary to the constitution of the Church that such an Act should have a power that no other Act of Assembly had. In proof of this I may refer to the opinion of the very highest authorities of the Church on this point, (Mr. Story then quoted the language of Dr. Thomson, Dr. Burns, and of Boston on this subject, who all condemned the Act; which he said they could not have done had it been a law of the Church.)

Seeing, then, that there does exist a connexion between Christ and the children of men previous to their believing," for God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us"-this connexion then must have existed anterior to our believing; there is nothing therefore contained in this charge contrary to any fundamental principle of religion, or to our Standards; seeing that this is the principle laid down in these answers, and also that a man must be assured of what God says, I would, on sitting down, entreat of this house, before coming to any resolution, to investigate the matter more thoroughly.

The Rev. Mr. Sym, of New Kilpatrick.

Every court of judgment must have a law according to which its judgments are pronounced; and the Confession of Faith, according to which I am a minister of this Church, gives me an interpretation of that law. The Church has bound me down to a particular interpretation of the Confession, for I hold that the Act of 1720 is still binding on us bere, after all that has been said; and the remit from the Assembly, 1830, prevents me from going beyond the simple ground that the doctrine of universal pardon, and that assurance is of the essence of faith, are contrary to the Standards. Mr. Story might surely have had more knowledge of church matters than to endeavour to do away with the force of the Act of 1720. He must surely have known the distinction between Acts declaratory and Acts legislative.

In the case of an Act declaratory, it is not essential that it be transmitted to Presbyteries; that of 1720 is of this description, and the ground therefore remains quite unshaken, that this doctrine is contrary to our Standards. It is unnecessary to detain you at this late hour, I beg merely