present-and it will not detain us long-you will find in 1 Tim. iv. 10.

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."

The latter part of this verse is quoted as evidence of what we have denominated a half-salvation. Christ is the Saviour of all men-so as to deliver them by his death from guilt and punishment. But he is in an especial manner the Saviour of them that believe. When they believe, they obtain all the blessings of his purchase. Thus opening their eyes, they behold all the glories of redemption-thus opening their mouths, they are filled with all the good things of God.

How easily are people led away and deceived by a mere sound-particularly when that sound favours their own theory! The language of the Apostle does not refer to Christ at all-nor to his death-nor to his redemption. It refers to God; and it refers to him, not as the justifier of the ungodly, or as the source of spiritual and eternal salvation, but as the God of Providence-on whom his creatures continually depend for sustenance, and protection, and deliverance, and whose kindness they are ever, in one degree or another, experiencing. The Apostle and his brethren in the ministry laboured and toiled much in the cause of the gospel-they were exposed to many re

proaches, to many privations, to many dangers— and had they looked only to their own resources, they must have been discouraged, and sunk into despair. But they persevered in the work assigned them, difficult and perilous as it was, because they "trusted in the living God." They trusted in him as the wise, and righteous, and beneficent governor of the world, who would not unnecessarily permit them to be overwhelmed by the evils that menaced them. And they trusted in him in an especial manner, as that God whose children they were by faith in Jesus Christ, and whose own cause, and whose own glory, they were engaged in promoting; and could have no doubt that if he exercised a vigilant and compassionate superintendance over men in general, even the unthankful and the unholy, much more would he care for them, who were serving him with so much zeal in the gospel of his Son, by fortifying them against danger, delivering them out of their troubles, providing for their wants, and preserving them for the vigorous and successful prosecution of that benevolent enterprise in which, by the appointment of his own authority, and the callings of his own grace, they had willingly embarked.*

We have now finished our expositions of those

See Note P.

assages of Scripture, which are most confidently ppealed to as proofs of the doctrine of universal ardon. And these, taken in connexion with hose passages, which we brought forward as conaining and inculcating the very opposite doctrine, must appear, I think, to every unprejudiced mind, more than sufficient to demonstrate that the opinion of our opponents has no foundation in truth whatever.*

There are various points connected with this matter, which are most important for bringing it to a right and settled conclusion in your minds, and to which I feel it a duty to call your particular attention. But it is impossible to overtake any considerable portion of them in the present discourse. And therefore, deferring the discussion of these to another opportunity, I conclude, in the meantime, with setting before you the following views :

1. In the first place, the dogma of universal pardon is grounded upon an unwarrantable and most injurious treatment of the Holy Scriptures. Those who hold it, force the Scriptures to give a testimony to it. They take an insulated passage an insulated verse-an insulated clause of a verse, and, disconnecting it from the context, and from the rest of the Bible, they draw from it a meaning which never entered into the writer's

See Note Q.

mind, and urge it upon us as the dictate of inspiration. If any word or phrase comes in the way, which fair construction would render hostile to their views, they remove the difficulty, in the most unceremonious manner, by arbitrary definitions, and gratuitous assumptions. And, forgetting or disregarding the interpretation they have put upon what they read in one place, they put a different interpretation upon what they read in another place, though they have no reason for changing the interpretation-what they read in both places being the same-excepting its expediency for getting aid to their favourite hypothesis. And thus they are continually falling into inconsistencies; which would be of less consequence, so far as they are concerned, were it not that contradictions and confusion are thereby palmed upon the word of God itself. Of this you must have observed several instances as we pro'ceeded in our course, and many more might have been pointed out, had there been time or necessity for it. But I would press it upon you that a doctrine is not likely to be sound which requires such a mode of handling and explaining Holy Writ, and whose advocates dare not look at the scope and purport of the sacred author, when endeavouring to ascertain his meaning, but must content themselves with detaching his sentences from one another, and dealing with his writings,

as they would not be allowed to deal with the writings of any profane author, without being found guilty of unfairness or of folly. And I would also press it upon you, that this method of treating the Bible-of making it say any thing we like-however palatable to those who, by this means, get authority for all the vain fancies and strange tenets they may choose to adopt, to patronise, and to propagate, cannot fail to produce the most disastrous effects on the many whom, ignorant as they are of religion, or regardless of it, we direct to the Scriptures as God's faithful word, and as the only and infallible rule of saving faith. It holds up the oracles of truth to ridicule and contempt; and while it gives to heresy a greater licence and a wider range, it goes directly to gender scepticism, and to promote infidelity.

2. In the second place, observe how the doctrine we are contending against, may mar the salvation of sinners. We say the doctrine is false. We have proved it to be so. We have exhibited its contrariety to the revelation of God's will. We have knocked from under it every prop it was supposed to have in the divine record. But suppose it to be believed, and what is the consequence? No man who so believes will ever pray for pardon. It would be utterly absurd, and a mocking of God for him to do so.