pressly told, "the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience !"

My friends, let me state to you the old, the tried, the scriptural, the rational, the true doctrine on this all-important topic as it is contained in our Confession of Faith, which has this at least to distinguish it from the fanciful theories to which it stands opposed-that while we deem it consistent with the Bible, it is at all events and most indisputably consistent with itself.

"God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did in the fulness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification. Nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth in due time actually apply Christ unto them. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified. And although they can never fall from the state of justification; yet they may by their sins fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance."

* Chap. XI. Sec. iv. and v.

SERMON IV.

PSALM CXXX. 7, 8.

“Let Israel hope in the Lord; for with the Lord there is mercy; and with him is plenteous redemption; and he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities."

IN discoursing to you on these words, we have been considering the grounds on which Israel is exhorted by the Psalmist to hope in God. And last Lord's day we were employed in illustrating the third ground of hope here mentioned, namely, that the Lord shall" redeem Israel from all his iniquiལ་ ties." This contains an assurance that the plenteous redemption provided in the gospel will be actually conferred, applied in all its extent, and finally and everlastingly enjoyed. In discussing this part of our subject, we took occasion to combat and disprove the erroneous tenet which has been held by some, and which consists in maintaining that the death of Christ not only secured but

conveyed the blessing of forgiveness, and that this blessing being already possessed by sinners of mankind, it is unnecessary for them to ask it in prayer.

We drew our argument from various scriptural statements. And, in the course of our observations, we hinted at the interpretation put upon the term "forgiveness," in order to get quit of the reasoning founded upon such statements as those that we quoted from the Bible. The interpretation alluded to is, that "forgiveness" means a sense or feeling of forgiveness. But we demonstrated to you, by texts of Scripture, that this is utterly inadmissible, and that such a mode of interpretation converts the dictates of the Spirit of truth and wisdom into palpable falsehood and utter nonsense. We shall see more proofs of this as we advance with our subject. I think it expedient, however, at this stage of our argument, to call your attention to the point as one of most material moment. To say that "forgiveness" means a sense of forgiveness, is to beg the question-it is to take for granted what remains to be proved -it is to assume, as the foundation of a system, what is not only unsupported by any sound and valid reasoning, but what is inconsistent with and contrary to the Divine testimony, as contained in the volume of inspiration. Just take your Bibles, and read all the passages in which forgiveness of

sins is mentioned, and see, from the nature of the subject, and the circumstances that accompany it, and the kind of phraseology employed in speaking of it, whether it means forgiveness as commonly understood, or only a sense of that forgiveness—whether it means forgiveness as a blessing already possessed, though not attended with the feeling or persuasion of its being possessed, or as a blessing that is still needed, and for which application must be made in faith and prayerwhether it means remission of sins, so that the punishment due for sin will not thereafter be inflicted, or a mere consciousness that this remission was long ago made over to the individual, and such a satisfaction as that consciousness is calculated to produce. Let me again adduce the two instances which I formerly referred to, as at once affording evidence themselves of the absurdity I am exposing, and furnishing you with the method by which I would have you try all the other passages in which the term occurs.

When Christ was upon the cross, he prayed thus for his murderers: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Now, if our Saviour knew that the crime which his enemies were in the act of perpetrating when he offered up this prayer, was already forgiven, would he have couched his prayer in such terms as he is here said to have employed? Would not he

have, some how or other, intimated that this was the existing fact, and only asked that the guilty Jews might be visited with a sense or conviction of this, hitherto unknown, blessedness on their spiritual lot? And supposing that their transgression, not yet completed, was not yet forgiven, and that his petition meant to implore a remission of the penalty to which it subjected them, could he have made use of language to express his meaning different from that which the evangelist has put upon record? It is clear, beyond all controversy, that, if the import of forgiveness be what our antagonists assert, our Saviour could not have selected phraseology for giving vent to the desire which, on that hypothesis, he intended to offer up, more calculated to mislead all who heard it, or more opposite to what such a hypothesis would naturally have suggested, and absolutely required. He is alleged to have merely wished that God would impress the minds of his murderers with a sense of the forgiveness of the murder, as a blessing previously and independently of all prayer, conferred upon them; and yet he speaks, when intimating this wish, exactly in the same words as if he knew that the forgiveness was not yet vouchsafed, and that, if it were to be withheld, they could not escape the punishment due to such a heinous and aggravated offence ! And then he adds, as an extenuation of their of