BX^lVT.KS^. \iU 
 
 B 2 642 247 
 
A REPLY ^iss 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REV, ISAAC NELSON, OF BELFAST, 
 
 AND 
 
 REV. WILLIAM DOBBIN, OF ANAGHLONE ; 
 
 OB, 
 
 |lel)il)alisra, ^ssuriiiite, t|e Witness of t\t Spirit 
 
 DEFENDED, 
 
 m SPEECHES DELIVEEED AT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 
 JUNE 12, 1866, 
 
 REVDS. W. D. KILLEN, D.D., PROPESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, 
 
 BELFAST ;**R. WATTS, D.D., DUBLIN; J. MACNAUGHTAN, 
 
 BELFAST; J. B. RENTOUL, GARVAGH; AND 
 
 A, ROBINSON, BROUGHSHANE. 
 
 Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast hdmself as he that 
 putteth it off." 
 
 B A LLYM E N A: 
 
 WILLIAM ERWIN, 75, CIJUIICH STREET ; BELFAST : 
 
 C. AITCLIISON, 12, CASTLE PLACE. 
 
 1866. 
 
^^(^Boz^y 
 
 tOAN STACK 
 
 JEHWIN, I'KIJHTEK, BALLTfMJENA, 
 

 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The debate, of which the following speeches are a part, had its origin 
 in what is called The Revival. Its history thus goes back so far as 
 1859. The special and prevailing religious anxiety of that remarkable 
 year was believed, by most men of intelligence and piety in Ulster, to 
 be a genuine work of the Holy Spirit. Some there were, however, who 
 could not so regard it, but deemed it rather a superficial and spurious 
 excitement, the product of artificial machinery and sensational devices. 
 These men, satisfied of the soundness of their opinion, gave the move- 
 ment decided and unsparing opposition. Foremost of them — the busiest 
 and the boldest — in the Presbyterian church, were two ministers — the 
 Rev. Isaac Nelson, of Donegal Street, Belfast, and the Rev, William 
 Dobbin, of Anaghlone, in the Presbytery of Banbridge. 
 
 Many of those who professed to be graciously visited during the 
 Revival, professed also the experience of the sweetest peace, and the 
 fullest assurance. Assurance became thus with them a favourite doc- 
 trine, and in their social converse, and religious meetings, occupied a very 
 prominent position — a position of greater prominence, and significance 
 than had been assigned to it in former years by older Christians, or 
 than experienced Theologians were inclined to admit. With some Re- 
 vivalists, it was the testing shibboleth of the new birth, the sine qua 
 non of a state of grace, the sum and substance, the all in all of religion. 
 Against such extravagant opinions the polished shafts of many keen and 
 skilful marksmen were directed. Sometimes the arrows missed the 
 error, and the archers shot the truth instead. 
 
 In the month of February, 1864, the Rev. W. Dobbin published a 
 pamphlet entitled " Remarks on the Assurance of Faith," containing the 
 substance of a discourse he had delivered in 1859, and designed to correct 
 and overthrow, what the author considered, the false and fundamental prin- 
 ciple of Revival Theology. To the views expressed in this pamphlet, 
 the Rev. Robert Crawford — a young minister of the same Presbytery, 
 but a warm admirer of the Revival — took strong exception, and in a 
 lecture from his own pulpit, severely criticised and condemned them. 
 Mr. Dobbin was present, and was highly dissatisfied with the critique, 
 as, in his estimation, ungenerous and unscriptural. Some epistolary 
 correspondence, very creditable to Mr. Dobbin, then followed. The 
 matter was referred to the Presbytery, and, by their aid, seemed amic- 
 ably settled. The settlement, however, was of short duration. At the 
 request of his congregation, Mr. Crawford gave his lecture to the Press. 
 Mr. Dobbin now appeared before the Presbytery, and tabled against 
 Mr. Crawford a charge of heresy. The Presbytery declined to investigate 
 
 266 
 
IV. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 it. Mr. Dobbin appealed to the Synod of Belfast. Tlie S\Tiod dedined. 
 Mr. Dobbin returned to the Presbytery, and again tabled his charge in a 
 new form. The decision of the Presbytery, after long and careful con- 
 sideration, was that, in their opinion, Mr. Crawford did not hold or intend 
 to teach doctrines at variance with the Standards of the Church, but that 
 he had expressed himself loosely. Mr. Dobbin appealed to the General 
 Assembly of 1865. The Assembly appointed a Commission to "consider 
 the whole case, examine the documents, and report." The Commission 
 met in October, and having examined the documents, and heard the 
 parties, came to the conclusion "that the charge against Mr. Crawford 
 had not been sustained." Against this decision Mr. Dobbin, now joined 
 by the Rev. Isaac Nelson, a memberof the Commission, again appealed. 
 The case came before the Supreme Court of the Church in June last. 
 Its discussion excited the liveliest interest. The conduct and theological 
 reputation of the Commission — the orthodoxy and capacity of a young 
 minister — the nature of assurance, and the place it should, hold in the 
 estimation and creed of Christians — the reality of the "Iiish Revival " 
 — Mr. Nelson's fame as an orator, debator, and expositor of Scripture 
 — the truth of the charges which for years he had been hurling against 
 opinions and persons — all these important matters were involved in it, 
 and would be affected by its issue. The debate, though lengthened, 
 was unusually spirited and exciting, and was well sustained to the close. 
 It occupied the greater portion of three days. It attracted the religious 
 public of all denominations. It filled, with a crowd of anxious and 
 attentive hearers, the largest church in Belfast, and received the com- 
 mendation of being the best and ablest debate that has been in the 
 Assembly for years. The appellants had now every thing they wished. 
 The opportunity of which they had almost despaired was come at last. 
 They had complained that a fair and full hearing had never been vouch- 
 safed them. Now the widest latitude was allowed them. They had 
 demanded publicity for their views. — The ministers and elders of the 
 church, the public, and the press, sat patiently before them. The 
 appellants having concluded the Commission were heard in defence. 
 It is sufficient to say that the Assembly, having carefully considered the 
 whole case, dismissed the appeals, and sustained the decision of the 
 Commission, prefixing to it the finding of the Presbytery of Banbridge. 
 With the concurrence of all the speakers, and to the great satisfaction 
 of the Court, Dr. Dill, the president of the Magee College, Derry, 
 kindly undertook to edit the whole debate and give it to the public in a 
 permanent form. It was thought that such a scheme would be peculi- 
 arly agreeable to those who were so confident in the strength of their 
 position and soundness of their views, and who had so long sought and 
 clamoured for pubHcity. It failed, however, and chiefly through the 
 delay and declinature" of Mr. Nelson. Mr. Dobbin has pubHshed his 
 own speech. Mr. Nelson's, if we are to believe an advertisement in the 
 Banner of Ulster, is speedily to appear. In self defence, in defence of 
 truth, in defence of the Christian people, the Commission now pubHsh 
 theirs. 
 
 BuSHYFiELD, October, 1865. 
 
K E P L Y, 
 
 The time for hearing the Commission having now arrived. Dr. Killen, of 
 Belfast, ascended the platform and said : — 
 
 Moderator, — Having acted as a member of this Commission, and having 
 occupied a somewhat peculiar position in reference to the finding, I deem it 
 incumbent on me to say something ; and as, in the absence of Dr. Cooke, I 
 am, perhaps, the senior member of the Commission present, I have been re- 
 quested to speak first. Permit me, at the outset, to say a word in reference 
 to Mr. Nelson. That gentleman told you, in his address on Friday last, that 
 he desires to abuse no man. I hope he will long continue to cherish that 
 good desire. It would have been well had he always acted on it in times 
 past. Unquestionably when this Commission met, he appeared to be other- 
 wise minded, for he then seemed to have a desire to abuse every man. Mr. 
 Nelson makes extraordinary pretensions to scholarship and to knowledge of 
 theology. — I must confess I am not at all prepared to endorse these preten- 
 sions; and certainly at the meeting of the Commission, in conference he 
 added nothing to us. Instead of addi*essing himself like a scholar, or a divine, 
 to the question before us, he wasted our time in declaiming about the Revival, 
 and in attacking almost every one around him. Even the hoary hairs and 
 distinguished position of Dr. Cooke afforded no protection from Mr. Nelson's 
 most wanton insults. I consider it. Moderator, a solemn duty to report his 
 conduct to this Assembly, and I humbly submit that, as you respect your- 
 selves, you will never again appoint such a man as Mr. Nelson on such a 
 Commission. I am exceedingly unwilling. Moderator, to find fault with Mr. 
 Dobbin, for he is, in many respects, a very different man from Mr. Nelson ; 
 and he obviously does not possess so great talent for discursive eloquence, 
 that is, for wandering from the point. I would much rather speak of him in 
 the language of eulogy than in the language of condemnation — ^but he has 
 persistently pressed on this prosecution ; and now, that we are assembled in 
 this court of Christ, we must declare the truth without favour or affection. 
 I must then say I do not admire Mr. Dobbin's conduct throughout this affair. 
 One great object of church discipline is the reformation of the offender, and 
 another is the vindication of the character of the church : had Mr. Dobbin 
 desired simply to accomplish one or both of these objects, might he not long 
 since have given up this prosecution ? Surely no one can seriously believe 
 that Mr. Crawford at present entertains any sentiments at variance with the 
 Confession of Faith. He has again and again most distinctly repudiated the 
 errors imputed to him. At the meeting of the Commission he endeavoured to 
 show that certain statements in his pamphlets, to wlaich Mr. Dobbin attached 
 a heterodox meaning, are susceptible of a sound interpretations he has this 
 day gone over the same coui'se; and were Mr. Dobbin du-ected by that 
 charity wliich thinketh no evil, might he not long ago have accepted of these 
 explanations and withdrawn from the prosecvition ? Nor is this all. Mr. 
 Dobbin throughout this whole business has displayed an extraordinary 
 temper. Last year, at the meeting of the Synod of Belfast, my good friend 
 
Dr. Murpliy who, I believe, had not then read these pamphlets, attempted to 
 effect a pacific settlement. I need not say here that Dr. Miu'phy is one of 
 our most peace-loving ministers — an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile — 
 and I have often said to my friends that, were I ever to quarrel with Dr. 
 Murphy, I gave them notice that I would myself be in the wrong — for Dr. 
 Murphy would willingly offend no one. But when my friend, at the Synod, 
 interfered to promote peace, and in the spirit of conciliation described Mr. 
 Dobbin as "an intensely orthodox minister," — you all know how this gentle- 
 man immediately flared out in the newspapers in an epistle which was only 
 discreditable to himself ; and ever since he has been pursuing the same com-se. 
 Instead of exhibiting the spii'it of Him who did not strive, nor cry, neither did 
 any man hear his voice in the streets, Mr. Dobbin has manifested a wonderful 
 itch for notoriety. Every now and then he has been popping out his head in 
 the newspapers— in some little spit-fire epistle. Moderator, I do not think 
 that the newspapers are a proper medium for the discussion of a question 
 such as this. The doctrine of the assurance of grace and salvation should 
 be examined with the utmost seriousness — it pertains specially to the chil- 
 dren of Grod — and in its investigation the world lying in wickedness can be 
 expected to take no interest whatever. I hold, then, that the man who insists 
 on introducing the question into common newspapers displays very little good 
 sense, very little taste, very little consideration. 
 
 This Commission, Moderator, was appointed to examine documents and to 
 report to the Assembly. My impression was that we were bound to examine 
 documents on both sides ; and, if necessary, to report, as well in regard to Mr. 
 Dobbin, as in regard to Mr. Crawford. On looking into these pamphlets I 
 found that Mr. Dobbin had deviated from the Confession of Faith ; and 
 though he has stated to you this morning that no Irishman took any im- 
 portant part in the proceedings of the Commission, he must remember that 
 I made a rather remarkable motion. I moved that he should be reported to 
 the Assembly as an errorist ; and I believe I am an Irishman. My motion 
 was not adopted, as it was argued that Mr. Dobbin was not before us. I then 
 thought, and still think, otherwise. I deem it right to mention what occurred ; 
 for though I eventually acquiesced in the finding of the Commission, I did not 
 altogether approve of it — as I believed we should have gone farther. 
 
 You are to remember, Moderator, the position of Mr. Dobbin before you. 
 He is both the aggressor and the plaintiff. He has, indeed, this day told you 
 that he is not the aggressor ; but it is obvious, from his own showing, that 
 the statement is incorrect. He has admitted that he preached the sub- 
 stance of his " Eemarks " in 1859 — the "Eemarks " appeared in print eai-ly 
 in 1864 — and after their publication, Mr. Crawford, for the first time, entered 
 into the controversy. And is he to be blamed for this ? Mr. Dobbin, in his 
 " Eemarks," had attacked a doctrine of the Confession of Faith, and was Mr. 
 Crawford wrong in defending the assailed truth ? When he ventured into 
 the discussion he was a very young minister : he could not be expected to be 
 profoundly conversant with all the subtleties of theological controversy ; he 
 expressed himself sometimes rather loosely ; but should we not give him 
 credit for his valour and his zeal, though we may not be exactly prepared to 
 endorse all his phraseology ? The position of Mr. Dobbin is very different. 
 He has erred himself, and yet he prosecutes another for heresy, and appears 
 before you demanding judgment. It is an equitable rule, " With what mea- 
 sure ye mete, it shall be measured to you " — and Mr. Dobbin cannot weU 
 object to its enforcement. I think, indeed, I see some symptoms of relenting 
 — and I am extremely unwilling to press matters to extremities against him. 
 I trust that the complete breaking down of this prosecution will, in the mean- 
 time, be a sufficient rebuke to him. But should he persist in his course, his 
 conduct cannot be overlooked— for his Presbytery must lay judgment to the 
 line, and bring him under ecclesiastical discipline. 
 
 I have stated. Moderator, that Mr. Dobbin has himself deviated from the 
 Confession of Faith. He has maintained that no man can be assured of his 
 regeneration. Now this is c ^tly the doctrine of the Council of Trent. " No 
 
man can know with a certainty of faith, which is liable to no mistake, that he 
 has obtained the grace of God," say the Fathers of Trent, in their Sixth Ses- 
 sion, chapter ninth. No wonder that this doctrine of doubt has been always 
 cherished by Eoman Catholic theologians— for if no man, by the light of the 
 Word, can be assured that he is a child of God, the Scriptures are insufficient 
 for our spiritual guidance. They do not enable us to give a thoroughly satisfac- 
 tory answer to one of the most important questions that can be addressed to 
 an immortal being — viz., am I in Christ ? We may then seek rest in the in- 
 fallible chm-ch, and endeavour to obtain peace by submitting to the direction 
 of spiritual dictators. But if a man, under the teaching of the Word and 
 Spirit of God, may be assured of his salvation, his position is quite changed. 
 When he has realized assurance, he is free indeed — he has not the spirit of 
 bondage, but the spu-it of adoption ; and no one need attempt to coerce his 
 conscience. If he is in the way of his duty, he may be excommunicated by 
 the church, but still he can look up confidently to his Father in heaven, and 
 rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. When he is walking in the path of 
 the divine testimonies, he may expose himself to ecclesiastical anathemas ; 
 but he can spurn the spiritual thunderbolts, for he knows that " the curse 
 causeless will not come." 
 
 I proceed now,Moderatoi, to prove that Mr. Dobbin has deviated from the 
 Confession of Faith. I refer you accordingly to his "Eemarks on the Assur- 
 ance of Faith," page 4, where he says : — " The question then fairly presents 
 itseK for consideration ; Is it competent to any man, especially any Calvinist, 
 to assert that he knows with undoubting and infallible certainty, that he is 
 regenerated by the Holy Spirit and that his sins are forgiven. This question 
 so stated, I unhesitatingly answer in the negative." Be it observed now. 
 Moderator, that throughout this whole pamphlet, he labours to establish this 
 position. I shall now read to you a corresponding question and answer in 
 our Larger Catechism. Question 80, " Can true believers be infallibly assured 
 that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto 
 salvation ? A. Such as triily believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in 
 aU good conscience before him, may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith 
 grounded upon the truth of God's promises, and by the spirit enabling them 
 to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, 
 and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God, be 
 infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shaU persevere 
 therein unto salvation." These statements. Moderator, require no comment. 
 The English language cannot weU express a more direct or emphatic contra- 
 diction. 
 
 Mr. Dobbin has this day told us. Moderator, that he holds the doctrine of 
 the assurance of grace and salvation. If so, he has changed his mind ; for 
 I have shown you that he did not hold it, as laid down in our Standards, when 
 his first pamphlet was written. And if he has changed his views, why does 
 he not candidly read his recantation ? Why should he seek, by stealth, to 
 withdraw from his original position ? Is it fair, or manly, or straight- 
 forward to shift his ground, and yet not confess he has done so ? 
 
 I do not intend. Moderator, to enter into the various questions involved 
 in this discussion — as I know that some of them will be taken up and exam- 
 ined fully by my brethren of the Commission who are to foUow me — I desire 
 merely to draw your attention to two or three of the leading topics. 
 
 First, aUow me to make a few remarks on the doctrine of the assurance of 
 grace and salvation. This subject is expounded at considerable length in the 
 Confession ; and the extant writings of the Westminster Divines contribute 
 farther to its illustration. Some of these Divines, who have expressly treated 
 of it, speak of two kinds of assurance — the assurance of sense, and the 
 assurance of intuition. I need scarcely state what they mean by the assur- 
 ance of sense. This assurance is reahzed when the individual is convinced 
 that his faith is genuine — when he sees clearly that he possesses the marks of 
 grace. We are assured that we are children because we are satisfied that 
 we have the lineaments of the childi'en of God. " Hereby we know that He 
 
8 
 
 abideth in us by tlie Spirit that He hath given us." (1 John iii. 24.) The 
 assurance of intuition is realized when, guided by the Hght of the word — ^but 
 without at all referring to marks of grace — we look directly into the loving 
 heart of Jesus, when we see there the intense love of the Saviour to sinners, 
 when we are melted by the sight, and when we are filled with strong conso- 
 lation. And it appears to me that Peter speaks of this assurance of intuition 
 when he says to his brethren concerning Christ: — "Whom having not seen, ye 
 love ; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing ye rejoice with joy 
 unspeakable and full of glory." (1 Peter 1. 8.) This assurance of intuition 
 is realized by directly "looking unto Jesus." It is nothing else than faith in 
 its highest, strongest, purest form. • I require not. Moderator, to remind the 
 Assembly of the mighty power of faith. It pui-ifies the heart, and works by 
 love. When faith grows exceedingly, the other graces grow exceedingly. 
 The assurance of intuition, or faith in its highest form, will speedily manifest 
 its influence on the whole character. It wiU speedily produce such a change 
 on the affections and the conduct that its possessor wiU soon also realize the 
 assurance of sense, for he wiU see that he has the features of God's children. 
 Mr. Dobbin appears to think that assurance can be obtained, if obtained at all, 
 only after a long course of holy living. He objects to the Revival on the 
 ground that then the peace of God was often so soon enjoyed. He seems to think 
 that this blessing cannot be so quickly realized. But I would ask — ^why not ? 
 Is any thing too hard for the Lord ? Assurance is the gift of God, and the 
 work of the Spirit of God. The assurance of intuition is simply faith in 
 vigorous development ; and if God gives us a little faith, may He not also give 
 us strong faith ? Is the spirit of the Lord straitened ? Is He not omnipo- 
 tent ? When the Westminster Divines, in our Shorter Catechism, enumerate 
 the benefits which accompany or flow from justification, adoption, and sanc- 
 tification, they mention, in the very first place, the assm'ance of God's love. 
 Now justification, adoption, and sanctification, are always combined. He 
 who is justified is also adopted, and to some extent sanctified. It is then 
 apparent that, according to our Westminster Standards, the assurance of 
 God's love may accompany, as well as flow from justification. In other words, 
 this assurance may be realized at a very early period of our religious career. 
 And the Scriptures attest the same truth; for the Philippian jailor, immediately 
 after his conversion, rejoiced believing in God with all his house. It thus 
 appears. Moderator, that what has been called the theology of the Revival, is, 
 after all, the theology of our Shorter Catechism and the theology of the Word 
 of God. 
 
 One of the charges preferred against Mr. Crawford is, that he has described 
 assurance as of the essence of faith. Now, in one sense, assm-ance is certainly 
 not of the essence of faith : but we must here define our terms before we can 
 distinctly understand what is meant by the statement. Faith may be viewed 
 either subjectively or objectively' — as it exists in the heart of the individual, 
 or as it is related to its ground or object. When viewed as objectively it may, 
 perhaps, be said that assurance is of the essence of faith. What I mean is 
 this — by faith we receive and rest on Christ alone for salvation as He is 
 offered to us in the Gospel. But we can have no faith at all if we are not con- 
 vinced that there is a Saviour, and if we are not persuaded of the truth of 
 certain things reported to us in the Scriptures relating to this Saviour. We 
 may be assured that the promises are true, and yet not be assured that the 
 promises are ours. Or, to put the same thought in a somewhat different form, 
 we may be assured of the truth of the promises, and yet not be assured 
 that we are heirs of the promises. It may also be said of the assurance of 
 intuition that it is of the essence of faith — for it is simply faith in its most 
 vigorous form. But we cannot so speak of the assurance of sense, as it is not 
 properly derived from the direct act of faith at aU. When these things are 
 considered, it is not strange that the Westminster Divines have somewhat 
 varied their phraseology when expounding this subject. In the Larger Cate- 
 chism, Quest. 81, they speak of " assurance of grace and salvation not being 
 of the essence of faith;" but in the Confession itself, chap, xviii. 3, they ex- 
 
press themselves ratlier differently. " This infallible assurance," say they, 
 " doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait 
 long, and conflict with many difficulties before he is partaker of it." I shall 
 attempt to explain the meaning of this particle "so " thus— We^may say that 
 ardent spirits are essentially intoxicating — and yet we may say that they are 
 not so essentially intoxicating, but that a man may partake of them and still 
 not be inebriated. In like manner, though viewed in certain aspects, assur- 
 ance may be aflfirmed to be of the essence of faith, we may assert that it 
 does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a man may have faith and 
 yet want assurance. 
 
 Moderator, I understood Mr. Nelson to state, in his address to you on 
 Friday last, that no man can be conscious that he is under the influence of the 
 Spirit of God. I consider these words true only in a certain sense and to a 
 limited extent. It must be admitted that no man can exactly distinguish 
 between the operations of his own mind and the operations on it by the Spirit 
 of God. The indwelling of the Spirit in the believer is a mystery which we 
 may never be able fully to explore ; and the connexion between the opera- 
 tions of the Spirit of God within us and the operations of our own spirit is 
 a connexion which it may be impossible for us to understand. But stiU we 
 may be satisfied of the general fact that we are under the influence of the 
 spirit of grace. And the very text adduced by Mr. Nelson, if I rightly under- 
 stood him, to establish a different conclusion, appears to me to prove precisely 
 the reverse — " The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound 
 thereof, but canst not teU whence it cometh and whither it goeth — so is every 
 man that is born of the Spu-it." John iii. 8. Had Mr. Nelson adduced these 
 words to prove that no one can thoroughly expound the philosophy of the 
 winds or the metaphysics of regeneration, I might have endorsed Ms argu- 
 ment ; but if quoted to show that no one can teU whither he is regenerated, 
 I must pronounce the commentary unsound and unscholarly. " The wind 
 bloweth where it listeth," Surely a man can tell that the wind is blowing. 
 He may not be able to point out the very moment when it begins to rise — and 
 the believer may be equally unable to fix on the exact date of his regeneration. 
 But surely we can tell when the wind shakes the forest and spreads desolation 
 all around. May we not also be prepared to declare that we have actually 
 experienced the great spiritual change called regeneration — ^that we have 
 passed from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God ? 
 
 I think it right to observe. Moderator, in conclusion, that the space assigned 
 to the subject of assurance in our Standards attests the importance attached to 
 it by the Westminster Divines. A whole chapter is devoted to its exposition 
 in the Confession of Faith. And no wonder : for it is one of the most precious 
 doctrines of evangelical Protestantism. If no man can be assmred of his 
 regeneration, Christianity must be a very different thing from what it is re- 
 presented to be in the New Testament. If we can have no assurance of grace 
 and salvation, where is the anchor of the soul sure and steadfast? How can 
 we realize the peace of God that passeth aU understanding ? How can we 
 rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory ? Mr. Nelson told us in his 
 address that times of trial are probably approaching, and that the scenes of 
 the Grassmarket may be soon renewed ; and he apparently suggested that, 
 under such cii-cumstances, none but men of his enlightened character can be 
 expected to be prepared for the ordeal. Moderator, I entertain very different 
 views. Should the times of persecution return, I confess, I expect nothing 
 from the mockers at Revivals and the eulogists of Benedict Spinoza. I ought 
 to know something of the character of the men who in times past have suf- 
 fered martyrdom ; and of this I can assure Mr. Nelson that they were not men 
 of dubious faith — that they were not men whose teaching was calculated to 
 engender infidelity — ^that they were not men who could not tell whether they 
 were in Christ or out of Chi-ist — that they were not men who were ashamed 
 to declare that they were pardoned sinners, redeemed by the blood of the 
 Prince of Life. They knew in whom they had believed. 'JTiey were strong 
 in faith giving glory to God. And thus it was that in presence of the fu'GS 
 
10 
 
 of martyrdom they stood unappalled It was this assurance of salvation that • 
 enabled Luther to stand up against the world. It was this assurance of sal- 
 vation that enabled Calvin, at the peril of his life, to do battle with the Pope 
 and all his myrmidons. And it was this assurance of salvation that enabled 
 Paul to say, in the prospect of decapitation, — " I have fought a good fight, I 
 have finished my course. I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid 
 up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall 
 give me at that day." I trust the day wiU never come when this doctrine of 
 assurance wiU be either made light of or rejected by our Irish Presbyterian 
 Church. 
 
 THE EEV. JOHN MACNAUGHTAN'S SPEECH. 
 
 Rev. J. Macnaughtan said: — 
 
 MoDEBATOB, FATHERS, AND BRETHREN, — Let me entreat the Assembly 
 to remember that we have entered on the discussion of deep and delicate 
 questions in theology, that do very immediately concern the glory of the 
 Spirit, and that any symptom of approval or of disapprobation ought to be re- 
 strained, — for my part, I claim respectfully your prayerful attention, and 
 desire so to speak as not to grieve the Holy Spirit, nor offend the least of 
 Christ's little ones. Moderator, I cannot help feeling the immense respon- 
 sibility I incur by taking part in this discussion, and the important issues 
 that are at stake, dependant on your sustaining or reversing the finding of 
 the Commission. It is not now a question as between Mr. Dobbin and Mr. 
 Crawford. You have not to determine if either of these two ministers is 
 correct in his interpretation of Bible truth as exhibited in the Standards of 
 this church ; — a broader issue than that has been raised ; the divergence in 
 sentiment is between the appellants and the Commission ; you have here on 
 the one side Dr. Cooke, Dr. Mm-phy, Dr. Killen, Dr. Watts, Mr. Bentoul, Mr. 
 Moore, Mr. Eobinson, and myself, with other ministers, whose outspoken 
 and pubKshed sentiments are before the church ; and on the other, you have 
 Messrs. Dobbin and Nelson. The question is, which of these two 
 parties holds orthodox sentiments, and is the defender of the faith, as set 
 forth in our Confession and Catechism; if you sustain the finding of this 
 Commission, you sustain our views of the truth, and pronounce on the errorism 
 of the appellants ; if you agree with them, you ought to place us at your bar 
 and deal with us as having departed from the truth of God. Sir, it will be a 
 startling spectacle to all this church, when we are arraigned for having 
 deserted the Standard, and allowed its goodly folds to be draggled in the 
 mire, while these two are honoured for the fidelity and courage with which they 
 have raised the banner, and floated it again in the pure light of heaven. 
 Such a result is, no doubt, within the limits of the barest possibility, but far 
 beyond the range of human probability. I wiU not believe that this church 
 wiU elect these appellants, as their Gamaliels and consent to sit at their feet. 
 If it were so, it would be to me the strangest commentary that has ever been 
 furnished on the texts, that " Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings God 
 can perfect praise," and that He sometimes "chooses the weak things of the 
 world to confound the mighty — and things that are not, to bring to nought 
 the things that are." 
 
 Sir, I will not allow myself to follow the person who spoke on Friday, in 
 his personal allusions, I have too much respect for myself, and too much re- 
 gard for this venerable Assembly to do so. He may think of me what he likes, 
 and find it easier to abuse men than to answer their arguments. It is a small 
 thing for me to be judged of his judgment. I may be taunted as a stranger, 
 and a foreigner, but what of that ? if I am not a stranger to the covenant of 
 
11 
 
 promise, and have not acted as a stranger as regards the interest of this church. 
 If it were necessary, I could say, in the presence of my brethren, that I have 
 at least given as largely of my means, and of my energies, for advancing the hon- 
 oiir and the interest of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland as the appellants 
 have done. Moderator, a very transparent, though studied, effort has been made 
 to raise a false issue in the case by discussing the Revival of 1859. It is as- 
 sumed that it is an open question, whether the great work connected with 
 that memorable year, was a work of grace or a grand delusion ? That, sir, is 
 no open question in this Assembly. It is not a subject in which the chm-ch, 
 as such, has given forth no judgment and pronounced no opinion. Sir, this 
 Assembly has spoken out repeatedly and emphatically on that whole question. 
 And it is not now at the end of seven years that this church will permit any 
 one irregularly to introduce his delusions to the Assembly, and endeavour 
 to get at a finding, which, if sought at aU, must be sought in a more open and 
 regular method of an overture, asking the church to alter her sentiments, 
 and recall her resolutions. Is any one in this house ignorant of what the 
 opinions of the Assembly are on the subject of the Revival in 1859 — I assume 
 that the appellants are, I will therefore refresh their memories. In 1859 the 
 Assembly adopted the following resolutions : — 
 
 1. That we desire to express profound thankfulness to God, that it has 
 pleased Him to pour out His Spirit on so many of our congregations ; and 
 that we recognize, with reverence and awe, and, at the same time, with inex- 
 pressible joy, that sovereign and infinite grace, which, notwithstanding our 
 many shortcomings, has bestowed on us such evident and abundant tokens of 
 of the Divine favour. 
 
 2. That in the new and unprecedentedly solemn circumstances in which 
 the church is placed, we deeply feel the need of being directed by wisdom 
 from on high ; and would therefore now caU on Him who giveth liberally and 
 upbraideth not, to bestow the Spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound 
 mind, that we may know what we ought to do in this time of special visi- 
 tation. 
 
 3. That, while the Assembly leaves to ministers to deal in Christian wis- 
 dom with individual cases as they arise, the brethren are earnestly reminded 
 of the necessity of guarding, on the one hand, against cherishing imdue sus- 
 picions of the reality of the work of the Holy Spirit ; and on the other, of 
 adopting any course of procedure whereby our people may be led to mistake 
 bodily impressions, or even convictions of sin, for genuine conversion to 
 God. 
 
 4. That, whilst gladly recognizing as one of the most marked evidences of 
 of the genuineness of this work, the fact stated by all the brethren, that it 
 has been originated and promoted by means of that system of saving truth 
 set forth in the Standards of the church, we would earnestly entreat all our 
 ministers and members to watch against the introduction from any quarter, 
 of error in doctrine or practice, lest Satan should get an advantage over us, 
 and the Spirit of Truth be provoked to withdraw. 
 
 Moderator, I certainly did expect after all the parade and proclamation about 
 literary taste and Theological study, that we would have had some clear defini- 
 tion of saving faith, and some attempt at close reasoning, to prove that there 
 is no indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a believer, in the sense 
 maintained by the Commission, but I waited for that in vain. It seemed to 
 me that if a Theologian approached the question before the house, he would 
 probably consider first. What saving faith is, and involves; secondly. To what 
 height of confidence it may risein the experienceof some Christians, and if to the 
 fulness of assurance; and thirdly. What are the varied evidences on which the 
 assurance of a personal interest in Christ may rest, and whether the witness of 
 the Spirit with om* spirits that we are the sons of God, is, or may be, a distinct 
 evidence. Sir, we have had a somewhat extraordinary definition of faith, and 
 it was almost the only word of theology in the speech of Friday. Faith, we 
 were told, is the mental link that unites the soul to the Saviour, and that it 
 does not properly embrace a single element of personal safety. Is that the 
 
12 
 
 teaching of the Standards of this church ? Is it the teaching of the chxircheg 
 of Christ? Is it the teaching of the Spirit of God in His Holy Word? I 
 afiirm that it is not ; and that the man who says it, holds heretical opinions. 
 Saving faith is not a mere mental act by which we receive and admit a pre- 
 cise truth, it involves, as an essential element, the heart's resting and relying 
 on that truth as bearing on the salvation of the soul ; indeed, as we shall see 
 immediately, the grand object of saving faith is not a truth, but the person 
 of the Lord Jesus, and the act of it is trusting to Him for our individual sal- 
 vation. This has been the sentiment and definition of all sound Theologians, 
 and it is not to be set aside by such crudities as have been uttered by the 
 appellants. 
 
 Let us listen for a moment to the voice of the church of God on this ques- 
 tion : — Eobert Bruce, a father of the Scottish Eef ormation, who wrote a 
 treatise on the way to true peace, warns men against a " general faith," 
 and says, " it is Popery, for the Papist dares not apply the promise of mercy 
 to his own soul, he accounts it presumption to say, * I am justified and saved,' 
 but true faith rests specially on the mercy of God in Christ, and especially 
 on the promise of mercy and grace in Jesus." John Knox says, " If thou 
 wouldest test thy faith, ask, ' Dost thou beheve that Christ will deliver thy 
 soul, and that He will do it according to His promise.' " What is faith ? is the 
 33rd question in Beza's Catechism. The answer is, "Not simply that know- 
 ledge which is common to the Devils themselves, but a firm assent accompanying 
 that knowledge, whereby a person pecuHarly applies to himself the promise of 
 eternal life in Christ, even as confidently as if he were already possessed of it." 
 In James Melville's Catechism, we have the question — "What is thy faith?" — 
 " My sure belief that God both may and will save me in the blood of Jesus 
 Christ, because He is almighty, and hath promised to do so." In Adamson's 
 Catechism, printed in 1627, it is asked what is faith ? "It is a true and certain 
 knowledge of God in Christ, with an assurance of getting salvation by Him. 
 In Dod and Cleaver's Catechism — What is faith ? "A persuasion of the favour 
 of God towards me in Christ Jesus." In Dr. Owen's Catechism — What is justi- 
 fying faith ? "A gracious resting on the free promises of God in Christ for 
 mercy, with a firm persuasion of heart that God is a reconciled God to us in 
 the Son of His love." In the Compend of tlie Christian Eeligion, issued by the 
 Dutch Church, it is asked, ^Tiat is faith ? — "A sure knowledge of God, and 
 of the promises revealed to us in the Gospel, and a hearty confidence that 
 all my sins are forgiven me for Christ's sake." In the Confession of Faith, 
 chap, xiv., it is said, — " The principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, re- 
 ceiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and 
 eternal Hfe, by virtue of the covenant of grace." And the same thing is re- 
 peated in the Shorter and Larger Catechisms, so that, by consent of the 
 churches of Christ, saving faith is an act of trust, not in a mere truth, but in 
 a revealed person, that person the Savioiir of the world, the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 A trust which the great majority of the Eeformers have associated with the 
 act and element of appropriation. Yea more, fhe question which the first 
 preachers of Christianity addressed to their hearers was, " Do you believe on 
 the Lord Jesus Christ ?" And only he who answered in the affii-mative 
 was for that time held to be a Christian. Yes, not a truth alone, but Jesus 
 Chi-ist is the object of faith. Without this aU is hoUow, cold, speculative — 
 Christ must be our trust. Christ made of God unto us wisdom and righteous- 
 ness, sanctification and redemption. Hence the language of the written word, — 
 Look unto me, — Come unto me, — Ye believe in God believe also in me — To as 
 many as received Him to them gave He power to become the sons of God. 
 Nor is this position in the least weakened by the fact, that the intense anx- 
 iety of an awakened soul does not, in the first instance, centre so much on the 
 person of the Eedeemer as on the offer of pardon that is secured by His blood. 
 For Clu-ist's work is largely the manifestation of pardon secured for the 
 sinner, and guaranteed to every soul that is united to that Saviour. 
 
 I think. Moderator, we are now prepared to look at the second question — viz.. 
 To what height may this confidence of faith rise ? and does it not warrant 
 
13 
 
 the infallible assurance on the part of a believer in this world, that he is 
 savingly iinited to Christ — has his sins pardoned, and is an heir of eternal 
 life? This is a deeply important part of this interesting question, and 
 involves considerations that affect the glory of God, and the comf oi-t of his re- 
 deemed. To understate or exaggerate the truth regarding it might preach a 
 false peace to tmredeemed souls, or might spread a cloud of doubt over trusting 
 spirits entitled to be rejoicing with joy unspeakable and full of glory. But, 
 Moderator, the question with us, in tliis debate, is a somewhat narrowed one, 
 it is limited to the enquiry. What do the Standards affirm on the question ? 
 Nor is there any difficulty in perceiving the positions occupied in relation 
 to this question by Mr. Crawford and the Commission, and by Mr. Dobbin 
 and his one supporter. That position is marked and defined by Mr. Dobbin's 
 question and answer — " Is it competent to any man certainly to know that 
 he is regenerated ? I unhesitatingly answer. It is not. And again, judging 
 from the evidence that can be suppUed, and from the nature of the human 
 mind, no man can justly affirm that he is regenerated, and that his sins are 
 forgiven ; and again. If any man assert that he knows assuredly that his 
 sins are forgiven, we reply. My friend, you are proclaiming a certainty 
 which the natui-e of the case does not admit of." The Comj)ilers of the Con- 
 fession of Faith undoubtedly gave the doctrine of assurance a larger place in 
 their system of theology than Mr. Dobbin does, and held opinions in my 
 judgment inconsistent with his reckless assertions. The entire 18th chap, of 
 the Confession of Faith, is devoted to the doctrine of the assurance of grace 
 and salvation. And in the first section, it is affirmed, — " That such as truly 
 
 believe on the Lord Jesus, may in this life be certainly assiired that 
 
 they are in the state of grace." What does this state of grace mean ? An 
 unrenewed, or a regenerate condition ? The darkness and the death of sin, 
 or the light and Hf e of a pardoned estate ? Surely not the former, but the 
 latter, — Yet this disputant, who entered court to convict a brother of heresy, 
 on this very question asserts that no man can justly affirm that he is regener- 
 ated, and that his sins are forgiven — ^while this Confession, which he has sub- 
 scribed as the declaration of his faith, maintains that a believer may in this 
 life be certainly assured that he is in a state of grace. Nor is that all, 
 for the next section is in these terms : — " This certainty is not a bare con- 
 jectural or probable persuasion, grounded upon a faUiblehope ; but sua. infall- 
 ible assurance of faith," &c., &c. And again in the Larger Catechism, quest. 
 80 — " Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of 
 grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation ?" And the 
 
 answer : — " Such as truly beheve may be infallihhj assured that they 
 
 are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation." This, 
 Moderator, is the teaching of the Church, to my mind so clear and conclusive, 
 that the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein. I confess. Mod- 
 erator, I do not understand in what clearer, or more distinct and forcible way 
 the Compilers of our Standards could have taught the doctrines, that a man 
 may in this life assuredly know that he is a child of God, — that his sins are 
 forgiven, — that he is now regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit, — and 
 through the power of grace is indeed a new creature. 
 
 Moderator, I know it is quite easy to appear to be very learned and 
 very metaphysical, about the kinds of evidence that are suited to the 
 nature of the human mind, and to get into a maze about the word 
 infallible. Sir, the word is not ours, it is the word selected, and X 
 think advisedly, by the Westminster Divines. Shallower thinkers confound 
 it with the absolute and the immutable, as pertaining to other depart- 
 ments of human knowledge. It is not the kind of confidence that 
 is arrived at as the result of mathematical demonstration. That never 
 alters, and is not dependant on our varying experiences, for, from the nature 
 of assurance, it has its limitation, because our rehgious knowledge is not 
 intuitive but largely inferential, and because adapted to our condition as pro- 
 bationary. Our sky may at one time be serene and clear, without any vapour 
 to intercept the glory of the risen sun ; and at another be overcast with clouds. 
 
14 
 
 and all the brightness and warmth of the sunshine be unseen and unfelt. 
 The absolutely perfect and unchanging is reserved for the land where the sun 
 shall no more be clouded, for the Lord is the glory, and the Lamb the light 
 thereof. There, in the pure empyrean, the redeemed shall dwell with the Lord 
 andthefact of their eternal union with Emmanuel, be as clear and as immutable 
 as the light of that glory, which constitutes the splendour of the paradise of 
 God. 
 
 But withal, and notwithstanding this abatemert.., a believer may here know 
 that he is in a state of grace, and know it infallibly that he is reconciled to 
 God, that he is the Lord's, and so safe — safe for eternity. Still let us remember 
 the distinction between perfect certainty and certainty which, from the 
 nature of things, is necessarily incomplete. Perfect certainty is where a thing 
 is so known that it cannot be better known, so know that the mind can 
 never, under any circumstance, be made more certain of its reality. Such cer- 
 tainty is not possible in this world, perhaps not even in the next, at all events 
 it can only exist among creatures absolutely perfect, and constantly in a 
 condition of absolute perfectness. But to return to our argument. 
 
 This is a blessed truth which, I am persuaded, the church will never part 
 with ! It was this assurance that gave strength and triumph to the old 
 warriors of the cross in martyr times — it is this assurance that still casts 
 a wondrous sublimity around the death scenes of pious souls, lifting them 
 above all fears of the grave, — ^because they can say, "We know in whom we 
 have believed, and are persuaded that He is able to keep what we have com- 
 mitted to His charge against that day." 
 
 Sir, there is one point more connected with this department of the subject, 
 that I must refer to — viz., the connexion between faith and assurance 
 as alluded to in the finding of the Commission, we say that assurance 
 is not of the esssence of faith ; and on this point, I admit that some of Mr. 
 Crawford's expressions were not sufficiently guarded. But that is not much 
 to be wondered at, when we consider that many even of the Reformers seem 
 to have confounded what is called the assurance of sense, with the assmrance 
 of faith, — ^that is, the persuasion that we are indeed in a state of grace, with 
 the persuasion that God is true when He offers us salvation, and that there- 
 fore we may warrantably close with His offer. And if Mr. Dobbin, instead of 
 charging Mr. Crawford with Arminianism, Antinomianism, and I dont know 
 how many isms, had complained of some inconsiderate expressions, whatever 
 we might have thought of his taste, and of his temper, we would have been 
 forced, to some extent, to agree with him, and sustain his objection. Sir, we 
 have affirmed in our finding, that assurance is not of the essence of faith, 
 meaning thereby that a man may be a true believer in the Lord Jesus, and yet 
 not be a partaker of this blessing, and may wait long before he obtains it. Yea, 
 that after he has attained to a full and infallible assurance of faith, he may, 
 by falling into some special sin, by wounding his conscience, or grieving the 
 Holy Spirit of God, lose for a time his clear sense of the special love of God, 
 and yet the principle and grace of faith may still abide in his soul. We be- 
 lieve, sir, that that is the doctrine both of Scripture and of our Standards. 
 
 Assurance is not a grace separate and distinct from faith, as hope, and 
 love, and repentance are. It is faith itself in its full developement, faith 
 risen up to its altitude of sublimity, the rich and ripened cluster that 
 tells what fruit the flower of faith produces ; and therefore something to be 
 aimed at, sought for, expected, waited for by every follower of Christ. 
 I am amazed, sir, beyond masure, to hear it questioned that a believer wovQd 
 be warranted in saying, " My sins are pardoned," — " My beloved is mine and 
 I am his." Whence arises any peace we have with our own consciences, but 
 from the conviction that we are at peace with God? Being justified by faith, 
 we have — not we hope for — ^but we hwve peace with God. On the other 
 theory patronised by the appellants, their gospel would be the gospel of 
 doubt, the gospel of uncertainty, — ^but not the gospel of peace. 
 
 But the question is here, — Who is the errorist? Who holds by, or 
 •who deviates from, the teaching of the Standards ? Let us see. In th^ 
 
15 
 
 Larger Catechism, quest. 81, it is said, " Assurance of grace and salvation 
 not being of tlie essence of faith, true believers may wait long before they 
 obtain it; and, after the enjoyment thereof, may have it weakened and inter- 
 mitted." But the language is more definite and precise in the Confession of 
 Faith. Chap, xviii — " Such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him 
 in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may in 
 this life be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may re- 
 joice in the hope of the glory of God : which hope shall never make them 
 ashamed." And again in chap, xiv., sec. 3, on saving faith — " This faith is dif- 
 ferent in degrees, weak or strong ; may be often and in many ways assailed and 
 weakened, but gets the victory ; growing up in many to the attainment of a 
 full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.** 
 And again in the 3rd sec. of the 18th chap. — " This infallible assurance doth 
 not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, 
 and conflict with many difficulties before he is partaker of it." Moderator, 
 I am not here to decide whether the Standards are agreeable to the Word of 
 God, that with us is a settled question ; but what do they teach ? Can it be 
 doubted that they teach that faith and assurance differ only in degree, — that 
 faith may, can, should grow up to an infallible assurance. Sir, the men of 
 the Westminster Assembly were men profound in thought, and very accurate 
 in their definitions, and the charge of making use of redimdant and un- 
 meaning words, cannot be laid at their door, and what do they mean by the 
 use of this term — so. Assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith 
 but that it is involved in it, as the fruit is in the flower, as the full corn is in, 
 the seed ; and yet not so, but that there may be life and growth, though that 
 result has not been reached That is practically the teaching of Mr. Craw- 
 ford, and therefore we say that this charge of heresy has not been proved. I 
 was greatly astonished, sir, to hear the use that was made of the ex- 
 perience of David, as set forth in the 5l8t psalm, as if it taught that David 
 had absolutely lost aU sense of interest in a covenant God, or argued any- 
 thing against an assurance that could be clouded, and obscured as his was. 
 Sir, it is a curious fact, and fitted to cover some paxties with confusion, that 
 when the Confession asserts that a true believer may have the assurance of 
 his salvation shaken and intermitted, the Scripture proof which is furnished 
 in defence of that position, is taken from the 51st psalm. And what I would 
 say to the appellant, and to myself is this, — If ever we grieve the Spirit of 
 God, and are found walking in darkness, and seeing no hght at all, may we 
 have at least, that sense of nearness to God, and that consciousness of the 
 worth and value of His Spirit dwelling and abiding within us, that will war- 
 rant us in saying, as David did, " Cast me not away from thy presence; and 
 take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Eestore unto me the joy of thy salvation ; 
 and uphold me with thy free Spirit." 
 
 There is a third point in this controversy — ^viz., the connexion of the wit- 
 ness of the spirit with assurance, and whether it is, or can be, a distinct tes- 
 timony to a believer that he is a child of God. I will speak immediately to 
 the doctrine as part of the testimony of this chiurch in her Standards ; but 
 as preliminary, let the Assembly mark that the question is not. Where, and 
 in what circumstances, is the witness furnished — but is it ever given to any 
 believer ? Nor, sir, is the question before us — Is this testimony constructive, 
 cumulative, and confirmatory, or found alone and apart from other kinds 
 of evidence ? Nor is the question. Would a man, who had no other evidence 
 of his deliverance from the death in trespasses and in sins, be warranted in 
 falling back on his consciousness of the indweUing of the Holy Spirit, as 
 sufficient to warrant the belief that he was born again ? On such questions 
 we axe not required to give any deliverance. I commit no man to the 
 opinions I hold on these points, but in the presence of my fathers and brethren, 
 I can say that, while I would not limit the Holy One of God, I would look 
 with extreme suspicion on the professed religiousness of a man, who could 
 give no proof of being renewed in the spirit of his mind, except that intan- 
 gible testimony, (I mean intangible to others) that he had been sealed with 
 
16 
 
 tlie Holy Spirit of promise : I am inclined to believe that the Compilers 
 of the Standards regarded this evidence as the cumiilative and crowning, 
 but not the essential link in the chain of these evidences that prove the 
 saving operation of grace in a soul. 
 
 I will leave to other brethren the task of exhibiting the harmony of this view 
 of truth with the language of the inspired volume ; such as, " The Spirit wit- 
 nesseth with our spirit." " Te were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, 
 which is the earnest of our inheritance.'* " We have received not the spirit 
 which is of the world, but the Spirit which is of God," &c., &c. But on this 
 point let us hear the voice of the church. Confession, chap, xviii., sec. 2. 
 " This infallible assurance is founded upon the divine truth of the promises 
 of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises 
 are made, the testimony of the spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits 
 that we are the children of God ; which Spii-it is the earnest of our inherit- 
 ance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption." Sir, have we not here 
 three distinct clauses^ — the truth of the promises, — the inward evidence of 
 grace, — and the testimony of the Spirit. I contend that we have, — and see 
 how this is confirmed by the language of the Larger Catechism. Quest. 80, 
 " True believers may without extraordinary revelation by faith grounded upon 
 the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in 
 themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing 
 witness with their spu-its that they are the children of God, be infallibly 
 assuied that they are in the estate of grace," &c. Now, sir, the sentences and 
 propositions here, are plainly and clearly distinct, the very punctuation, and 
 use of the copulative and, make that to my mind at least, as clear as a sun- 
 beam, but if I could have entertained any doubt on the matter, it would have 
 been removed by observing the order and arrangement of the Scripture proofs 
 that are subjoined to the text. Sir, he must have read the Confession of 
 Faith to little purpose, who has not observed the exquisite skill, and admir- 
 able wisdom of the Compilers in selecting their Scripture proofs. And he 
 must be blind indeed who does not see that when they set forth a distinct 
 proposition, they sustain it by a series of distinct and independent proofs. 
 Now, sir, when we turn to the 18th chap, and 2nd sec, we do find the tliree 
 clauses, with their separate proofs, arranged under letters f, g, and h, to my 
 mind clear evidence that the Compilers believed, and wished us to believe, in 
 the distinctive evidence of the witness of the Spirit. 
 
 Sir, we heard many strange things this forenoon, and amongst them 
 a reference to the opinions of good old Dickson, who, although not in 
 the Westminster Assembly, was the warm friend of Henderson, Gillespie, 
 Baillie, Rutherford, and the other worthies of that period; and it 
 would certainly have been a help to the Dobbin cause, if it could have 
 been proved that Dickson, a cotemporary theologian, held views of 
 assurance of the witness of the Spirit, contrary to those which we aifii*m 
 the Confession and the Catechism teach. But what was the evidence 
 adduced, — a quotation from the Sum of Saving Knowledge, which does 
 not treat very distinctly on this controversy. I can give Mr. Dobbin a little 
 of the history of that book. It was the joint production of the godly Durham, 
 and of the learned Dickson, but how much of the work was Dickson's cannot 
 now be ascertained ; what, however, is much more to the point is this : -^ 
 Dickson wrote a commentary on all the chapters in the Confession of Faith, 
 entitled, " Truth's Victory over Error." I would strongly recommend that 
 book to the attention of the appellants ; and. Moderator, I have brought it 
 with me that Mr. Dobbin may hear the testimony of his own witness. In 
 chap, xviii. he asks, — " Do not the Papists err who maintain that no man 
 can be sure of God's peculiar favour towards himseK without extraordinary 
 revelations ?" Yes, and they are confuted by these reasons : — I. We are 
 commanded to make our calling and election sure. 2. We are to examine 
 ourselves whether we be in the faith. 3. The Scriptui-e proposeth and setteth 
 forth some marks and tokens by which a believer may be infallibly assured 
 that he is of the number of Christ's sheep. 4. Because a true believer may 
 
17 
 
 be persnaded that neither death nor life, nor any other thing can sepai'ate 
 him from the love of Christ. 5. Because believers have received the Spirit 
 of adoption, whereby they cry abba Father, and He himself witnesseth with their 
 spiHt that they are the children of God." Tliis last soui-ce of evidence you will 
 observe is separate and distinct from the others, and especially from the third. 
 " Is this assm-ance infallible ?" he asks again, — " Yes, for these reasons : — 
 1. Because assurance is from the testimony of the Spii-it. 2. Because founded 
 on the promises. 3. Because believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit." And 
 again, — " Do not Antinomians err who maintain that none can gather any 
 comfort or assm-ance from his own works of hoHness, but that a believer 
 ought to rest upon the alone testimony of the Spirit, without any marks or 
 signs ?" "Yes," &a,&c George Gillespie, who, though the youngest mem- 
 ber of the Westminster Assembly, was reputedly one of its ripest Theologians, 
 of highest scholai'ly attainments, and of gTcatest dialectic power, has left behind 
 him, besides other writings, a treatise of Miscellaneous Questions, in which 
 there is a chapter under the heading : — " On an Assurance of an interest in 
 Christ, by the marks and fruit of Sanctification, and by love to the brethi-en, 
 and how this agreeth with, or difFereth from. Assurance by the testimony of 
 the Spirit;" in which the following sentiments occur : — "All thy marks will 
 leave thee in the dark, if the Spirit of grace do not open thine eyes that thou 
 mayest know the things that ai'c freely given thee of God; — and yet, to make 
 no trial by marks, and to trust to an inward testimony, under the notion of 
 the Holy Ghost's testimony, when it is without the least evidence of any gracious 
 mark, is a deluding and ensnaring of the conscience." In which passage 
 he seems to me to argue that the testimony of the Spirit is cumulative, and 
 not isolated ; for he adds : — " It may be asked, how doth this assurance by 
 marks agree with, or differ from, assurance by the testimony of the Holy 
 Ghost ? May the soul have assvirance either way ? or must there be a con- 
 currence of both ? for I suppose they are not one and the same thing." 
 And he proceeds to argue out that point, arriving at this conclusion : — " So, 
 therefore, in the business of assurance and full persuasion, the evidence of 
 grace, and the testimony of the Spirit, are two concurrent causes or helps. It 
 is not a safe nor a well-grounded assurance without the testimony of the 
 Spirit." This is the judgment of Gillespie — the ornament of the Westminster 
 Assembly, — and I presume that my fathers and brethren will have rather more 
 respect for his sentiments, than for the opinionative dicta of the appellant. 
 And holy Eutherf ord, who adorned that same age, says in his " Christ's Dying,'* 
 p. 100 : — " In believers there is a grace, a new nature, an habitual instinct of 
 heaven, to discern the Lord's Spirit immediately testifying that we are the 
 sons of God. The Holy Ghost speaketh the same thing by His operation of 
 grace in holy walking that He does by the word, and immediate voice of the 
 Spirit witnessing to our spu-its," &c., &c. ,- 
 
 Moderator, I could easily multiply such authorities, but I forbear. I have 
 said enough, however, to expose the rashness and temerity of the man who in- 
 tended to sustain his errors by referring to the writers, who were the friends 
 and cotemporaries of the Compilers of the Confession of Faith. And now. Mod- 
 erator, one word on the nature of the testimony itself. Sir, we may often be 
 thoroughly alive to facts which we cannot explain, and be abundantly sure of 
 results, while yet the modus operandi may be to us unexplicable. This re- 
 mark is specially applicable to the acts and operations of the Holy Ghost on 
 the souls of men. I say nothing of how in the experience of believers, the 
 affections are sometimes suddenly stirred, and the soul overpowered with a 
 sense of God's greatness, and a deep, overawing conviction of its vileness 
 and nothingness before Jehovah ; and whgn there is nothing in the means, 
 nor in our external circumstance to awaken such feehngs at the time, they seem 
 like the shadows of Omnipotence falling in their gi-andeur on the soul, or 
 like the acting of that spiritual instinct to which Eutherford alludes, by which 
 we at once detect the presence of the Holy One, and are humbled or comforted 
 thereby .^ I know how easy it is for men to sneer at all this, as presumption 
 or fanaticism ; but I have no doubt, that a child of God may have an inward 
 
18 
 
 consciousness of the presence of the Spirit of God, not that that consciousness 
 will be found to stand alone, and independent, as an evidence of a gracious 
 state, but be preceded or accompanied by other signs of the Spirit's work, 
 that ratify and confirm it- I believe that the human soul of Chi-ist had this 
 concurrent testimony j the evidence not only of works, wrought by the power 
 of that Eternal One, but of His presence with His pure humanity ; and I am 
 persuaded, that the consciousness of the presence of the Holy One, is a privilege 
 that may be enjoyed hy at least some of the ennobled children of the King- 
 dom, 
 
 Moderator, I do not regret that this subject has come up for discussion. 
 I have no doubt that the Assembly will stand in the old path, and give forth 
 such a finding as will sustain the Commission, and gladden the hearts of multi- 
 tudes in our Israel. Sir, we have been pondering the deep things of God, 
 following the soul in its highest flight, till we have seen it floating in the clear 
 atmosphere of the most perfect assurance of Divine love ; and difficult as the 
 ascent has been, and hard to understand as some of the glories revealed have 
 been, there are higher and loftier honours attached to the humblest behever, 
 more difficult even to comprehend than the inward witness of the Spu-it. 
 Who, who can tell all that is involved in his being made an heu* of God, a 
 joint heir with Christ Jesus ? Who, who can tmderstand the state of a soul 
 when it walks the golden streets of the New Jerusalem, made like to God 
 himseK ? and yet faith can reach to, and lay hold of all this, and she bids 
 us reason thus: — that if a sense of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit now, is so 
 sweet and precious, — if the joy and peace that spring therefrom are so blessed, 
 even amid all the imperfections of this pilgrim condition, what will our joy 
 and exultation be, when the shadows have passed away, and the veil is re- 
 moved, and imperfection is buried in the gTave of time, and we see God face 
 to face, and know even as we are known ? 
 
 Fathers and bretliren, I cannot go forth as a preacher of the everlasting 
 Gospel, if I must not tell sinners tbat they may know that they have eternal 
 life. The word which the Lord hath given us to publish is not a message 
 of doubt, that may originate a dim and ambiguous hope, but a message of 
 comfort, of peace, of unspeakable joy. Uncertainty is no characteristic of the 
 declaration of the Word of God, whether we ai-e dealing with sinners or with 
 saints. It is in my judgment essential to the right discharge of our duties, 
 that we say to our hearers, " You may know that you are dead in sins or alive 
 to righteousness, you may know that you are still an unconverted man and 
 under condemnation, or that you have passed from death to life, having 
 been quickened by grace. Our mission is very specially one of consolation to 
 the followers of the Lamb. We must be able to teU them that there is no 
 condemnation to them who are in Christ, and that they may have the hap- 
 piness of knowing that it is their privilege to say, " My beloved is mine 
 and I amHis." " God hath sent forth the Spiiit of his Son into our hearts." 
 ** Made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints." Sir, if we 
 are to beseech men to be reconciled to God, must we not tell them what that 
 reconcihation means, and that the fact of it may be surely and certainly as- 
 certained ? Are we to stand between the living and the dead, and proclaim 
 that there is a broad path that leadeth to perdition, and a straight way that 
 leadeth to life eternal, but that, till life is done, it it impossible for any 
 man to be absolutely sure whether he is in the broad or narrow way. Su-, the 
 eff'ect of such teaching would be to foster the false peace of seK-deluded souls, 
 and to injure the healthf ulness of Divine life in converted men. Let us not 
 stigmatise the glad tidings of gi-eat joy by limiting them to a perhaps, or a 
 peradventure. Not thus did the apostles, the early teachers, the reformers, 
 the fathers of our church, set forth the commandment of the Lord, They 
 addi-essed believers as men who had received the gift of eternal life. Like 
 them we say to Christians, These words, we make known to you, that you may 
 know that you have eternal life. We know that the Son of God is come, 
 and hath given us an understanding that we may know Him that is true, and 
 we are in Him that is truth, even in His Son Jesus Chi-ist 
 
19 
 
 SPEECH OF THE REV. DE. WATTS. 
 
 Dr. Watts then addressed the Assembly, and, after a preliminary remark 
 on a subject foreign to the case, imported by the appellants, proceeded as 
 follows : — 
 
 I am here this evening not through any desu'e on my part to be here. In 
 the providence of God, and without my knowledge, I was appointed on the 
 Assembly's Commission in this case. Of that appointment I was not aware 
 until within a few weeks of the meeting of the Commission. I went to the 
 meeting of the Commission prepared to do my duty in the fear of God, with- 
 out partiality. The speech which I made on the occasion, and for which I 
 have been assailed by the appellants, both here and through the medium of 
 the secular Press, was not a thing of forecast or premeditation. My friend, 
 Mr. Rentoul, can testify that I rose not to make a speech, but to interpose a 
 remark while he was speaking. That remark led to a challenge from Mr. 
 Nelson, and Mr. E,entoul giving way, I accepted the challenge. I was chal- 
 lenged to prove, from our Standards, that the Westminster Divines recognised 
 the testimony of the Holy Spirit to our adoption, as a distinct and an 
 additional ground of assurance. The sum and subEtance of my speech, in 
 response to this challenge, was simply an exposition of a piece of very plain 
 and exceedingly precise English, in the Confession of Faith. When I had 
 done, I ventiu-ed to suggest a counter challenge. I remarked that as Mr. 
 Nelson had challenged me, he could not well refuse a return of the compli- 
 ment. I there and then demanded that he should prove from our Standards, 
 that the testimony of the Holy Spirit was not recognised by the Westminster 
 Divines, as a distinct and an additional ground of assurance. This challenge, 
 as the members of the Commission, and especially my friend, Mr. Eobinson, 
 can testify, Mr. Nelson did not find it convenient.to accept. For the declina- 
 ture, it is true, he assigned reasons ; but they w^e not considered valid by 
 the Commission, nor will they be considered valid by this Assembly. He 
 said that it was neither the time, nor the place to discuss that question. Well, 
 most of us thought it was the very time, and the very place, and we could not 
 avoid the conclusion, that he declined the challenge because he dare not set 
 his defective theory of assurance in the light of these luminous, and unequiv- 
 ocal Standards. I am persuaded that nothing short of a felt, and a painfully 
 felt incapacity, could have compelled a spirit so chivalours to decline a demand 
 which his own tendered and accepted challenge had rendered so obviously 
 obligatory. It must be assumed that an orthodox Presbyterian would not 
 appeal, except out of a feeling of despair/from a regularly constituted church 
 court to the world, and conduct, before the ears of public opinion, a discussion 
 which he himself had set on foot within doors, and before his brethren of the 
 Commission. Mr. Nelson's procedure on the occasion, and since, reminds me 
 very much of the ground taken by Mrs. Catherine Beecher — a sister of Henry 
 Ward Beecher' s — in a book entitled, " An appeal from the Commentators to 
 to the people as the authorized expounders of God's Word." Mr. Nelson has 
 little faith in the institutions of Christ for settling questions of doctrinal 
 differences, but he has unlimited confidence in the secular Press and public 
 opinion. 
 
 Well, Mr. Moderator, it is worthy of note that the appellants have made 
 some progress since the Commission met. On that occasion they denied that 
 there were three grounds of assurance, but they admitted that there were at 
 least two. Now, however, they have succeeded, by a more thorough appli- 
 cation of their newly invented instrument of exegesis, in reducing the two to 
 one. This is, I suppose, another instance of those *' vanishing points," of 
 which Mr. Nelson spoke on Friday last. 
 
 It must be admitted, however, that though this reduction of three to two, 
 and, finally, of two to one, is fatal both to their exegetical theory, and to the 
 doctrine of assurance, the operation is logical and consistent. The members 
 of the Commission will remember that the result, now attained, was pre- 
 
20 
 
 dieted when this principle of exegesis was avowed at our meeting'. Mi'. 
 Nelson and his friend were told, that to be consistent, they must cany out 
 their principle, and make the second clause exegetical of the first, and thus 
 reduce the three clauses to one. This they have now accomplished, and it 
 must be acknowledged, that the result is a proof, at once, cf consistency and 
 of courage. 
 
 But these remarks will be more intelligible if the brethren will tm-n with 
 me to the Confession of Faith, chap, xviii. sec. 2. And I may be permitted to 
 hope that, as one of the results of this controversy, we may all be brought to 
 a more thorough study of these venerable Standards, than which no nobler 
 summary of saving truth has ever been evoked by man from the treasury o£ 
 the infallible Word of God. In regard to the nature and grounds of assur- 
 ance the Westminster Divines state, in the passage referred to, that " This 
 certainty is not a bare conjectui-al and probable persuasion, grounded upon a 
 fallible hope ; but an infallible assm^ance of faith, founded u.pon the divine 
 truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto 
 which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption wit- 
 nessing with oui- spirits that we are the children of God : Avhich Spirit is the 
 earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption." 
 Now it seems to have been the doctrine of the men who wi-ote this, section, 
 not only that there is such a tiling as an infallible assm-anco attainable, but 
 that this assurance rests on a threefold foundation. 1. The divine truth of 
 the promises of salvation. 2. The inward evidence of those graces to which 
 these promises are made. 3. The testimony of the Sjjirit witnessing with 
 our spirit that we are the children of God. Such would be the interpretation 
 which any person competent to judge of the meaning of a sentence of Eng- 
 lish would put upon this section, if he were to enter upon the study of it 
 unembarrassed by theories. So far as the syntax of the sentence is concerned, 
 there is no authority whatever, for regarding the thii-d clause in this enumera- 
 tion as exegetical of the second. And further,, he who makes the third 
 exegetical of the second" must, if he will be consistent, make the second exe- 
 getical of the first. This, as predicted, Mr. Dobbin has done. He has reduced 
 the three clauses to one, and tells you to-day, that there is but one ground erf 
 assurance ! 
 
 Mb. Dobbin — I beg your pardon. 
 
 Moderator — You wiU be heard again, but dont interrupt now. 
 
 Mr. Dobbin — A word of explanation. 
 
 Dr. Watts — I hope you will allow him to explain. 
 
 Mr. Dobbin — What I said was that, to a true behever in Christ who is not 
 assured, there is only one ground of assurance, and that is contained in the 
 second clause of the Larger Catechism. 
 
 Dr. Watts— Will the Assembly take note of that explanation? I had 
 chai'ged Mr. Dobbin v/ith the reduction of the three grounds of assurance to 
 one. He interrupted me in order to explain. Well, what is his explanation ? 
 It is simply a confirmation of my charge. To a true believer, who is not 
 assured, he tells us there is but one ground of assurance. To the true be- 
 liever ! Why, who was speaking of any other kind of believers ? Is not the 
 believer distinguished, in the context from hypodites and other unregenerate 
 persons ? We are speaking of the true behever, and of the true behever' s 
 grounds of assurance, and, with the Westminster Divines, I say that these 
 grounds are the three ah-eady enumerated. 
 
 But we are told that in attempting to interpret the language of the Con- 
 fession on tliis subject, we should be guided by, or at least take into account, 
 the works of contemporary writers. With this principle I entirely agree j 
 and I simply ask, to what contemporary authorities shall our appeal be made ? 
 Mr. Macnaughtan has already given us names of high repute, and quoted from 
 works of the very highest ecclesiastical authority in proof of our interpre- 
 tation. There is, however, an authority above all these — an authority to which 
 tills Assembly will bow~to which I would briefly ask your attention. That 
 authority is the Larger Catechism— a document compiled for the express 
 
21 
 
 purpose of interpreting the Confession of Faith. On turning to this author- 
 itative exposition, there are two questions present themselves. 1. Is the 
 subject in question expounded in the Catechism ? 2. Do tl^e Westminster 
 Divines specify three distinct grounds of assurance ? Both of these questions 
 I answer in the aifirmative. I will read for you the answer to the 80th question : 
 " Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavoiu* to walk in all good consci- 
 ence before him, may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded 
 upon the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern 
 in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bear- 
 ing witness with their spuits that they are the childien of God, be infallibly 
 assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto 
 salvation." 
 
 Now let it be observed that this language is designed to be expository of 
 the language of the Confession already cited, chap, xviii., sec. 2. It is 
 this fact wluch gives to it peculiar weight and significancy in this controversy. 
 In this answer the Westminster Divines tell us, more fully and expressely, 
 what they embraced in the grounds of assurance as specified in the Con- 
 fession. In this exposition, however, we have still three grounds enumerated. 
 We have, 1. The objective truth. 2. Tho subjective state. 3. The testi- 
 mony of the Holy Spirit bearing witness with our spirits. Will the appel- 
 lants try the alchemy of theu-pecuhar exegesis on these three clauses, and reduce 
 them to one, as they have essayed to do with the three clauses of the Con- 
 fession ? I Apprehend there ai'e two very grave diffictdties in the way of such 
 an achievement. In the first place, the peculiar wording of the second clause 
 of the Catechism is against them. If the brethren will turn to the Confession 
 and compare the three clauses there enumerated, with the three clauses given 
 in the Catechism, they will find that the middle clause of the Catechism differs 
 from the middle clause of the Confession. Now I ask you to observe closely 
 wherein the difference consists. The second clause of the Catechism intro- 
 duces a subjective operation of the Holy Spirit, whereby He enables the be- 
 liever to discern in himself those graces to which the promises of life are 
 made. This, as you are 3,ware, is exactly what the appellants say the second 
 and tliird clauses of the Confession taken together mean. The operation of the 
 Holy Spirit in opening the eyes of the believer to apprehend the gracious work 
 wrought within, is the only operation or testimony which they will allow. All 
 that they hold, therefore, in regard to the Spirit's testimony, is embraced in 
 the second clause of the Catechism. When the Westminster Divines penned 
 that second clause they had exhausted the theology of our appellants on the 
 testimony of the Holy Spirit. It is manifest, however, that they had not 
 exhausted their own. After writing that second clause, in which they teach 
 that the Holy Spirit does enable the believer to examine himself, they go still 
 farther and specify in a third clause, a third ground of assurance. Having 
 told us that true believers may be inf aUibly assiu*ed of their being in the 
 estate of grace and of their persevering therein unto salvation, " by faith 
 grounded on the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to 
 discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made," 
 they still add, "and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the 
 children of God." Now, I ask, is it possible that such a body of men, as the 
 Westminster Divines confessedly were, would be giiilty of such tautology ? 
 Would they in the third clause state over again, what they had already, and 
 with such precision of phrase, stated in the second ? Nay, verily. They were 
 men accustomed to discriminate, and when they singled out and distinguished 
 the testimony and witness-bearing of the Holy Sph-it as a third element in 
 their enumeration of the grounds of assm-ance, they meant that it should be 
 so regarded. 
 
 But the Catechism differs from the Confession in another important particu- 
 lar. In the Confession the word and is not used between the clauses, whilst 
 in the Catechism it is introduced both between the first and second, and be- 
 tween the second and thu-d. On this fact I base an argument the force of 
 which Mr. Dobbin will feel, as he has unwittingly conceded the principle on 
 
22 
 
 which it is founded. In his second pamphlet entitled, " A Letter/' &c., p. 2&, 
 he argues as follows : — 
 
 " 2. What say the Standards of the Presbyterian Church ? Hear the Con- 
 fession of Faith, chap, xviii. 2 — 
 
 " Assurance of Faith, founded upon the Divine truth of the promises of sal- 
 vation — the inward evidence of these graces to which the promises are made, 
 the testimony of the Spu-it of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we 
 are the childi-en of God." 
 
 " The Westminster Divines saw their way too clearly to put an " and " be- 
 tween the Spirit's graces, the Spirit's work, and the Spirit's testimony to our 
 adoption. These are not two things, they are one and the same. The Cate- 
 chism, cap. 2, q. 80, speaks the same language : — ' Such as truly believe, may 
 be infallibly assured, by faith grounded on the truth of God's promises, and 
 by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the 
 promises are made, and hearing witness with their spirit, that they are the 
 children of God,' — i.e., enabling them to discern in themselves the graces of 
 the Spirit, and thus * bearing witness.' The Spirit's work and the Spirit's 
 witness are not two things, but one. This indenture witnesseth." 
 
 Here we are told that " The Westminster Divines saw their way too clearly 
 to put an " and " between the Spu-it's graces — the Spirit's work, and the 
 Spirit's testimony to our adoption." In making this statement, Mr. Dobbin 
 evidently regards it as an ai-gument in favour of his views, that the West- 
 minster Divines do not put an " and " between the clauses, and as mani- 
 festly concedes that it would be an argument against him if they had put in 
 that little word. Well then, the argument is narrowed down by this con- 
 cession to a question of fact. The question is simply this, — Did the West- 
 minster Divines put in the word "and" between these clauses ? Mr. Dobbin 
 says, they saw their way too clearly to put an " and" between the Spirit's 
 work and the Spirit's testimony, whilst we affirm that they have put an "and" 
 in this very position. This Mr. Dobbin denies, and this we affirm, and, if 
 we may become appellants, we appeal to the Larger Catechism. Why it 
 would seem as if some strange fatality or infatuation had ruled the hour in 
 which Mr. Dobbin acknowledged that the use of an " and " would be fatal 
 to his argument ; for immediately after he had quoted the Confession, in 
 which the " and " is not used, he cites the Catechism where the " and " is 
 used — cites the Catechism " and " and all ! In view of this concession, then, 
 I contend that Mr. Dobbin is bound to confess before this Assembly that 
 our Standards are against him, and that they do, according to his own show- 
 ing, teach that there is a third ground of assm-ance — the distinct and 
 direct testimony of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 But the question with me, is not simply whether our Standards teach 
 that there is a third ground of assurance, consisting of the direct testimony 
 of the Holy Spirit to our adoption ? This is an important question but, 
 it is not the only one, to be considered. We must recognise the authority of 
 God's Word, as ultimate and final in tliis, as in all other matters of faith and 
 practice. In this, I am glad to find the appellants agree with us. Mr. 
 Dobbin, in his speech appealed to Scripture, and quoted the following pas- 
 sages to prove, among other things, that there is no such element in the 
 grounds of the believer's assurance as the direct testimony of the Holy Spirit. 
 " Wherefore the rather, brethi-en, give all diligence to make your calling and 
 election sure." — 2 Peter i. 10. " We know that we have passed from death 
 unto life, because we love the brethren." — 1 John iii. 14. " And we desire 
 that every one of you do show the same diligence to the full assurance of 
 hope unto the end." — Heb. vi. 11. These passages Mr. Dobbin alleges are 
 the passages chiefly relied on by the advocates of an assurance which is cer- 
 tain and infallible, and yet, he tells us, they say nothing of the testimony of 
 the Holy Spirit as a distinct ground of assurance, WeU, Mr. Moderator, this 
 is reaUy too bad. He sets out to prove from Scripture, that there is no other 
 ground recognised, as the basis of the believer's assm-ance, than the subjec- 
 tive graces wrought by the Holy Spirit, and quotes and criticises three or 
 
four texts which no one ever employed in proof of the direct testimony of the 
 Holy Spii'it. The doctrine, forsooth, is not taught in these passages, and 
 therefore it is taught nowhere ! Why, sir, a man might as well claim that 
 he had vanquished the British army because he had fired a pop-gun at three 
 British soldiers. 
 
 I would now beg leave to introduce to your attention a few of those 
 passages on which the advocates of the direct testimony of the Holy Spii-it do 
 rely. The first, I would mention, is Eom. v. 5: "And hope maketh not 
 ashamed ; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy 
 Ghost which is given unto us." The whole preceding context is so thoroughly 
 opposed to the anti-revivalists that the Assembly will bear with me whUe 
 I quote it in its entirety. "Therefore being justified by faith, we have" — 
 have what? — "peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." When? 
 When have we, or when is it our privilege to have, this peace ? Is it after a 
 month or a year, or the present life ? Nay verily. It is a peace consequent 
 on, and immediately consequent on, justification. " Being justified by faith, 
 we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Did the revivalists 
 teach anything more in conflict with the doctrine of the appellants, as set 
 forth in their attack on Mr. Crawford, than is here taught by the Apostle 
 Paul ? They said a man might have peace at once, and the Apostle says the 
 same thing. 
 
 But this is not all. The believer has higher privileges than mere peace. 
 He has access into a grace wherein he stands and rejoices in hope of the 
 glory of God. This is not the dubious emotion of the theology of the 
 appellants. The hope is a hope that thriUs with ecstasy, and causes the 
 believer to shout for joy. 
 
 And further, so confident is the believer that he can meet the trials of this 
 present life in their direst forms, without giving way to despondency. 
 Tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope. 
 Afflictions do not subvert his confidence, but on the contrary strengthen 
 that grace. 
 
 Thus far the passage introduces only the first and second grounds of 
 assurance. At this point, however, the third element appears. Having 
 spoken of the believer's hope, consequent upon his reconciliation with God 
 in justification, and of the effect of that hope upon the believer during 
 affliction, and of the reflex influence of affliction upon the hope, the Apostle 
 adds: — "And hope maketh not ashamed, because the love of God is shed 
 abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us." Now I 
 admit that if the love of God here referred to, be not God's love towards us, 
 I have no right to quote the passage in proof of the direct testimony of the 
 Holy Spirit. If it mean om* love to God, then the passage can not be cited 
 as a proof -text by us. But the subsequent context proves that our interpre- 
 tation is the true one. The love in question is the love illustrated in the 
 gift and sacrifice of Christ. It is His love towards us which God com- 
 mendeth by the suffering of His Son for us, even when we were without 
 strength, when we were ungodly, when we were enemies This is the love 
 which the Holy Spirit sheds abroad in om- hearts. The love in question, 
 therefore, is not a subjective affection, produced in the soul by the agency 
 of the Holy Ghost, but the love which God himself cherishes towards us. 
 Of this love, as entertained towards us by God, the Holy Spirit assures us. 
 The persuasion that God loves us is produced, according to the teaching of 
 this text, by the immediate and direct agency of the Spii-it of God given unto 
 us. , This passage, therefore, ought not to have been overlooked by the appel- 
 lants. 
 
 The next text to which I would call attention is Eom. viii. 16 — " The Spirit 
 itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the chUdi*en of God." To 
 this passage Mr. Dobbin has given some attention in one of his pamphlets. 
 In " A Letter," p. 25, Mr. Dobbin asks, " What is the meaning of this Scrip- 
 ture ?" and proceeds to expound it. By a most unwai-rantable reference of 
 the relative auto to the preceding context, he eudeavoui-s to show that the 
 
spirit which the Apostle represents as bearing witness with our spirit, is not 
 the Holy Spirit, but the filial spii-it within us. T need not tell this Assembly 
 * that such a reference of auto is contrary to Greek usage, or vindicate, before 
 this body, the translation given in our English Version. " The Spirit itself 
 beareth witness with our spu-it that we are the children of God," is the only 
 rendering which the original will admit. Now that this witnessing Spirit, is 
 the Holy Spirit, appears from the following considerations : — 
 
 1. The scope of the previous context. It is admitted on all hands that the 
 Apostle has just been speaking of those filial affections of which the Holy 
 Spirit is the author. If, therefore, it can be "proven that in this verse there 
 is evidence of the introduction of a new source of assm*ancc, it must follow 
 that this new som*ce is distinct from, and additional to the evidence furnished 
 by those filial affections of which the Apostle had just been speaking. 
 
 2. Now this evidence of a change of subject we contend, is given in the in- 
 troductory words of the 16th verse. Such is manifestly the proper force of 
 the phi-ase "the Spirit itself." The Apostle does not simply say the Spirit, 
 but the Spirit itself, beareth witness, &c. The term itself, expresses the inde- 
 pendence of the testimony ascribed to the Spirit. The obvious intention, 
 therefore, is to distinguish the testimony which he proceeds to describe, from 
 the evidence already adduced. This new testimony, therefore, whatever the 
 natiu-e of it is, must be distinct from that f m*nished by our own filial affections 
 of which the Holy Spirit is the author. 
 
 3. This view is confirmed by the manifest distinction between the Spii-it 
 itseK and our spirit, in this verse. By the former is meant the Holy Spirit, 
 and by the latter, the soul of the believer as the subject of the filial affec- 
 tions previously described. The inference, therefore, seems to be clear, that 
 the Spirit, in the following testimony and act of testifying, is to be dis- 
 tinguished from our own spirits as the subject of these affections. His testi- 
 mony is to be regarded as distinct from that fm-nished by our own affections 
 as sons. 
 
 4. The conclusion to which we are led by aU these considerations, is con- 
 firmed by the term employed to express the method in which the Spirit itself 
 renders this testimony. It is the term summarturei. The proper force of this 
 term, as distinguished from the simple form of the verb, is to express the idea of 
 a concm-rent testimony. It is to give testimony which agrees with that given 
 by some other witness. In the trial of our Saviour, the lack of this concurrence, 
 rendered a verdict based on the testimony of the suborned witnesses im- 
 practicable, as the Jewish law requu-ed the concurrent testimony of at least 
 two witnesses. In regard to the sonship of the believer, however, there is a 
 concurrent testimony. Not only does his own filial affections towards God 
 prove that he is His child, but the Holy Spirit himself adds His own inde- 
 pendent witness to the truth of this subjective ^;estimony. The testimony, 
 therefore, on which the believer's assurance of his adoption rests, is not simply 
 his own filial feelings, but those attested by the direct witness of the Holy 
 Spirit. His assurance, therefore, is not merely rational, or conjectural, but in- 
 fallible, for it is founded ultimately on the witness of Him who cannot err, 
 and who cannot lie. Some men may call this fanaticism, or what they please. 
 I care not for that. They may call upon me to show how the Holy Spirit 
 can testify directly to the soul and immediately assiu-e the believer that he 
 is a child of God. I candidly acknowledge my inability to meet the demand. 
 But does it follow, because we cannot tell how the Spii'it does a thing, that 
 therefore He does not do it ? I cannot tell how the Spirit regenerates 
 the soul, I cannot tell how He sanctifies it, I cannot tell how He carries on 
 the intercession within, I cannot tell how he does anything.* Does my 
 
 * I may be permitted to state, as a matter of interest to the brethren, that in a letter received 
 from Dr. Ilodge on this deeply interesting subject, he employs the phrase "personal intercourse" 
 to indicate his views as to the way in which the Ilqly Spirit bears witness with the spirit of the 
 believer. I need not sav that the Scriptures warrant the use of this phrase, by what they teach of 
 the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, nor delay to argue that, by an intercourse which embraces com- 
 munion with the soul throughout the entire range of its i)owers, the God who created it, can assure 
 it of His love towards it. It is no argument against this doctrine to allege that the presence of the 
 
ignorance warrant a universal scepticism ? I say this, Mr. Moderator, that 
 on the ground taken by the appellants, in regard to the testimony of the 
 Holy Spirit, there can be no such thing as the saving faith described in our 
 Standai-ds. That faith which saves the soid — that faith which is the faith 
 of God's elect, rests ultimately and finally, on the direct testimony of the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 This I consider a vital point with Protestants as against Romanists, and a 
 vital principle in the application of the purchased redemption. That the doc- 
 trine I propound is the doctrine of the Westminster Divines is Tuiquestionable, 
 I refer the Assembly to chap, i., sec. 5, of the Confession. "We may be 
 moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverend 
 esteem of the Holy Scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy 
 of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the pai-ts, the 
 scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery it 
 makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable ex- 
 cellencies, and the entire perfection thereof , are arguments whereby it doth 
 abundantly evidexice itself to b3 the Word of God ; yet nohvithstaiiding our full 
 persuasion and assurance of tlie infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is 
 from, the inward tvorh of the Holy Spirit, hearing witness by and with the word in 
 our hearts." Now let it be observed that the Westminster Divines are not 
 here speaking of the assurance of our adoption, but of the assurance which 
 a man must have regarding the divine authority of the Scriptures from the 
 very moment in which he first believes. This assurance they ascribe to the 
 testimony of the Holy Ghost. It is manifest, therefore, that the testimony 
 on which it rests, is a dii'ect and immediate testimony prior to sanctification. 
 This is the faith described in oui- Standards. It is not the offspring of verbal 
 criticisms and m.ental analysis, birt a faith which rests on the dli-ect testimony 
 of God's Spirit. He who has this faith, has a faith that stands, not in the 
 wisdom of man, but in the power of God. 
 
 And this leads me to remark that the appellants seem to have a very 
 confused notion of saving faith, Mr. Nelson recommended to the members 
 of Assembly a very learned work on this subject, by a very learned man, the 
 Bishop of Ossory. I would endorse that recommendation and extend it to 
 Mr. Nelson himself. If we are to judge from the acquaintance with its con- 
 tents, manifested in his citation of it, there would seem to be some ground 
 for an extension of the recommendation. Mr. Nelson attempted to give us 
 the Bishop's definition of faith. I took down the words carefully. They 
 were as follows : — " Faith in God thi-ough Christ is the mental link which 
 unites the soul to Christ." WeU, I have here the book in question and shall 
 read from Dr. O'Brien's definition in his own words. " Faith in Christ, or 
 faith in God through Christ," says the good Bishop, " is trust in Christ, as 
 the procTU'cr of salvation for Christ's sake." Ser. 1. p. 17. The Bishop then 
 quotes Matthew vi. 30; Luke xii. 28; Mark iv. 40; Matthew xiv. 25 — 31 j 
 and refers to the qua.si definition and illustrations of faith given Hebrews xi. 
 to show that faith is a principle possessed, and not a mere act performed. This 
 is orthodox. I have no hesitation in endorsing the Bishop of Ossory's defini- 
 tion of faith. It is exactly the doctrine of our Standards, which define faith, 
 not as " a mental link," but as a saving grace. A mental link cannot be a 
 saving grace. A mental link cannot be the heaven- descended gift of which 
 the Apostle speaks, Eph. ii. 8. Faith is God's gift, and is a grace — a 
 principle of holy action — a principle out of which holy exercises flow, but it 
 is not " a mental link." The Assembly will agree with me, that it is not 
 altogether unnecessary to recommend our friend, Mr. Nelson, to read Dr. 
 O'Brien's book once more. It will do him good, as he is evidently not at home 
 among theological definitions. 
 
 I proceed now to test Mr. Nelson's knowledge of Hebrew, as displayed in 
 his recent criticisms. He has made very large professions in regard to his 
 
 Spirit cannot be a matter of consciousness, since this is not affirmed or assured. We simply hold 
 that by His personal intercourse He produces an assurance which, it must be admitted, comes 
 within the sphere of consciousness. 
 
26 
 
 attainments in Hebrew lore. Assuming that he is capable of instructing this 
 Assembly on all matters linguistic and theologic, he has favoiu-ed us with a 
 criticism on the original of two passages in the Old Testament. The first 
 occurs. Psalm Ixxxv. 7. (verse 6 in the English.) Mr. ISTelson warns this 
 Assembly against quoting this passage in support of revival theology. He 
 tells us that the Hebrew will not warrant such application of this passage. 
 He teUs us that there is in it an awfully mysterious term. I will not say 
 — decidedly say — what he called that mysterious word. The reporters inform 
 us that he called it hoov, and reporters have practised ears. But we will 
 give him the benefit of the possible contingency of bad hearing, or inaccurate 
 reporting, and presume that he said, or meant to say, shoov. This word, we 
 are told, is an awfully mysterious term, and ought not to be touched by men 
 imperfectly acquainted with Hebrew — that it gives no countenance to the 
 doctrine of the Eevivalists. Well this is sage criticism ! Who ever said that 
 shoov means to revive? — We have never linked the idea of Revival to the 
 term shoov, but to another terra which Mr. Nelson does not seem to have 
 discovered in the passage. That term is most expressive and significant on 
 this point. It is the term techwyaynoo, and has for its root chayah, to be alive. 
 It is the Piel of that verb, the intensive form, and means to make alive. The 
 passage literally rendered wo aid read, "Wilt thou not return, wilt thou not 
 revive us ? " But, as shoov has siuiply the force of an adverb, oxw translators 
 have very properly rendered the passage, " Wilt thou not revive us again ? " 
 So much for Mr. Nelson's Hebrew lore, as indicated by his criticism on shoov. 
 But not satisfied with the laurels won on this arena, Mr. Nelson tries his 
 critical powers on a favourite passage in the 23d Psalm. He tells us that 
 tsahnahveth (death shade,) which he pronounces tsoAilmaveth, ought not to be 
 interpreted as meaning death itself. He does not tell us what is its proper 
 meaning, but warns us against giving it the meaning which we are all accus- 
 tomed to attach to it. Well, we ask on what authority is this monition based ? 
 He has given us none. Are we to accept his ipse dixit as the ultima ratio of 
 hermeneutics ? Verily nay. Against his assertion I cite Job x. 21 — 22, 
 where tsalmahveth occurs twice in this very sense, and can mean nothing but 
 the state of the dead. In addition, I would state that the LXX use the terms 
 skia thanatou, and hades (Job xxxviii. 17.) as equivalent terms. Mr. Nelson 
 says " Hear, hear," to sMa thanatou, but he does not find it convenient to cry 
 " hear, hear," to hades. If hades mean the invisible estate, then so may the 
 term tsalmahveth. Mr. Nelson, therefore, has ventured into an arena on which 
 he is not likely to win many laurels. If we are to judge of his knowledge 
 of Hebrew from these specimens, our estimate cannot be a very high one. 
 Whatever faculty he may have in a certain species of the vernacular, he is 
 evidently a stranger to the lishan halcodesh — the holy tongue. 
 
 The appellants teU us, Mr. Moderator, that Mr. Dobbin was defending the 
 doctrines of the Confession of Faith. In his pamphlets, Mr. Dobbin claims, 
 as an ally, one of Scotland's greatest Theologians. He ventures to cite Dr. 
 Cunningham in support of the doctrine that a certain and an infallible 
 assurance is not attainable in the present life. On page 12 of his "Remarks," 
 Dr. Cunningham is introduced in the following terms : — 
 
 "Further, after almost admitting that BeUarmine, in defending the 
 decision of the Council of Trent on this subject, has placed himseK behind 
 intrenchments, from which it is nearly impossible to dislodge him," Principal 
 Cunningham continues, " It is true that another element than anything con- 
 tained in Scripture must be brought in as a part of the foundation of their 
 (Christians') assurance, and when they are called upon to state and vindicate 
 to themselves, or to others, the grounds of their assurance, they must of 
 necessity proceed in substance in the line of the following syllogism: — 'Whoso- 
 ever believeth in the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved ; I believe, and, there- 
 fore, &c.' There is no possibility of avoiding, in substance, some such process 
 as this ; and while the major proposition is proved by Scripture, the minor can 
 be established only by some use of materials derived from consciousness 
 and self-examination. There are no positions connected with religion which 
 
27 
 
 can be so certain as tliose which are directly and immediately taught in 
 Scripture, and wliich are usually said to be believed with ' the certainty of 
 faith/ or of ' Divine faith.' The introduction of an element as necessary to 
 the conclusion, derived from a different source — viz., from the knowledge of 
 what we ourselves are, must be admitted, in fairness, to complicate the evi- 
 dence, and to affect the Und, if not the degree, of the certainty or assurance that 
 may result from it." Finally, Dr. Cunningham adds—" Modern Protestants, 
 as the result of a more careful, deliberate, and unembarrassed examination 
 of the subject than the Eeformers were able to give it, have become indifferent 
 about the question, whether this assurance should be called the certainty of 
 faith, or have plainly admitted that this designation was an improper one ? " 
 
 Such, according to Mr. Dobbin, were the views of Dr. Cunningham on the 
 subj ect of assm-ance. He makes him all but endorse the doctrine of Bellarmine 
 and the Council of Trent, in opposition to the Eeformers. The Assembly will 
 be surprised to learn that Mr. Dobbin has won over Dr. Cunningham to his 
 support by perverting his language. I am sorry to be compelled to make 
 such a charge before this Assembly against one of our ministers, but the vin- 
 dication of the truth demands an exposure of such literary tampering. 
 
 The quotations, I repeat it, are unfairly made. In the first place, Mr. 
 Dobbin omits two sentences in which Dr. Cunningham contradicts the doc- 
 trine which he quotes him as endorsing, and teaches the doctrine for which we 
 contend. These sentences are as follows : — 
 
 "The circumstances that preceded and accompanied their conversion may 
 have been such as to leave them in no doubt about their having passed from 
 darkness to light. Their present consciousness may testify at once and 
 explicitly to the existence in them of those things which the Bible informs us 
 accompany salvation." 
 
 Here ai-e affirmed two of the points which Mr. Dobbin denies. 1. That a 
 believer may attain to an assurance which is accompanied with no doubt. 2. 
 That he may attain to such assurance the very moment he has passed from 
 death unto life. Now, I ask, is it not a remarkable fact that Mr. Dobbin has 
 left out a passage in which these two points are affirmed, and that the passage 
 omitted immediately precedes the quotation already referred to ? How comes 
 it, I ask, that he begins to quote just after this passage which condemns his 
 doctrine ? 
 
 Well, but this is not all. In the quotation just given, Mr. Dobbin puts in 
 close proximity, two passages which are separated in Dr. Cunningham's article 
 on assurance, by no fewer than twenty-seven pages, and introduces the second 
 passage in such a way as to produce the impression that he is giving Dr. 
 Cunningham's, conclusion on the whole matter. "Finally," he says. Dr. 
 Cunningham adds : " Modern Protestants, as the result of a more careful, 
 deliberate, and unembarrassed examination of the subject than the Eeformers 
 were able to give it, have become indifferent about the question, whether 
 this assurance should be called the certainty of. faith, or have plainly ad- 
 mitted that this designation was an improper one ? " 
 
 Here again, Mr. Dobbin has found it convenient to leave out the immedi- 
 ately preceding passage in which Dr. Cunningham contradicts him. To 
 that preceding context I would ask the attention of this Assembly. It reads 
 as follows : " The technicalities of the controversy are somewhat altered, while its 
 substance remains the same." (The italics are Dr. Cunningham's.) " The 
 grand question still is, as it has always been," {i.e., between Protestants and 
 Papists) " Is it practicable, obligatory, and expedient, that believers should 
 be assured of their justification and salvation ? Upon this question the Ee- 
 f ormed churches have always maintained, and still maintain, the affirmative, 
 while the Eomanists, for obvious reasons, have always taken the other side." 
 Why, I ask again, did Mr. Dobbin leave out this immediately preceding con- 
 text, in which Dr. Cunningham is summing up, and stating the amount of 
 the variation charged by Sir Wm. Hamilton against Modern Protestants ? 
 Is it fair, or righteous, to omit this passage, in which Dr. Cunningham 
 repels this charge, and in which he afibms that whilst "the technicalities of 
 
28 
 
 tlie controversy ai-e somewhat altered, its substance remains tlie same ?" The 
 reason of the omission is obvious. In the passage omitted. Dr. Cunningham 
 alFirms that the Reformed churches have always maintained, and do still 
 maintain, in opposition to Eomanists, and to the appellants, that it is practi- 
 cable, obligatory, and expedient, that believers should be assured of their 
 justification and salvation. As Mr. Dobbin wished to make the contrary 
 impression, he felt constrained to avoid this untoward passage, and not only 
 so, but was compelled to stop short in the middle of a sentence J 
 
 But again, the passage in question, is not the conclusion of Dr. Cunningham'af 
 article, and gives b-ut a very imperfect idea of the high ground he took upon 
 the subject of assurance. In the last paragraph, he writes as fallows : "That 
 it is practicable, obligatory, and expedient, that believers should be assured 
 of their justification, was not certainly, ' the fundamental principle of all 
 the Eeformed Churches,' [referring to the inaccuracy of Sir WiUiam'a 
 language] but the fundamental principle of the teaching of the Reformed 
 churches on the subject of assurance. It is fuLly and clearly declared in the 
 Westminster Confession. It has been held professedly by the whole body of 
 Calvinistic Divines, both before and since the variation which Sir WiUiam has 
 signalised. And yet we fear it has at all times been too much neglected, 
 both theoretica.lly and practically, viewed both as declaring a tri^h and en- 
 forcing a duty. We believe that the prevailing practical disregard of th& 
 privilege and duty of having assurance, is, to no inconsiderable extent, at- 
 once the cause and the effect of the low state of vital religion amongst us — 
 one main reason why there is so little of real communion with G-ai as our recon- 
 ciled Father, and so little of real heaa-ty devotedness to His cause and 
 service.'* 
 
 Such is Dr. Cunningham's conclusion as given by himself, and I appeal to 
 this Assembly to say whether it be not the veiy opposite of what Mr. Dobbin 
 has put down as his conclusion. In the name of our common Christianity, 
 in the name of our church's honour, which is at stake- in this matter, I ask, 
 is this to be tolerated ? May one of our ministers drag a brother minister 
 from court to court of our church, and try to sustain his charges by palpable 
 misqotations of venerated authorities ? 
 
 Nor has Mr. Dobbin dealt more fairly with the Holy Scriptures themselves. 
 On p. 16 of his " Remai-ks," he proceeds to give an exiDosition of 1 John v. 
 13. This passage he quotes as follows : — " These things have I wi-itten unto 
 you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on 
 the name of the Son of God." In this quotation he omits the words " that- 
 believe." The passage is as follows : — " These things have I written unto 
 you tluit believe," &c., &c. This is the true rendering of the true Greek text. 
 Why did Mr. Dobbin omit these words ? Simply to make out and sustain 
 an interpretation of the verse which would neutralise the testimony it affords 
 in favour of the attaina^bleness of assurance. He was about to interpret the 
 clause — "that ye may know that ye have eternal life," as meaning simply 
 " that ye may know that ye have the offer of eternal life," and it would not do 
 to admit that the Apostle was addressing believers when he made such a 
 statement. This was his sole reason for leaving out tliis clause of the inspired 
 text: for there is no ground in the variations of the Greek manuscripts which 
 any Greek scholar would regard as sufficient to warrant such omission. 
 
 But this is not all. In proceeding to interpret this mutilated text, he tells 
 us that "to understand this Scripture we must attend to the 10th and 11th 
 verses." Well, we accept the reference, and turn back with him to the 10th 
 verse. But here again he has recourse to his accustomed tactics, and does 
 not go back to the beginning of the 10th verse. He had observed that the 
 clause with which that verse begins, was not the clause for his purpose. He 
 f ovind that it reads as follows : — " He that believeth on the Son of God hath 
 the witness in himself " — that is, he found that the first clause of the verse 
 to which he appealed, affirmed the doctrine he was endeavouring to explain 
 away out of the context. It may just possibly have occurred that he did 
 not observe that this clause was in the 10th verse, but one cannot help 
 
29 
 
 feeling that it looks a little strange that he should, altogether unwittingly, 
 have turned in the ploughshare of his exegesis just after this remarkable 
 clause. 
 
 As the Assembly has compelled me to go on, late aa the hour is, I shall 
 give one other specimen of the critical acumen displayed by Mr. Dobbin in 
 tliis controversy. We have akeady seen how admu-ably fitted the other 
 appellant is for the task of criticising the original, and it may not be alto- 
 gether out of place to put to the test the qualifications of his co-adjutor in 
 this line. Mr. Dobbin favours us with ("Remarks," pp. 14, 15,) the fol- 
 lowing criticism on Mr. Crawford's text, 2 Pet. i. 10 : — 
 
 " In order to serve the purpose required, the term rendered in this passage 
 ' sure,' must be translated ' cei-tainly known to yourselves.' I affirm, then, 
 that the word here rendered in the authorised version 'sure,' does not 
 occur in the sense ' certainly known to a man's self,' in any portion of the 
 New Testament. The original word occurs nine times in the Greek Testa- 
 ment ; five times it is in the English version rendered ' steadfast ;' twice it is 
 translated ' sure ;' once * firm ;' and once, what is equivalent to * firm ' — 
 viz., * of force ' — in no case is it rendered, or can it be rendered, * cei-tainly 
 known.' It means sure in the sense of * firm ' or ' steadfast,' in the passage 
 under consideration, which teaches simply that the profession of being called 
 and elected, that does not lead to faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, 
 brotherly kindness and charity, is ' not to be depended on,' and the man who 
 is so fooKsh as to do so, wiU certainly be deceived and ' fall.' The basis, then, 
 is obviously too narrow to support the superstructure erected on it j and it 
 is with a kind of regret that I see vanishing from the view, an interpre- 
 tation of a passage which has been so long and so confidently propounded, as 
 settling the great question under discussion. It has, however, lived out 
 its day." 
 
 The Assembly will observe the term in this text to which Mr. Dobbin turns 
 his critical powers. It is the term " sure." Now I think the brethren will 
 agree with me, that no critic wotdd single out that term as the sole subject 
 of criticism. He tells us, in a tone that implies his own high estimate of the 
 information he is about to communicate, that the term rendered " sure," in 
 this text, " does not occur in the sense * certainly known to a man's self,' in 
 any portion of the New Testament." Well, Mr. Moderator, this is criticism ! 
 Who ever said that hebaios means " certainly known to a man's self ? Com- 
 petent critics have said that the passage means that believers should give all 
 diligence to make their calling and election sure to themselves, but they 
 have not rested their interpretation on the ground that hebaios means " cer- 
 tainly known to a man's self." They have based their conclusion on the fact 
 that the Apostle uses the middle voice of the verb poiein "to malce," 
 instead of the active voice. He does not say, poidn, but poidsthai. That 
 is he uses that voice which carries, and conveys the idea of a refiex action. 
 The proper rendering of the passage, therefore, is, " Give all diligence to 
 make your calling and election sure to yourselves." That is, it means ex- 
 actly what Mr. Dobbin says it cannot mean. This specimen of Greek exegesis 
 may be sufficient to satisfy the Assembly, in regard to the competency of 
 this appellant to deal with points in theology which turn upon the criticism 
 of the original text. 
 
 Since the Assembly wiU have me proceed, and are willing to submit to a 
 stiU further infliction, I must be content to enter still further upon the 
 theology of these extraordinary pamphlets. There is evidently no lack of 
 material. Mr. Dobbin teaches, pp. 7, 8, 9, that the knowledge of a man's re- 
 generation cannot be co-incident with that saving change — 
 
 " If, then, this reasoning be correct — if in regeneration the supernatural is 
 so ' concealed behind the natural,' that the fact of our being under the influ- 
 ence of the Spirit is ascertained only by an indirect inference ; if the convic- 
 tion of it is a conclusion derived from evidence — from the examination of the 
 good, the right, the true within us, then it follows that between the period 
 when the Spirit's power first comes in contact with our souls, and the period 
 
30 
 
 when tlie mind becomes convinced, on solid grounds, of that important fact, 
 there must be time for the evidence to exist and to be examined — time i<xc 
 the feelings we denominate good, and right, and true, to become matters of 
 consciousness and memory — time for them to be repeated, to be formed into 
 habits, to be developed in holy exercises— in a word, there must be time for 
 the fruits of the Spirit to be formed, to be examined by the judgment, and 
 to be decided upon as genuine by the reasoning faculty." 
 
 ^ As Mr. Dobbin gives us nothing but philosophy in support of these asser- 
 tions, it will, of course, be sufficient to examine the validity of the canon of 
 philosophy on which his assertion rests. He does not simply say that "there 
 must be time for the evidence to exist and be examined, for that process 
 might be quick as the lightning's flash ; but he adds another important quali- 
 fication, viz., that there must be time for the feelings which we denominate 
 good, and right, and true, to become matters of consciousness and memory 
 — time for them to be repeated, to be formed into habits, to be developed into 
 holy exercises," &c. Now in regard to the philosophic principle underlying 
 this assertion, I have simply to say that it is utterly destitute of authority, 
 and carries on its very face the evidence of its own condemnation. What 
 does a man mean by saying that a feeling must become a matter of memory 
 before it can be known, or its moral character decided ? Is it not implied in 
 the fact that it is now remembered, that it was previously known as a thing 
 of consciousness ? How could the mind detect the reminiscence, as a remin- 
 iscence, if its features and lineaments had not been previously apprehended ? 
 Does hot the vividness of the remembrance depend upon the vividness of the 
 original experience ? Is it not a fact, too, that the original experience is gen- 
 erally more vivid and informing than the subsequent consciousness connected 
 with the repetition of it ? If, then, nothing can be stored awaj'' in memory 
 of which we have not been previously conscious, and if the original experience 
 be as vivid and as informing as the subsequent repetition of the feeling, the 
 element of time, for which Mr. Dobbin contends, is not so essential to an 
 knowledge of regeneration as he would have us believe. 
 
 Mr. Dobbin — I distinguish between a subjective and an objective memory. 
 
 Dr. Watts — The distinction, Mr. Moderator, is absurd, and will not serve 
 the end for which it is made. There are not two faculties of memory — one 
 for the objective and another for the subjective — ^but one faculty, which deals 
 both with the objective and the subjective. Memory is simply the represen- 
 tative faculty, and does not change its natiire according to the class of 
 phenomena represented. There is, and there can be, no other sort of 
 memory; and the man who feels compelled to irame such distinctions, 
 must feel that his case has become desperate. 
 
 But Mr. Dobbin ventures to cite the "Confession of Faith" in support of 
 the assertion that our knowledge of regeneration cannot be immediate on the 
 occurrence of that change. 
 
 " We affirm," he says, " that regeneration may, and can, and must exist in 
 the fu'st instance, without the certain, undoubting, and infallible knowledge 
 of it on the part of him who is its subject. The Westminster Confession of 
 Faith asserts the same principle. In chapter xviii., sec. 3, we read — ' This 
 infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith but that a true 
 believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be a par- 
 taker of it.' " 
 
 In reply, I affkm that the passage here quoted does not sustain Mr. 
 Dobbin's assertion. He says, and this is one of the fundamental positions 
 of the anti-revivalists, that regeneration, not only may but must exist in the 
 first instance without assurance, whilst the Confession simply says it " may" 
 exist without assurance. The Confession, therefore, renders Mr. Dobbin 
 about as little aid as his philosophy. He says the believer " must " wait ; the 
 Confession says he " may " wait. When he can prove that " may " means 
 " must " he may succeed in persuading this Assembly that his anti-revival 
 theology is in accordance with the Confession of Faith. 
 
 The utmost that Mr. Dobbin will aUow in the shape of assurance is a hope. 
 
31 
 
 What he means by that term, however, I am at a loss to discover. In " A 
 Letter," p. 25, he uses the following language :— 
 
 " Ah ! look within : there is conflicting evidence— there is much in you 
 that is not childlike. Be humble, then, and be content with saying you hope 
 you are a child of God." 
 
 Here " /lope " is employed to express one's persuasion of a present estate. 
 The Assembly may, perhaps, think that this is but a slip of the pen, but Mr. 
 Dobbin persists in this use of the term. On page 22, of the same pamphlet, 
 he speaks of assurance in the following strain : — 
 
 '" And as regards the question whether you are a believer, regenerated by 
 the Spirit, and your sins forgiven, if you are clinging to the cross of your Re- 
 deemer, depending on His righteousness, cultivating His spirit, and striving 
 to live in His fear and service, you have good grounds to trust and to hope that 
 ymi are regenerated and saved. That trust will be stronger, and that hope will 
 be brighter, as your sanctification advances, but with the remains of the old 
 nature within, you will never know, with undoubting and infallible certainty, 
 that you are f orgiven,until the glories of the New Jerusalem burst upon your 
 astonished gaze, imtil the triumphant anthems of the heavenly host fall upon 
 your enraptured ear. Then your soul, filled with love and joy unutterable, will 
 say, with emotion now inconceivable, I am saved — I am saved by the grace of 
 God, and another voice shall resound in Heaven, singing the song of praise to 
 God and to the Lamb. Till then, you must be content to walk by faith, not 
 by sight." 
 
 The Assembly wUl perceive that in this passage, also, Mr. Dobbin employs 
 "hop^' to express one's knowledge of a past event or of a present estate. 
 Hope with him is manifestly not a prospective emotion. In this marvellous 
 statement he flatly contradicts the doctrine of our Standards on the subject 
 of assTirance, and teaches, that no man can be sure of heaven untU the glories 
 of the New Jerusalem burst upon his gaze, and the anthems of the heavenly 
 host fall upon his enraptured ears. The faint hope the believer is permitted 
 to cherish, is not a thing whose attitude is heavenward. Mr. Dobbin's hope, 
 or the hope he allows, has not heaven and final deliverance as its goal. It 
 is a hope unknown alike to Scripture and philosophy — a hope that looks back- 
 wards and not forwards — a hope whose object is a past or a present event, 
 and which takes no hold upon the hfe that is to come. 
 
 In the course of his arguments against the attainableness of an infallible 
 assurance, Mr. Dobbin advances a view of the believer's union with Christ, 
 which it were wrong to pass without notice. The following passage, which 
 occurs, p. 17 of his second pamphlet, I select as the one which contains the 
 fullest statement of his views on this sacred subject : — 
 
 " It is alleged that I have given an incorrect view of the indwelling of 
 Christ. In my Eemarks, (p. 15) I have taught, * When you form a Scrip- 
 tural conception of your Redeemer, Christ Jesus is in your soid, and when 
 that Scriptural conception influences your feelings, governs your moral 
 principles, and sanctifies your life, then Christ dwells in youi* heart by faith.' 
 
 " I advisedly re-affirm this statement, even though my brother, Mr. Craw- 
 ford, asserts that it * falsifies one of the choicest declarations of God's Word, 
 and constitutes one of the most damaging blunders of my ill-advised tract.' 
 (p. 12.) 
 
 ' Enchanted with the love of fame. 
 He seeks the jewel in his neighbour's shame.' 
 
 " WeU ! what is the meaning of Christ dwelling in the heart by faith ? Christ 
 is the name of the great meditator — God and man in two distinct natures and 
 one person. He is now in heaven, and it is unscriptiiral foUy to speak of 
 Christ's glorified material body dwelling or abiding in a human soul. The in- 
 dweUing of Christ, therefore, must be interpreted, not HteraUy, but figiu*- 
 atively. Mr. Crawford alleges that Christ dwells in the hearts of believers by 
 His Spirit — meaning, of course, the third ' person in the Godhead.' God the 
 Father dwells in His people ; Christ dwells in them ; the Holy Spirit dweUs 
 in them. In each case there is a distinctive difference. This is a matter 
 
32 
 
 never dreamt of in Mr. Crawford's philosophy, or in his theology eithei?. 
 I affirm, however, that the indwelling of the Holy Ghost is not the indwelling of 
 Christ. Jesus dwells in the minds of believers. He dwells in their minds by our 
 ideas or conceptions of him, and when these conceptions are Scriptural, influ- 
 ential and sanctifying, Jesus dwells in us — in our hearts as a power." 
 
 Has it come to this, Mr. Moderator? Is the indwelling of Christ a 
 mere figure of speech ? Why, sir, this is naked, bald Socinianism. It 
 is just the moral-power theory of the Gospel. The only indwelling of 
 Christ which Mr. Dobbin wiU allow, is just the indwelling which a 
 Socinian would cordially admit. Christ in the soul is simply neither more 
 nor less than such a Scriptural conception of Him as influences the believers 
 feelings, governs his moral principles and sanctifies his life ! If anything 
 additional to the following were necessary to show that such is Mr. Dobbin's 
 views on this subject, the foregoing passage which occm-s, pp. 11, 12 of this 
 same pamphlet, may suffice. In commenting on 1 John v. 20 : " We are in 
 him that is true, even in his son Jesus Christ," he thus writes : — 
 
 " You quote (1 John v. 20) ' We know that we are in him that is true,' 
 and you ask, ' what does our objector say to this ?' The objector says you 
 quote the passage incorrectly. It stands simply thus — ' We are in him that 
 is true.' 
 
 " The passage refers to God the Father — ^the true God in opposition to aU 
 false gods. The Apostle says we are in him that is true, in the true God. 
 What is the meaning of the expression ? I despise mysticism. I appeal to 
 men's judgment — not to their imaginations. Mark, then, the interpretation. 
 God is love. He that cherishes the love of God, clings to it, rejoices in it, 
 exemplifies it, abides in it as the sweet home of his heart — that man is 'in 
 God ' — ' he dwells in God.' God is love, and love divine is the atmosphere 
 in which His children breathe ; and by which they are surrounded : it is the 
 sweet encirclement by which they are encompassed, the fathomless ocean in 
 which their souls ever bathe. They live in it with supreme dehght, thus 
 they are ' in God.' 
 
 "Again, God is light, and he that comes to the 'light ' is penetrated by the 
 light— yields himself to the light — loves the light ; whose heart dweUs as in 
 a peaceful happy home in the sweet contemplation and grateful adoration of 
 the Holy Judge and condemner of aU Gnostic ' darkness,' and aU deeds of 
 * darkness,' that man is ' in God ' and ' dwells in God.' Finally, God is 
 truth — He is the Being that is true ; and the man that receives God's truth, 
 — yields himself to God's truth — who, in opposition to the Cerinthian lie, 
 and all falsehood, and deceit of which Satan is the father from the beginning, 
 has the sweet home of his heart on the broad deep sea of God's holy, and 
 sanctifying, and saving truth, and with more than a Briton's courage 
 keeps it there — I say, that man is ' in Him that is true.' Sir, I may be 
 wrong in this interpretation, but, if so, my error must be proved. Flippancy 
 is not eloquence, and assertion is not argument. In regard to the passage 
 under review, there may be different opinions, but few, I opine, without a 
 system to prop up, will venture upon the interpretation you have endorsed. 
 Behold it. We are in Him that is true, writes the Apostle John. In Him 
 we live, and move, and have our being, says the Apostle Paul ; therefore, says 
 Mr, Crawford, * I, from these passages, vehemently vindicate as the privilege 
 of believers,' in Loughbrickland, that they know, with undoubting and in- 
 fallible certainty, that they are regenerated by the Spirit, and that their sins 
 are forgiven. Of a verity some people's faith is great." 
 
 I refer to this passage not for the pm-pose of exposing the inaccuracy of its 
 exegesis. This, I take it for granted, is self-evident. I refer to it simply to 
 show what are Mr. Dobbin's views of the union with God to which the sinner 
 is raised in Christ. He despises mysticism, and believes nothing on the sub- 
 ject which he cannot understand. The believer is in God, as he is in love, in 
 light, in truth. Dwelling in love, walking in the light and abiding in the 
 truth, are not, in Mr. Dobbin's estimation, evidences of the believer's being 
 in God — in imion with him — but explanatory phrases which teach wherein 
 
33 
 
 tliat -union consists. He cites as a parallel passage a portion of Paul's ser- 
 mon to the men of Athens, " In him we live, and move, and have our being." 
 This, of course, leaves no room for a second opinion in regard to what are his 
 views on the nature of this union. He admits of no relation, as existing 
 between the soul of a believer and his reconciled Father, beyond what is 
 purely moral, except such relation as is common to the believer and the 
 heathen who know not God ! 
 
 And what is the argument by which he would sustain this EationaKsm ? 
 The only thing in the shape of an argument is, that " it is unscriptural folly 
 to speak of Christ's glorified material body dwelling or abiding in a human 
 soul. The indwelling of Christ, therefore, must be interpreted, not literally, 
 but figuratively." That is, the capacity of our enthroned Eedeemer is to be 
 limited by the capacity and finite conditions of His human nature ! I tell 
 the appellants that this is not the theology of the Bible. Were this true, 
 Mr Moderator, how could the Redeemer grasp and wield the sceptre of 
 xmiversal dominio:^, to which, as the Slain Lamb, He has been raised ? Oh ! 
 blessed be Grod, He, the glorified Eedeemer, is not limited as to His presence 
 or power, to the locus of his human nature. He who could say to Nicodemus, 
 *' the Son of man which is in heaven," can, now that He is on the right hand 
 of the Majesty on high, be present in the hearts of his people here on earth. 
 Why, sir, to treat this subject as it ought to be treated, I should have to go 
 into the entire Christology of the Old Testament. 
 
 Oo on ! go on ! 
 
 Br. Watts — I shall merely state in general terms, that I can quote every 
 passage in the Old Testament which an Arian would quote to prove Christ's 
 pre-existence and which a Trinitarian would quote to prove His Deity, in 
 opposition to the doctrine advanced by Mr. Dobbin. In a word, the Media- 
 tor, prior to His in-carnation altogether, was dwelling with, and in. His people. 
 Are we to be told, then, that the church has become a loser by the Incarna- 
 tion — that by the asumption of our nature, our blessed Eedeemer reduced 
 and cii"cumscribed His capacity to hold fellowship with the members of His 
 mystical body ? The principle in regard to the local presence of the Saviour, 
 advanced by Mr Dobbin, involves this, and is for this, as well as for other 
 reasons, to be rejected. 
 
 Besides, if such be the only species of union subsisting between Christ and 
 His people, how could infants be saved ? If he dwells in us only as we have 
 correct conceptions of Him. in our understandings, and right afiections to- 
 wards Him in oiu* hearts, is it not manifest that union between Him and 
 infants is impossible ? 
 
 But there is another difficulty in the way of this moral-power theory of 
 union with Christ. Our Standards teach that the very bodies of God's saints 
 are in union with Him. " The souls of believers are, at their death, made 
 perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory ; and their bodies, 
 being still united to Christ, do rest in their graves till the resurrection." 
 These are precious words — words worthy of being written in letters of gold. 
 Verily the men who compiled these imperishable Standards were not Eation— 
 alists. They believed that there was something beyond a mere moral bond 
 uniting the ];^eliever to Christ. And so do we. We beheve that the very 
 dust of God's redeemed is in union with the enthroned Head in heaven. We 
 believe that the hour is coming when that Head, whose eye now watches 
 oyer, and whose hand now guards that sleeping dust, shaU come forth, and 
 with that key, which He has won the right to bear, shall unlock the prison 
 house of death, and bring forth His ransomed to wear His own image, and 
 that He shall do all this because of their union with Him as members of His 
 mystical body. 
 
 On this subject, Mr. Moderator, I would only add that union with Christ 
 is threefold : 1. federal, 2. vital, 3. voluntary. The federal union lies at the 
 foundation of the vital, and the vital at the foundation of the voluntary. 
 The federal is from eternity, and is simply the covenant union established 
 between Chi ist and His people in the everlasting covenant into which the 
 
94 
 
 Father entered with the Son before all worlds. Of this federal union, the 
 vital union effected by the Holy Spirit in regeneration, is the fruit. This 
 vital union, again, leads instantly to the voluntary union. The sotiI, as soon 
 as it is born again, turns instinctively to its Saviour, and casts itself right 
 willingly into His mediatorial arms. 
 
 Such is the Scriptural view of union with Christ, and it is at an infinite 
 remove from the Eationalism of these pamphlets. The Saviour, with whom 
 this union is effected, is never contemplated as a Saviour afar off. The soul 
 cleaves unto Him, and communes with Him, as a present, living, sympathiz- 
 ing Redeemer, who reciprocates its love, and assures it that the arms into 
 which it has fallen, by a living faith, are not the arms of a delusive phan- 
 tom. 
 
 Mr. Moderator, I must here insist on closing. I have said before, and say 
 now again, that these pamphlets, which Mr. Dobbin has scattered over oiu' 
 Church, are irreconcilable with our Standards. What course the Assembly 
 ought to pursue in regard to them, I shall not ventm-e-to suggest. Mr, 
 Dobbin and Mr. Nelson ought to be allowed to explain what they mean by 
 such heterodox statements, and they should be allowed all the advantage of 
 such explanations, but the doctrines set forth in these pamphlets, are, so far 
 as I can see, utterly at variance with the doctrines of the Westminster 
 Divines. With regard to the finding of the Commission, I have no doubt 
 that the Assembly will endorse and confirm it.* 
 
 THE EEV. J. B. EENTOUL'S SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. MoDEBATOR, — Considering the length of time that this subject has 
 been before the house, I do not think it requisite to occupy your attention 
 long with any additional observations of mine. It may be necessary, how- 
 ever, after the eloquence we listened to last night, to remind the house of 
 the real subject at issue. Mr, Dobbin has stated this very plainly in his 
 pamphlets again and again. The subject which came before the Commission, 
 and which was fully treated of by Mr. Crawford and Mr. Dobbin, was, 
 " Whether the true and genuine Christian can attain the faith of assurance in 
 this life ? " There are, no doubt, subordinate points introduced into the dis- 
 cussion, but this certainly was the real subject of debate, and to this the 
 members of Assembly are requested to give their attention. 
 
 Mr. Dobbin, in the 6th page of his pamphlet, which I hold in my hand, says 
 " When the question is raised. Can a man in these days justly affirm that he 
 knows with undoubting and infallible certainty that he is regenerated by the 
 Holy Spirit? That proposition Mr. Crawford affirms, and I deny." This lan- 
 guage is certainly plain enough, so plain as to piit it beyond the possibility of 
 •feeing misunderstood by the humblest mind. That is, Mr. Crawford affirms 
 that the Christian man in these days may know with undoubting, and infallible 
 certainty that he is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and Mr. Dobbin denies it. 
 This, then, being the real subject of debate, I hold that much of what Mr. 
 Nelson, and Mr. Dobbin have said on the opposite side has been irrelevant. 
 If the question at issue had been " Is assurance of the essence of faith ? " 
 
 * Note. — My reasons for the course taken in the foregoing speech, are simply as follows : 1. One 
 of the reasons of appeal, assigned by Mr. Nelson — viz., that Mr. Dobbin was defending the doc- 
 trines of our Confession of Faith. This reason, as the Clerk and Moderator ruled, opened up the 
 whole question. 2. The avowed desire of the appellants that the whole question of Assurance, 
 as connected with the late Revival, should be discussed 3. One of the charges brought by Mr. 
 Dobbin, against Mr, Crawford— viz., that he taught that the direct testimony of the Holy Spirit 
 to a believer's adoption, is a third, distinct, and an additional ground of Assurance. As I regard 
 the thing here charged as a precious doctrine of our Standards, I feel bound to vindicate, at once, 
 the Confession and the accused. My speech was extempore, but the members of Assembly will 
 see that, both as regards language and ideas, it was substantially the same as that now sub- 
 mitted. 
 
85 
 
 then I aflfirm the greater part of all that these gentlemen have said, and said 
 at such length, and with such apparent confidence, would have been to the 
 point; and then, I believe, their sentiments would have met with the sym- 
 pathy of this house. But I maintain that Mr. Crawford has never mooted 
 this topic, much less maintained it in any of his pamphlets, though Mr. Dob- 
 bin has frequently attempted to drag him into the discussion of it. Having 
 made this statement as to the subject-matter of the debate between the two 
 brethren, I v*^ill, in the meantime, rest satisfied with the proof which the mem- 
 bers of the Commission, who have preceded me, have offered in favour of 
 assurance being the privilege of the true believer, and proceed to notice a 
 few of the statements of Mr. i^elson, which, so far as I am aware, have not yet 
 been alluded to. 
 
 Mr. Nelson dissents from the finding of the Commission, because, as he 
 says, " they had not read all the pamphlets on the subject." 
 
 I ask Mr. Nelson how does he know this ? or what right has he to make 
 such an assertion ? I beg to say for myseK, that I read them every one most 
 carefully ; and that more than once, or even twice. Nay more, I entered upon 
 them with a mind prepossessed in favour of Mr. Dobbin. I knew him very 
 well. I had met him in circumstances calculated to impress me favourably 
 with the qualities both of his head and heart. I esteemed him as a fi-iend ; 
 and I did expect that, when he felt it necessary to make a charge against a 
 brother minister for doctrinal error, he would have good and sufficient grounds 
 on which to proceed. On the other hand, I did not know Mr. Crawford even 
 by appearance. I had never seen him so as to know him by name, till he ap- 
 peared in this debate, and, in consequence, I entered on the examination of the 
 pamphlets with the conviction that some grievous error was to be discovered 
 by the perusal. As I was not able to procure Mr. Dobbin's pamplilets in 
 Belfast, I read Mr. Crawford's first, and felt somewhat astonished that I 
 could discover no error whatever in them. There were, no 'doubt, some 
 sentences which were not very clearly expressed, and which a practised writer, 
 having time to correct or recast his manuscript, would have avoided, but in 
 my opinion there is nothing that any unprejudiced mind could consider 
 erroneous, examined in the hght of the Standards of our Church. Having 
 read Mr. Crawford's, I was exceedingly anxious to examine Mr. Dobbin's. I 
 wrote him for them, and he very kindly sent them by return of post. Perhaps 
 Mr. Dobbin's pamphlets are not properly before the house, yet I cannot but 
 express my belief that they convey, in many instances, false interpretations of 
 Scripture, as well as incorrect views of the real subject in debate. Besides, 
 Mr. Nelson, in his speech, has introduced the late Dr. Cunningham and Sir 
 William Hamilton into the debate, in a manner not very complimentary to 
 his own scholarship. He spoke as if the subject of controversy between these 
 two distinguished authors was. Whether "assurance was of the essence of 
 faith." This is not the matter of fact, and I charge Mr. Nelson with misre- 
 presenting Dr. Cunningham. Dr. Cunningham's sole object in reply to Sir 
 William Hamilton was to defend the Reformers against what he considered 
 a very unwarrantable attack, made upon them by that gentleman. Sir 
 Wniiam charged the Eeformers with holding the view that " assurance was 
 of the essence of faith," and Dr. Cunningham vindicates them satisfactorily, 
 I think, against this accusation. Mr. Nelson is, evidently, not a reliable 
 authority in matters of this kind. He either reads very incorrectly, or other- 
 wise calculates largely on the ignorance, or the credulity of his audience, 
 either of which is exceedingly dangerous in this Assembly, independent 
 altogether of the morality of the principle involved. 
 
 Again, Mr. Nelson has objected to the ignoring of the finding of the 
 Banbridge Presbytery by the Commission. I cannot see, however, how this 
 finding could have saved his friend, Mr. Dobbin, in as much as it cleared Mr. 
 Crawford of any doctrinal error. I believe, I was the cause of ignoring that 
 finding. The Banbridge Presbytery had expressed an opinion of Mr. Crawford' s 
 pamphlets. The Commission had ruled that Mr. Dobbin's pamphlets were 
 not before them. We were advised by a member of the Banbridge Presbytery 
 
36 
 
 to be cautious, lest we should give one party an undue advantage over the 
 other, and when Mr. Macnaughtan moved, and Dr. Gooke seconded a motion 
 to the effect, " that the finding of the Banbridge Presbytery be affirmed," I 
 objected to the motion, on the grounds that it was unfair to affirm the finding 
 of the Presbytery, which expressed an opinion of Mr. Crawford's pamplets, 
 when we were not at liberty to express any opinion of Mr. Dobbin's — the 
 motion was, consequently, withdrawn ; and the finding with which you are all 
 now acquainted was come to. This statement, I believe, will serve to show 
 that there was no foundation whatever for the observations made by Mr. 
 Dobbin in the course of the debate, that the decision of the Commission was 
 influenced by a stranger, meaning the Eev. Mr. Macnaughtan 
 
 The next objection of Mr, Nelson was, that " this whole matter was a, 
 branch of the Revival of 1859." 
 
 This Eevival of 1859 is a grievous sore in the eye of Mr. Nelson. It seems 
 to jaundise his vision in regard to all the proceedings of this Church. Now, 
 I tell Mr. Nelson that this decision of the Commission has had nothing to 
 do with the Revival, at leasts in the sense employed by Mr. Nelson. It has 
 simply to do with " the truth as it is in Jesus," and with the Standards of 
 our Church. So far as I am myself concerned, the Eevival simply deepened 
 my conviction of the truth of the doctrine of assurance, in common with the 
 great principles of our beloved Presbyterianism. 
 
 I have held the very same views of assurance during the entire of my 
 ministerial life, that I hold to-day. A variety of circumstances, which are 
 still fresh on my memory, satisfy me of this. 
 
 I remember, when a. licentiate-, some forty years ago, I visited a Christian 
 lady on her death-bed. Among other truths stated to her, I urged the 
 importance of assurance of a personal interest in Christ, as the privilege of 
 the true believer. At first, she was like Mr. Nelson and Mr. Dobbin, 
 doubtful whether such a privilege was attainable in this life, but before her 
 death she expressed her deepest gratitude to me for turning her attention 
 to the subject, wMle she realised an unhesitating assurance of happiness in 
 the life to come through the merits of her Saviour. 
 
 I remember, too, in the early part of my ministry, preaching on the words 
 of the Apostle, " For we know that if the earthly house of this tabernacle 
 were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, 
 eternal in the heavens," from which I enforced the doctrine now under con- 
 sideration. A few of my hearers took exception to it as savoring of 
 Methodism, which induced me to return to the subject and prove from, the 
 Westminster Confession, and Catechisms, that the view I held was the view 
 taught in these venerable Standards of our Chm-ch. I regret the necessity 
 of adopting this gtyle of argument, but I believe it of importance to expose 
 Mr. Nelson's statement, that our present views are a branch of the Eevival of 
 '59 — than which no assertion could be more groundless or absurd. 
 
 In fine I remark, that the whole tone of Mr. Dobbin's teaching in liis 
 pamphlets, savours too much of the Eationalistie school. I agree most 
 cordially with the views expressed by Dr. Watts, as to the personal relation 
 of Christ to the believer. How else can we xinderstand such portions of 
 Scripture as the following ? — " If a man love me he wiU keep my words, and 
 my Father will love him and we will come unto him, and make our abode 
 with him."—" Behold I stand at the door and knock, if any man hear my 
 voice and open- to me I will come in to Mm and sup with him, and he with 
 me." And the same line of thought will apply to Mr. Dobbin's views of the 
 Holy Spirit. He seems to ignore the indwelling of the Holy Ghost altogether 
 — or else he confounds his presence and his fruits — substituting the effects 
 and influences of his presence, for his presence itself : a mode of interpre- 
 tation utterly unworthy of sound reason, and equally at variance with the 
 true principles of hermeneutics. Such a mode of interpretation, I regret to 
 say, would be more becoming the pen of a Socinian writer, than a member of 
 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. 
 
37 
 SPEECH OF THE REV. A. KOBINSON. 
 
 MoDEEATOR — It is with great diifidence, and not a little reluctance, that I, 
 a junior member of this house, and the junior member of the Commission, 
 venture to address this Assembly on the present occasion. After the very- 
 able, lucid, learned, critical, conclusive, and, I may add, exhaustive speeches^ 
 which you have heard from the distinguished brethren who preceded me, any 
 thing now from me may seem superfluous, if not presumptuous. I feel con- 
 strained, however, as a member of the Commission, to say a word or two in 
 defence of our finding, against which these weighty appeals have been lodged; 
 and I hope, sir, that the house will bear with me, if, in doing so, my remarks 
 appear as crude as they ai'e extemporaneous. 
 
 Sir, in one sense I regret that this question has been allowed to assume 
 such undue proportions, and occupy so much of our precious time ; for, what- 
 ever others may think, I cannot (Hvest myself of the idea that, the difference 
 of opinion between our friends here, is very much a quibble of words. They 
 have misunderstood each other, and, I am sorry to say, they do not even now 
 seem inclined to understand each other. One gentleman charges another 
 with heresy — heresy that he repudiates — and will not accept of any explana- 
 tion however satisfactory. Mr. Crawford says to Mr. Dobbin, "You have 
 taken a wrong meaning out of my words — a meaning which I disavow — which 
 I did not intend they should convey ; " and Mr. Dobbin, when his own views 
 are criticised, cries out in similar terms, and yet, strange to say, after this 
 the charge is still persisted in. Sh-, I have read the pamphlets, and heard 
 the explanations of both these brethren, and whatever they may be, and 
 however they may differ in their published statements, in their explanations 
 they are quite orthodox, and agree marvellously ; so that I repeat it, this long 
 protracted and vexatious disj3ute, seems to me to be little more than logo- 
 machy. While, however, I regret that so much of our time and attention 
 has been taken up by this question, I believe that good will come out of it — ^has 
 already come out of it. Many of us have been stirred up by it to examine 
 more carefully this doctrine of assurance. Not only has very considerable 
 light been thrown upon it by this discussion, but we have found that we 
 possess among us minds sufficiently clear and cultivated to handle any 
 doctrine however difficult. The intellectual ability, readiness of reply, theo- 
 logical research, and exegetical skill that have been displayed in this debate, 
 are such as any church in Christendom might well be proud of. 
 
 Again, sir, I half regi-et that, in this case the speakers were permitted to 
 break through the established order and usage of the house, and introduce 
 matters wholly irrelevant to the subject in hand. This however, is also 
 greatly counterbalanced by the fact that our friends here — Mr. Nelson and 
 others — have had the fullest latitude of speech, and that no one can say there 
 has not been perfect freedom of discussion. Having dealt thus liberally with 
 the appellants, I submit that the outcry about " order," which was made 
 last night, when the Commission were on their defence, was a little one-sided 
 and out of place; for surely if latitude be allowed the complainants, it 
 cannot with a good grace be refused the defendants. 
 
 And now sir, though my friend Mr. Eentoul has somewhat anticipated me, 
 I propose to examine Mr. Nelson's "reasons of protest and appeal," and I think 
 I shall be able to show how insignificant and shallow they are, and how sound 
 and substantial the decision is which they attempt to overturn. I pass over 
 Mr. Dobbin's, and notice Mr. Nelson's "reasons," simply because they are 
 shorter, and may be managed in a single speech. Mr. Nelson protests against 
 the finding of the Commission, first, because of the exclusion of the Press, (a) 
 My reply to this is a brief historical statement. When the Commission met, 
 almost the first question, which came up, was " Shall the Press be admitted ?" 
 I was anxious that our proceedings should have every publicity, and I spoke 
 m favour of the admission of the Press, and did what I could to overhaul the 
 
88 
 
 arguments of Mr. Moore, who was on the opposite side ; and I am persuaded 
 that the Press would have been admitted, but Mr. Nelson made a statement, 
 and it was so intemperate, so violent, so abusive of the best men on the Com- 
 mission, and in the Church, that I saw at once, Mr. Moore was right, and I 
 wrong; and, therefore, when Mr. Nelson submitted a motion upon the subject 
 I decHned to second it. I recollect at this moment some of the words used by 
 Mr. Nelson, and if it were not that I would be sorry they should go forth 
 to the world I would repeat them, so that the Assembly might judge for 
 itseK whether the Commission acted wisely in refusing, for this special reason, 
 if for no other, the admission of the Press. Mr. Nelson insists that these 
 words shall be told, but I take leave to say that, Mr. Nelson's " insist," has 
 very small effect upon me — operates no further than I deem right and 
 prudent. 
 
 Mr. Nelson's second "reason" is that, the words of the Confession which the 
 Convmissionhave used in their finding , are accepted by Mr.Dohhin. This, moderator, 
 in my humble opinion, is a strange and not very intelligible " reason." As I 
 read it, it is a reason for, rather than against, our finding ; for what more ap- 
 propriate language could we employ, than the language of one of- oiu- own 
 Standards ? It is an old established custom, and it is a safe one, when any 
 diificult question comes up, to reaffirm some minute of Assembly, or refer to 
 some passage of the Confession of Faith, that bears upon the point. Surely, 
 the fact that both Mr. Dobbin and Mr. Crawford have agreed, and still agree 
 to accept the language we have employed, is an additional reason in its 
 favour ? But it is not quite clear to me, against what the objection lies, 
 whether against the words themselves, or against the use of them by the 
 Commission, or the acceptance of them by Mr. Dobbin. Mr. Nelson's tlm-d 
 ''reason" is, that one of the points charged, as an error by Mr. Dobbin, was declared 
 by the Commission to be the doctrine taught in the Confession of Faith. If Mr. Nelson 
 had had any respect for himself, or for the position which he has occupied, and 
 still occupies, in connexion with this case, he would have been silent upon 
 this point, and omitted it altogether from his " reasons of protest " Why 
 did not Mr. Nelson, when the Commission were coming to their decision 
 on this matter, endeavour to convince us that we were wrong ? Why did 
 he not show us that this alleged error was not taught in the Confession of 
 Faith ? We were ready to hear argument — We were open to conviction, but 
 no argument — nought but dogmatic assertion — was offered us. Mr. Nelson 
 challenged Dr. Watts to prove the position he had laid down, and obhged 
 him to stop in the middle of his speech, and show from the Confession, the 
 truth of his statements ; and when Dr. Watts demanded that Mr. Nelson's 
 assertion should be subjected to the same test, and when a copy of the Con- 
 fession was thurst into Mr. Nelson's hand, that he might prove his own, and 
 disprove our doctrine, he fumbled and fumbled helplessly over the leaves, and 
 could not hit upon the place— eventually, he laid the book down, saying, he could 
 not find the spot which he wanted — afterwards, when repeatedly urged to give 
 us proof, he declared that this was not the time, nor the place, for showing 
 what the Confession of Faith taught on the subject. Not the time nor the 
 place ! — Why, sir, I affirm, it was the very time and the very place. We were 
 appointed to consider the errors, with which Mr. Dobbin had charged Mr. 
 Crawford. Mr. Nelson was added to our number, at Mr. Dobbin's special 
 request, and against the express desire of Mr. Crawford, No one entertains a 
 doubt as to the cause of his appointment. We all knew that he held Mr. 
 Dobbin's views, and we aU expected that when the Commission woiild meet, 
 he would put forth aU his great powers to defend and uphold them. Why, 
 then, did he not fulfil the design of his appointment ? Why did he not 
 shield his friend? Why did he not estabUsh the truth of his own doctrine ? 
 What better place and what more fitting time ? Sir, allow me to say that in 
 the discussion and settlement of any important disputed question, it is most 
 unfortunate and inconvenient to be allied with a man who deals only in 
 strong assertions, and withholds any reasons he may happen to possess ; 
 who says he can do so and so, but reserves to some future occasion, the dis- 
 
play of his ability. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Nelson's ability has been 
 much overrated — his reputation has greatly outrun him. Readily do I ac- 
 knowledge that he possesses many features of great worth and excellence, 
 but, with all respect I am bound to add that, his is not a mind fitted for severe 
 thought, for close connected argument. He is the man for taking a sudden 
 fling at one. He is the man for making a capital hit. He is the man for 
 giving a cut here and a slash there, now on this side and now on that, sur- 
 prising you at every turn by the keeness of his edge and the rapidity and 
 dexterity of his passes, but he is not the man to argue. In proof of this you 
 have only to look over his speech of last Friday. I freely admit that it was 
 a great, eloquent, thi-illing speech, but it was quite characteristic of Mr. 
 Nelson's cast of intellect. In grand flights, keen cuts, dexterous passes, it 
 was inimitable, but there was no continuous thought in it from beginning 
 to end — not an item of argument. Having touched upon all supposable 
 subjects, he came at last to speak of the doctrine in dispute, and most cooUy 
 said he would "leave the theology of the question to Mr. Dobbin." I cannot 
 but admire his prudence. EeaUy this was consummate wisdom ; for every 
 one who knows Mr. Dobbin, or who heard his very able statement the other 
 day, knows him to be a man of clear intellect, and sound judgment — a profound 
 theologian, an excellent reasoner — a man who can think well and argue 
 closely; while every one who heard Mr. Nelson's speech — whatever fine 
 qualities it displayed — will declare him to be quite the opposite of his friend. I 
 listened most attentively to that speech. I read it over most carefully, and, 
 so far as I could discover, there are in it but two positive statements which 
 clearly express the speaker's views of Scripture truth, and from both of these 
 he has since withdrawn. Speaking of faith, he defined it as " the mental link 
 which binds the soul to tne Saviour." On last night, however, he resiled 
 from this definition, when Dr. Watts was endeavoiu-ing to show its deficiency. 
 Then again, in another place, he analysed faith, making it to consist of 
 "belief, hope, and confidence," but when exception was about to be taken to 
 this analysis, he was afraid of the result, and cried out that it was none of 
 his, and most adroitly threw it over on the Bishop of Ossory, an author whom 
 he had recommended and eulogized in the very highest terms. Mr. Nelson, 
 having eliminated from his speech, the only positive statements of doctrinal 
 truth that it contained, has thus left it as bare of theology as it is of argu- 
 ment. The foiirth objection to our finding is, that we have not defined the 
 nature of the Sjpirifs testimony to a believer's safety in explicit words, so as to- 
 correct the errors of 1859. If Mr. Nelson protests against the words we have 
 employed as not explicit enough, he protests against the Confession of Faith, 
 for we have used the words of the Confession. Is the Confession of Faith 
 not explicit enough for Mr. Nelson ? The Assembly wiU hardly say that it 
 is not explicit enough for them. At any rate, the Commission were satisfied 
 with it, and so I think wiU be the Assembly. Is it not passing strange that 
 the same gentleman, who raises this objection, finds fault with us for coming 
 to any definite decision on the subject ? It seems we were appointed " to 
 examine the documents and report to the Assembly," and that we have 
 greatly exceeded our instructions. Now, suppose we had kept exactly by our 
 instructions, as Mr. Nelson contends we ought, what would the Assembly 
 have thought if we came forward here to-day, and said, "we have examined 
 the documents, and we report that we have examined them?" If, however, 
 we had been led to a conclusion very different from that at which we did 
 arrive — a^ conclusion sustaining Mr. Dobbin's charges, condemning Mr. 
 Crawford's doctrine — is there any one here so unsophisticated as to imagine 
 that Mr. Nelson would have found fault with such a finding, and complained 
 that the Commission had exceeded their instructions ? But it appears we 
 did not examine all the documents. The famous Monthly Messenger was 
 omitted. I appeal to Mr. Dobbin if, in making his statement, he did not 
 read to us an extract from the Monthly Messenger, containing the passage to 
 which he objected, and if that passage was not under consideration through- 
 out our deliberations. Mi-. Dobbin admits that it was in the minutes of the 
 
40 
 
 Presbytery wliich lie read to us, but the Monthly Messenger itself was not, ha 
 says, before the Commission. I hope the house will not pai-ley over such 
 quibbling. The grand point, however, of this fourth "reason" is that, we did 
 not correct, what our friends call, the " errors of 1859." Sir, '59 lies at the 
 bottom of all this weary, worrying, and unseemly controversy. The Eevival 
 of '59 is the gist of the whole dispute, and the head and front of our offence 
 is that we did not give the Eevival a right slap on the face. I am saying 
 nothing but what I can prove, and prove by Mr. Nelson himself. In that 
 eloquent speech of Friday, from which I have already quoted, Mr. Nelson 
 candidly tells us that he would not waste five words on Mr. Crawford's 
 opinions, if they did not form a branch of the Eevival of 1859. I confess I 
 do not understand such heresy-hunting, that expends all its care and strength 
 upon the errors of one unfortunate year, and regards with perfect indifference 
 the errors of all other years. I do not understand the Christian spirit, the 
 ministerial fa,ithfulness, the burning zeal of the man, to whom a brother's 
 unsoundness in the faith is a matter of no consequence in the world, unless 
 it be connected with the year of the great religious awakening. Does Mr. 
 Nelson mean to say that he would not try to purify the church from any heresy 
 except from that of 1859 ? If he do, and he must withdraw his statement if 
 he do not, I may admire his candour but I question his fidelity. The reason, 
 then, of the impeachment, and pertinacious i3rosecution of Mr. Crawford, 
 is that his doctrines were regarded as a part of revival theology. But 
 what is this "revival" against which our friends manifest such hot indigna- 
 tion, and such persevering zeal ? Has not this church been ma,king mention 
 of it for the last seven years with the heartiest approval and the deepest 
 gratitude ? Has not this Assembly said, over and over again, that it was 
 the work of the Spirit of God, and, over and over again, thanked God for it ? 
 Is it not thus described, over and over again, in our church records ? And 
 are we now to be told that in aU this we committed a grand mistake, and 
 that what we in our ignorance termed the year of grace, was, in very deed, 
 " The Year of Delusion." Undoubtedly Mr. Nelson possesses plenty of pluck. 
 I cannot but compliment him on his boldness. I regret I cannot compli- 
 ment him on his humility. Courage, of no ordinary kind, must belong to 
 him, who stands up here and braves this General Assembly to its face, telling 
 us that the Eevival, which we have solemnly endorsed as the work of the 
 Holy Ghost, was a human and a mischevious thing — that the theology which 
 we then taught was downright fanaticism — and that we all have been all 
 wrong, with the exception of Mr. Dobbin and himself. Mr. Nelson talks of 
 egotism, but this, I submit, is egotism with a vengeance. Our venerable 
 father. Dr. Cooke, whose absence, and its cause, we all so much deplore, 
 said, at a previous Assembly, that one of the strongest evidences of our being 
 a revived church, was our patience and long-suffering in a certain direction. 
 The observation wiU be seen to attest its own truth and pertinence if we 
 but consider that there is no brother in this church who has distinguished 
 himself by his zeal and ability — no man, the head and shoulders taller 
 than his f eUow — whom Mr. Nelson has not publicly and scornfully assailed 
 and abused — I am unwilling to use the word slandered. 
 
 The fifth objection to our finding is that it could not tend to the promotion 
 of doctrinal accuracy. Why ? Because, as Mr. Nelson explains, it was in the 
 language of the Confession of Faith. Mr. Nelson, then, does not regard the 
 language of the Confession as calculated to promote the very thing it was 
 designed to promote, and for which we all admire and revere it. This is the 
 third time he has in effect protested, not against our decision, but against 
 the Confession of Faith. He will excuse me, however, if I say that such 
 excessive jealousy for doctrinal accuracy does not, to my mind, harmonise 
 well with that remarkable statement, that he would not waste five words on 
 the opinions of Mr. Crawford, if they did not form a branch of the Eevival of 
 1859. 
 
 In addition to those five "Seasons of Protest" it seems we erred most 
 egregiously, if not presumptuously, in recommending our friends here, Mr. 
 
41 
 
 Dobbin and Mr. Crawford, to cultivate peace. We are told that tbey needed 
 no such lecture from us, and yet he wbo says so, speaks of these "two 
 brethren quarrelling," and waxes pathetic as he expatiates on the evils of 
 such an unseemly spectacle. I suspect. Moderator, that there is another 
 brother here who is not out of the need of a similar lecture, if it would do 
 him any good; especially, as Mr. Nelson has informed us that, the reason why 
 he did not write to Mr. Macnaughtan for a copy of the finding of the Com- 
 mission was "we had been sparring." Sparring such as this, which prevents 
 one Christian minister from writing to another, on an ordinary matter of 
 business, would require, in the opinion of most people, a pretty strong re- 
 commendation in behaK of peace, and, perhaps, a more effective remedy. 
 
 Then again, we are charged with injustice to the Banbridge Presbytery. 
 It is not long since Mr. Nelson condemned their decision in the roundest 
 terms, casting his proud scorn and ridicule upon it, because it expressed the 
 belief that Mr. Crawford did not intend to teach error, A change, however, 
 has come over the spirit of his dreams, and now it appears that the decision 
 of these brethren is an admirable one, not only satisfactory to Mr. Nelson, 
 but worthy of his eulogies. So. far as the Banbridge Presbytery are con- 
 cerned, I am not prepared to justify the finding of the Commission. I said 
 at the time, and say so stiU, that it should have contained some reference to 
 that most respectable body of men, especially as the case we had to consider 
 came before us as an appeal from their judgment. I find here on the fly leaf 
 of "The Confession" I used on the occasion, the rough draft of a, resolution 
 which I submitted to the Commission, and afterwards withdrew in deference 
 to the mature judgment of more experienced and wiser men. It is to the 
 following effect : — " That the Commission having exa/mined the documents, and 
 heard the parties, sustain the decision of the Banbridge Presbytery, find that Mr. 
 Crawford has written with considerable looseness and obscuA-ity, but are satisfied, 
 from his explanations, that his views are not at variance with the Standards of this 
 church — that the Commission refer both Mr. Crawford and Mr. Bobbin to the 18th 
 Chapter of the Confession of Faith, where it is plainly stated that believers may be 
 assured of their interest in Christ, and of their eternal safety — that a man may be 
 a believer and yet not be assured — and that assurance, therefore, is not of the essence 
 of faith." It seemed to me, after reading Mr. Crawford's pamphlets, that they 
 must have been written in great haste, and that, consequently, the thought 
 was sometimes confused, the language inaccurate, the meaning vague. I 
 am bound to say, however, that Mr. Crawford's explanations of those obscure 
 passages were quite satisfactory. Still, I deemed it but fair to Mr. Dobbin 
 and to the Banbridge Presbytery, that we should express, in our finding, our 
 opinion of the pamphlets. And now. Moderator, though I fear that I have 
 trespassed too long upon the attention of the house, yet I crave your indul- 
 gence for a word or two upon this disputed suljject of assxu-ance. Sir, I hold 
 it to be in perfect accordance with the teaching of the Confession of Faith, 
 that believers may be fully and infallibly assured of their acceptance with God 
 and their final salvation. I am happy to find that, on this point, there is now 
 no difference among us. The question is, when and how is this assurance 
 obtained ? Our friends here, if I rightly understand them, say that it never 
 igf that it cannot be, obtained until a man has been a believer for a consider- 
 able period of time — until he has acquired considerable Christian experience, 
 and then, only by examining the changes that have passed over him, and 
 weighing the evidences he possesses of a new heart and a holy life. We hold 
 that there may be instances in which assurance may exist without this lapse 
 of time — without this Christian experience — without this examination of 
 changes — ^without this weighing of evidences — through the immediate agency 
 of the Holy Ghost — the Spirit witnessing with our spirits that we are the 
 children of God. This, we say, is the teaching of Scripture, the teaching of 
 the Confession, the teaching of the Presbyterian Church. The conversion* 
 recorded in the "Acts of the Apostles" were generally accompanied by a 
 feeling of peace and joy. The Ethopian eunuch and the PhiUppian jaalor 
 are cases in point. It is difficult to read the New Testament and not see that 
 
42 
 
 there was such a thing as "peace and joy in beKeving," in the very act of/ 
 immediately upon, believing. This "peace and joy," I submit, could not 
 have existed apart from the consciousness of a saving interest in the Lord 
 Jesus. Mr. Dobbin has directed our attention to the Confession of Faith, 
 chap, xviii., sec. 2, where it is said that this assurance "is founded upon the 
 divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidences of those 
 graces unto which those promises are made, the testimony of the spirit of 
 adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God," and 
 he contends that the third clause of this sentence is, and was designed to be, 
 explanatory of the second, and, that if this were not the case, the conjunction 
 "and" would have appeared, coupling them together. The omission of the 
 "and" shows, according to Mr. Dobbin's interpretation, that the sentence is 
 complete without the third clause, and that the third clause is added merely 
 with the view of being exegetical of the second. Dr. Watts, however, has shewn 
 us that in the parallel passage of the Larger Catechism, the conjunction "and" 
 does appear. Mr. Dobbin's ingenious argument is thus demolished by a 
 single stroke. I hold in my hand "Shaw's Exposition of the Confession," 
 and it may be of some importance to obsg?ve that in quoting the passage 
 under consideration, he has supplied the very " and," the omission of which 
 our friends make so much of, thereby intimating that, in his opinion, it 
 ought to have been there, and that the third clause is not explanatory of 
 the second. Suppose, however, we grant the soundness of Mr. Dobbin's 
 argument, and admit that the want of the conjunction, "and," is proof 
 sufficient that the third clause is explanatory of the second, we cannot stop 
 with this. Any one who chooses to press this principle of interpretation may 
 constrain us to go a great way further, and admit that the second clause is 
 but explanatory of the first, for here also the " and" is omitted, and thus 
 both the testimony of the Spirit, and the evidence of our graces will be 
 eliminated from assurance, and it will rest solely and exclusively upon the 
 divine truth of the promises of salvation — the Holy Grhost having nothing 
 to do with it. The passage, to my mind, is clearly progressive to the close. 
 It contains three distinct clauses, each one having its own distinct noun, 
 and each one telling its own distinct truth. It proposes to lay down the 
 grounds of assurance, and plainly enough, step by step, it lays down three, 
 — the truth of the divine promises, — the evidence of the divine graces, — ^the 
 testimony of the divine Spirit. 
 
 Mr. Dobbin has cited, in support of his views, the opinion of Dr. David 
 Dixon, of Irvine. It is a pity that he did not tell us something more of 
 this very distinguished divine, — that he lived in the days of the second 
 Reformation, — that he was a famous Revivalist, — that under his ministry 
 there occurred one of the most interesting and extraordinary religious 
 awakenings with which Scotland has been blessed — called by its detractors 
 "the Stewarton sickness" — and that he was the intimate friend of the 
 renowned and saintly Livingstone, whose name is inseparably connected 
 with the Kirk of Shotts, and the Revival which took place there, where it is 
 said 500 were converted by one sermon, where the people fell by fifties 
 around the preacher, until the place resembled a field on which a fearful 
 battle had been lately fought. It is unfortunate for our friends that their 
 great authority was a great Revivalist. And now with regard to the Revival 
 of 1859, which, somehow or other, has been the occasion of this unseemly 
 dispute, and of far more unseemly things from a similar quarter. It may 
 not be known to Mr. Nelson that when the news of this Revival first reached 
 me, I had my own misgivings and doubts about it, and was, in fact, as 
 strenuously opposed to it as Mr. Nelson has been. I thought that it was 
 merely a little overheated excitement, got up by artificial machinery, and 
 I resolved to watch it closely, and warn my people against it. There was an 
 open-air revival-meeting in a neighbouring district; thoroughly prejudiced 
 against it, I went to see if my suspicions were correct. What I heard and 
 saw there that evening dissipated all my prejudices, convinced me that 
 the work was of God, and sent me home to pray and labour that it might 
 
visit my own flock, and tliat ttiey might be blessed with some drops 
 of the refreshing shower. From that day to this, I am not ashamed to 
 say that, I have been, in my own humble way, its friend and advocate. 
 While saying this, however, I am not about to defend every thing connected 
 with the Eevival. That mistakes were committed— that errors were taught 
 and that many of us have been sadly disappointed, I freely admit. Con- 
 sidering the excitement, and our inexperience, it would be strange if mistakes 
 had not occurred. For the errors which were taught we, at least, are not re- 
 sponsible. They came from other parties, who sought to turn the tide of 
 religious anxiety in the direction of their own denomination — reaping where 
 they had not sown. Many of the best friends of the Revival have been as 
 busy, perhaps, as Mr. Nelson, and with as much success, too, in denouncing 
 fanaticism, and opposing error. Concerning disappointment, it is enough to 
 say, we were deceived by appearances, and expected too much. Mr. Nelson 
 has twitted and tatmted me with these disappointments, as if they proved 
 the Eevival to be spurious. I ask, what Christian minister has not been 
 disappointed in the expectations which he formed of the piety and steadfast- 
 ness of individual members of his charge ? Has Mr. Nelson's expectations 
 always been realized ? Has he never been disappointed ? If he have, and 
 if it would be unfair to m-ge his disappointment as an argument against the 
 Gospel which he preached, and which produced the hopes he entertained, 
 it is also unfair to urge our disappointment as an argument against the 
 Eevival, over which we rejoiced, and which produced the hopes which we 
 entertained. The apostles were deceived and disappointed by Ananias and 
 Sapphira. So, too, was Philip by Simon Magus. But who wOTild point to 
 these cases, as proofs of the impotence and worthlessness of the religion of 
 Jesus Christ ? 
 
 Another of Mr. Nelson's objections to the Eevival ic3 that, in employing and 
 honouring lay-preachers, it tended to cast into the shade, and supersede the 
 Christian ministry. If Christian men, fresh from the baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost, and full of zeal for their Master's cause, and the salvation of souls, 
 give themselves earnestly to the help of the Lord against the mighty, and 
 endeavovir to persuade sinners to be reconciled to God, it is surely a most 
 gratuitous assumption, if not something worse, to say that such conduct is 
 calculated to subvert or disparage the Christian ministry. I have never 
 been troubled with such foolish fears. I would feel myself demeaned by the 
 possession of such jealousy for mine office. Eather let us be animated with 
 the spirit of the man who exclaimed, "Would God that aU the Lord's people 
 were prophets, and that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them." Mr. 
 George Stuart, of Philadelphia, in that admirable address which he delivered 
 the other night before this Assembly, told us a most interesting and affect- 
 ing story — how the Infidel challenge was met, and the Infidel Club broken 
 up, by the simple prayers and appeals of a little boy. According to Mr. 
 . Nelson, such a procedure was most objectionable, and tended to undervalue 
 and supersede the Christian ministry. But Mr. Nelson's chief delusion on 
 this subject is that, passing over everything good and Scriptural in the 
 Eevival, he seizes upon all that is extravagant and erroneous, and holds this 
 forth as characteristic and descriptive of the whole movement, forgetting 
 that many a truly good work may have mixed up with it much that is 
 wholly indefensible. I remember that, at the meeting of the Commission, I 
 directed Mr. Nelson's attention to a Eevival which had occurred long ago at 
 Antioch. He did not know the reference, and desired me to tell him where 
 mention of this Eevival was to be found. I tell him now, that in the Book 
 of the Acts of the Apostles, he will find that a great religious awakening, or 
 Eevival, took place at Antioch, and had been going on gloriously for some 
 time, when, as we learn from the 15th chapter, " Certain men, which came 
 down from Judea, taught the brethren and said. Except ye be circumcised 
 after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." These judaizing teachers 
 sought to mingle with the good work of the Lord their own paltry ceremon- 
 ialism, and so far succeeded to carry with them the minds of a portion of the 
 
44 
 
 people, that Paul and Barnabas were constrained " to go up to Jesusalem 
 unto the apostles and elders about this question/' Who woidd hold up those 
 false teachers, and their false doctrine, as characteristic and descriptive of 
 all the religious men and all the religious teaching with which Antioch, in 
 that revival time, was blessed ? We have reason to believe that God owned the 
 efforts of His servants there, and gave them many souls for their hire, and 
 though we may not be able now to speak so decisively of the Revival of 1859, 
 though much may be said and urged against it, yet, I hold it to be the 
 genuine work of the Holy Ghost, and sure I am that, when the records of 
 eternity are read, we shall find that it too was owned and blessed of God 
 bayond the highest expectation of its friends, and that through it many 
 sinners were drawn to the Saviour's fold, and many saints established in 
 their holy faith, and stimulated to greater spirituality, self-denial, and 
 devotedness. 
 
 I beg to thank the house for the kind an*^ patient hearing they have given 
 me. 
 
 The Assembly came to the following finding: [See Minutes of 1866, 
 page 681.] "That the appeals be dismissed — confirm the finding of 
 the Presbytery of Banbridge, which is in these words, — 'That, having 
 given a serious consideration to this charge, we are of opinion that 
 Mr. Crawford has, in some parts of his publication, expressed himself 
 very loosely, and in a way liable to grave objections ; but that we do not 
 believe he holds, or intends to teach, doctrines at variance with the Stand- 
 ards of this Church j' also confirm the finding of the Commission, which 
 is in these words : — 'The Commission, having considered the whole case, and 
 examined the documents referred to, and having heard the parties, are of 
 opinion that the charges against Mr, Crawford have not been sustained, exhort 
 the brethren, Messrs. Crawford and Dobbin, to cultivate a spirit of harmony 
 and peace ; arid lest there should be any doubt in the public mind as to the 
 teaching of this Church on the doctrine of the Assurance of Faith, hereby 
 declare, that in the Standards of the Church it is affirmed that while assurance 
 is not of the essence of faith — that true believers can be infallibly assured 
 that they are in a state of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto 
 salvation; and that this assurance is grounded on the truth of God's 
 promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discover in themselves thost 
 graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their 
 souls that they are the children of God. — Confession of Faith, chap, xviii. ; 
 Larger Catechism, question 80.' And further, that there may be no mis- 
 understanding, and to express more fully the teaching of this Church on the 
 subject of Assurance, the Assembly declares in the words of the Confession, 
 chap, xviii., sec. 3 — 'That this infallible Assurance doth not so belong to the 
 essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with 
 many difficulties before he be a partaker of it ; yet being enabled by the 
 Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God he may, without 
 extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain there- 
 unto; and, therefore, it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to 
 make his calling and election sure, that thereby his heart may be enlarged 
 in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in 
 strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this 
 Assurance : so far is it from inclining men to looseness.'" 
 
 (a) It may be said that in examining Mr. Nelson's reasons of protest, I should have quoted thera 
 in full. My answer is : I could not get a copy of them at the time. I could but take a note of 
 them as they were being read, and that, having afterwards obtained a copy and compared it with 
 the notes I had used, I am satisfiea that I have not misrepresented Mr. Nelson, but in every 
 instance have given the gist of his objections. 
 
GENERAL LIBRARY ^U.C. BERKELEY 
 
 BD0DTSM7a0 
 
 RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
 University of California Library 
 or to the 
 
 NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
 University of California 
 RIchnnond, CA 94804-4698 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 2-nnonth loans nnay be renewed by calling 
 
 (415)642-6233 
 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books 
 
 to NRLF 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days 
 
 prior to due date 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 DUE NRLF JUN26 188: