only preparation for the right reception of the doctrines of grace. He labours to erect the superstructure, without laying the foundation. If the fact of the state of man as a sinner before God be conceded, for his justification to be by faith and not by works appears to us a necessary consequence. Man, liable to condemnation, or rather already condenined, as a transgres sor of the Divine law, must be wholly dependent upon the mercy of God. Now, that mercy is offered, in one and only one way: faith in Jesus Christ, as the Author of salvation, is an acceptance of the boon or free gift as it is offered. We know why the waters of Jordan could heal the leper, while those of Pharpar and Abana had no such power we know why those who looked upon the brazen serpent were cured, while they who should have refused to look would have perished and we know also, that in Christ Jesus, and in him alone, a fountain for sin and for uncleanness has been opened; and that "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so the Son of Man has been lifted up, that whosoever looks on him may not perish, but have everlasting life." Is not the eye that looks, the eye of faith? Is not the hand that appropriates this benefit, the hand of faith? And is not pardon or forgiveness one of those benefits? And does not this open the approach to God as our reconciled Father, and enable us to draw nigh to him with the confidence of filial love, so as to have peace with him, and to obtain, from the fulness of his grace, the supply of all our wants?

:

Such appears to us the plain answer to the objections which Mr. Erskine combats: but this is not his reply. According to him, the Gospel does not declare how, or to whom, sin may be pardoned; but, that sin is already pardoned, universally and irrespectively of any varieties in human character. He considers the message to consist

not in the offer of forgiveness to the penitent, and of grace to those who are sincerely, though in weakness, seeking God; but in the declaration that all, "whether they believe it or not," and whether they be penitent or not, but "merely, as sinners," are already actually forgiven. By the knowledge of this fact, he contends, the sinner must be drawn as by cords of love, to give his heart to God: and therefore he would conclude that no difficulty remains, for that the knowledge of this fact is what is meant by justification by faith.

In the case of the true penitent, we have no doubt that the effect of this knowledge or sense of pardon, would be such as Mr. Erskine describes: but to the great mass of mankind, we fear the doctrine here stated, would operate as a direct encouragement "to continue in sin." If all their sins, past, present, and to come, were already pardoned, they would not easily comprehend how any thing further could be necessary to secure their admission into heaven. True, the term "pardon," as used by Mr. Erskine, as we shall have occasion to observe presently, is something very different from what divines in general understand by that term; so different indeed, that after carefully perusing all he has written on the subject, we do not know exactly what it is, or how it is applicable to the solution of the difficulty which he alleges.

But whether our author's reply be or be not satisfactory to the supposed objector, it certainly is not so to us; and for this reason, that we do not think it scriptural: and it is only by the help of new renderings and free translations that our respected author himself can make it appear so. In his view, as we have seen, "to be justified," is not "to be pardoned," or "to be accounted righteous," but "to have the sense of pardon," though in what way either the Latin or the Greek words come to have this significa

tion, he has not explained. Again, we read, Romans iv. 3 and Genesis xv. 6, "Abraham believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness;" which Mr. Erskine construes (p. 182), "Abraham believed in the Lord, and he reasoned it unto him;" that is, taught him to argue from it his own acceptance; an explanation contrary to the plain meaning of the words. Again, p. 176, our author tells us that Acts ii. 38 should be translated, "Repent, or rather change, your minds, and let every one of you be baptized into the doctrine of forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake;" an interpretation defended by the assertion, that "to be baptized into a doctrine is the ordinary phrase of the New Testament." Our readers will, doubtless, be surprised by this assertion; but they will be still more surprised to find Matt. xxviii. 19, and Romans vi. 3, adduced to prove it; yet so says our author.

"The commission given to the Apostles ought to be translated, baptizing them (not in but) into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost,' that is, introducing them into that manifestation of the Divine character, (for that is always the meaning of name!) in which God reveals himself as the restorer of fallen man, through the atonement of the Son, and the quickening of the Spirit. So in Rom. vi. 3, as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized unto his death,' that is, were baptized into the doctrine that he died for sins."

According to Mr. Erskine, then, to be baptized into a doctrine is the ordinary phrase of the New Testament; and this is proved by giving it as his own paraphrase of the passages brought forward. How grievously may the best and most able men be led astray, when they form their theory first, and then seek to establish it by accommodating the Scriptures to their hypothesis!

At p. 177, we have another new translation. Mɛravoŋσate oйv, says the Apostle Peter, Acts iii. 19, Kai εTispelare εis тò εžaλɛip0ŋval vμwv ras åμaprías. Surely nothing can be more intelligible, more exactly in accordance with the origi

nal, than the words of our Authorised Version : "Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." This, however, opposes Mr. Erskine's theory, that sin is already blotted out, whether men repent and are converted

or not. The rendering, therefore, must be altered, and we are accordingly directed to read, "Leave therefore your false notions of God, and be converted to that true view of his character which blots out sin, and assures of the forgiveness of sin !!"

There are many more such misinterpretations of Scripture; as, for example, of Acts x. 43, Acts xiii. 38, 39, and Romans vi., p. 36; but we think it unnecessary to quote them. We must, however, remonstrate in the strongest terms which our unfeigned respect for the piety and talent of our essayist will allow, against such principles of explanation, if principles they may be called; the more especially as the reader is directed (p. 183,) to apply them to any other passages of the same character. Such canons of explication would enable any man to prove any thing from the Scriptures, and introduce mystery and confusion, inconsistency and uncertainty, into the oracles of God.

Indeed,

but of this we suppose Mr. Erskine has some new rendering; so that by his "principles," faith will vanish, and the propitiation remain applicable to all, whether believers

or not.

If the esteemed author whose work has called forth these observations hopes to be useful, as we are quite sure he desires to be, let him both receive and use words in their clear acceptation, and not affix to them new and unheard-of meanings, which they cannot possibly bear. The necessity for this last caution will appear to the most cursory reader. We are told at p. 26, that "heaven is the joy of God;" but at p. 11, first, that it "is the name for a character conformed to God," and then, in the same page, that "it is the name for health in the soul." Again, at p. 55, we learn that "the two great commandments describe heaven as well as duty;" for (p. 57) "the fulfilment of the law is not the way to heaven: it is itself hea ven ;" and in like manner, "an opposition to them in the heart is hell, as well as disobedience." We have, therefore, not only a new meaning for the words heaven and hell, but, in fact, though we are sure not wilfully on the part of the author, an express contradiction to every passage of Scripture which describes heaven as the place of recompense to the obedient, and hell as the place of punishment for sin.

Further, as we said, the term "pardon," as employed by Mr. Erskine, is not that which in general we understand by that word. In the first place, we are told, p. 13 and p. 130, that "pardon is neither happiness nor heaven;" a truism equivalent to the information which should tell us, that sentence is neither punishment nor misery. Then, p. 13, "pardon is the spiritual medicine for the removal of sin," where it is substituted for its intended effect but at p. 122," the pardon of the Gospel is another name for holy compassion," where

:

it is no longer its own effect, but the Divine attribute from which itself springs: and, p. 47, it once again changes its nature, and becomes the atonement of Christ; that is, its immediate procuring cause. Again, we learn at p. 58, that the scriptural examples of prayer for pardon, are not prayers for pardon, but for the sense of pardon; or, in other words, that pardon is not pardon, but the sense of pardon. Thus the prayer taught by our Saviour, "Forgive us our trespasses," is not a prayer for forgiveness, but for the sense of that forgiveness which was granted to us before our sins were committed, nay, long before we ourselves were born.

The errors we have spoken of are so exactly pointed out, and so justly reprobated, by the "judicious" Hooker, that we shall venture to transcribe the passage. "I hold it," he says, "for a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst. There is nothing more dangerous and deluding than the art which changeth the meaning of words, as alchemy doth, or would do, the substance of metals: this art maketh of any thing what it listeth, and bring. eth in the end all truth to nothing." We trust that a writer, who has such large claims upon the esteem of his fellow-Christians as Mr. Erskine, will in future refrain from this dangerous alchemy.

With the peculiar opinions which we have described, as to the meaning of the word "pardon," it is not surprising that our author should not at at all times know what have been its exact effects. Hence we find (p. 17), that though all are pardoned, yet "the penalties are not cancelled." At p. 27, however, we read: "The use of faith is not to remove the penalty, or to make the pardon better; for the penalty is removed, and the pardon is proclaimed, whether we believe it or

not." Again, at p. 144, we are told," The pardon is universal; and still it may with propriety and consistency, be said that until man receives it into his own heart, he is under condemnation," So that pardon is something which "removes" without cancelling the peInalty of sin, and which though "it belongs to man as a sinner" (p. 61), "whether he believes it or not, yet leaves him under condemnation till he does believe it." We would not speak harshly; but surely such inconsistencies betray, at least, great carelessness, if not the want of understanding, in what is affirmed.

We could have been content to stop here; but it may be expected that we should say something of the superstructure raised upon this unstable foundation: and here again, we can by no means fully agree with Mr. Erskine. Though, for instance, there is much in what he says on self-love and love to God, which will find an echo in every Christian bosom, he carries the doctrine to an extent not attainable by any human, or, perhaps, any created being. Even in the case of the angels themselves, we do not imagine that admiration sets aside gratitude.

66

"The object of the Gospel," says our author, pp. 92, 93, "is to displace self and the creature from the heart, to restore the love of God to the supremacy which is its due, and thus to restore man to his place in the happy family of God." Self," he tells us (p. 142), "is the great Antinomian, because it is the great Antichrist:" and accordingly he considers that God must be loved quite independently of any reference to ourselves, "for his own sake, and not for his gifts." But why not for both? Why not with the love of gratitude, and with the love of admiration also? To us the sentiment of St. John is perfectly conclusive:

"We love God, because he first loved us." Unquestionably, religion appeals to our personal feelings, or it must appeal to us in vain: its object is

not to annihilate self-love, but to direct it aright, to "make us love that which is commanded, and desire that which is promised;" to teach us that our real happiness will be found in her paths, and not in those of sin. It unquestionably calls upon us to love God: but it is. by our personal interest in the merciful disclosures of the Gospel, that they become calculated to implant this love in our hearts. We may approve and admire amiableness in the abstract; but our affections are drawn towards those who exhibit it, only as we are brought into contact with them. Filial affection is the return for parental care: "Faith worketh by love" to God, because faith perceives the love of God towards man, even that which has created, supported, and redeemed him. God is loved for his gifts; still, however, not so much on their own account, as because they prove His love. Indeed though Mr. Erskine denies this in terms, he admits it in fact, and most gladly do we quote, in proof of this, the following beautiful passage.

"The value of the Gospel consists in its being a true representation of the gracious character of God in relation to his rebellious creatures. Jesus Christ is the subject of the Gospel, for He is God in relation to sinners. The Gospel tells us how full of love He is towards sinners, in all his feelings, and in all his actions. It tells us of a love beyond utterance and conception, of his humbling himself even to the death of the cross for them, of his suffering for them on earth, and of his rejoicing for them in heaven. It tells us that this is our God, the God who made us, and with whom we have to do; that this is he from whom we have been turning away with fear, or hatred, or disgust, or indifference, and who yet hath all along been thus loving us, and hath been putting forth his love to us continually, in every breath which we draw, and in all the care, and protection, and support which we experience; and it tells us all this, that we may be constrained to love him supremely, and to choose him for our portion, and to depend on him with an absolute confidence, and thus to have our individual will subordinated to his

will."

All this is as correct as it is beautiful: but when we are told

that self must havé no portion in our love, we would ask, "how then can we love our neighbour? For we are commanded to love God supremely, but our neighbour as ourselves. Yes, supremely; for to set limits to our love to the adorable Source of all that is lovely, is an idolatrous attachment to the creature above the Creator. Let our author carry his ideas of love to God, to all that the " seraphic" Fenelon aspired after, or the deeply reasoning Edwards proved, and we will joyfully pray and endeavour to follow his footsteps: we will acknowledge that whatever were excess and enthusiasm elsewhere, here is but sober reason: only let us not forget that we are still created beings, who may and must be influenced by the actual emanation, as well as by the contemplation, of the essence of the Father of our spirits, and that the very absorption of our self-love into the love of God, is itself but a higher, a refined species of self-love. But we forbear enlarging on this fruitful theme. Our readers will find some excellent remarks upon it in one of Dr.Chalmers's TronChurch Sermons.

While, however, we thus state our objections to the system of Mr. Erskine, it would be most unjust not to admit that there are many passages in his Essay, which, taken independently, challenge challenge great and just admiration. Such, for example, is that we have transcribed just above, and eminently such is the following.

may

be;

the ces

"The laws of nature are the continual actings of God. There is no power in the universe but His; and where His power is, there is he. He made the clay, and sustains it with his qualities, and in whatever form it sation of his will that it should exist, would be the cessation of its existence. The uninterrupted actings of that will are the laws of nature, and in every one of these actings is the entire Godhead. The course of nature, the elements, the order of events, the existence and movement of all matter, are the direct actings of God. And are not the existence and

movement of mind, too, His actings? Surely, it is so, and must be so; and yet CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 326.

I feel that my will works contrary to His. My will is the sustained creature of His will from moment to moment, incapable of a single act without power communicated from Him, and yet I am conscious that it works contrary to Him, and is [that I am] morally responsible ful for me, I cannot attain unto it." for [its] so doing. This is too wonder

The passage, however, which most calls out every sympathy in the Christian reader is that with which the author concludes his work. Amidst all the errors into which we cannot but consider him to have fallen, this paragraph shews such a meek and holy and humble spirit, as leaves no room to doubt but that the promise he quotes for the encouragement of others shall be fulfilled to himself.

Reader, farewell. I believe that what I have written is according to the word of God; and as far as it is so, I may look up to Him for a blessing upon it. It would be an unspeakable joy to me to have any reason to think that it has been really honoured by him to be the bearer of a message to your soul. At all events, I trust it may not do you the injury of exciting the spirit of controversy in you. you do not agree with it, lay it down and go to the Bible; and if you do agree with it, in like manner lay it down and go to the Bible; and go in the spirit of prayer to Him whose word the Bible is, and ask of Him, and He will lead you into all truth-He will give you living water.

If

May it be so to us also! We have made the preceding remarks not in "the spirit of controversy," but from a fear lest the merited celebrity of our author's name, and the wide estimation in which, owing to his former essays, he is held, should give such authority to his statements as might mislead some; or (and still more) lest, on the other hand, the confusion which we think he has introduced into the subject, should increase and confirm in others their heedless prejudices against the fundamental and allimportant doctrine of justification, through the merits of Christ, by faith. It will be seen, that we have not touched, chiefly for brevity's sake, upon many of the subjects to which the discussion would have

led us; we have not even considered it necessary to shew the wide

Q