second, there is a change produced by it only on the feeling of the criminal himself.” Mr. Erskine can only conceive two meanings that may be attributed to the expression pardoned by faith. But, happily, Mr. Erskine's powers of conception are not the standard of what is either true or possible. Of the two meanings supposed by him, the one which he has adopted is one of which the words are not susceptible; the other which he attributes to us we reject, because we deem it contrary to the mind of the Holy Spirit. When a man is said to be pardoned, he is uniformly understood to get what he did not before possess. He must be either pardoned or unpardoned. If he is unpardoned, his being pardoned puts him into a new and different state. If he is already pardoned, it is absurd to speak of him being pardoned or as coming into a new and different state, for his state is exactly the same that it was. The question is not at all about a sense of pardon. Pardon and a sense of pardon are two distinct things. Pardon may exist where the individual pardoned has no sense or feeling of the pardon conferred. And he may have a sense of pardon,that is, he may be under the delusion of thinking that he is pardoned, when he is still unpardoned. But to talk of pardon as a sense of pardon, is to confound both language and ideas,—and though it may suit Mr. Erskine's theory,* ture. Mr. Erskine's love of theory is remarkably strong, and pervades his whole writings. He absolutely revels in conjecPlain truth lies before him; but he turns aside to feast on hypothesis. And the truth, when he does embrace it, is so mixed up with the hypothesis, that the inattentive or ignorant reader believes what he should reject, and rejects what he should believe. A most extraordinary instance of his ruling passion is to be found in "Unconditional Freeness," p. 92, it is agreeable neither to Scripture nor to common sense. Pardon is pardon, or, as he phrases it, "pardon is really forgiveness." But "pardoned," or obtaining pardon, "by faith," does not necessarily mean being pardoned on account of faith. When Mr. Erskine says that it means getting a sense of forgiveness by faith, is his proposition this, that a man gets a sense of forgiveness on account of his faith? No, assuredly: then why should he put an interpretation upon our language, which he will not allow to be put upon his own? He will say, that faith is the natural way of getting a sense of forgiveness. We say, that faith is the appointed way of getting forgiveness itself. And, since the two blessings are on a level, forgiveness being acknowledged by Mr. Erskine himself to be of no use or benefit whatever to the sinner without a sense of it, we differ from him only by ascribing to grace, what he ascribes to nature. But if he insists that he does not mean that the sinner gets a sense of forgiveness on account of faith, so we insist that we don't mean that the sinner gets real forgiveness on account of faith. * Still, however, pardoned by faith, is a Scripture ex where he enters on a speculation regarding Adam and Eve, which is extended through two dozen of pages, and in the course of which he supposes what our first parents would think, and feel, and say, and do; and upon these fancies-considered by him as "conceivable and probable in their circumstances," -he grounds an argument for his grand doctrine of universal pardon! Did not this strike himself as immeasurably absurd? I am sure it must strike every one else in that light. "Justified by faith," is strictly the Scripture expression; but as justification includes pardon, "pardoned by faith” is quite scriptural though the phrase justified by faith, or justifica pression, and it must have a meaning, both orthodox and rational. Nothing appears to me more easy than to discover that meaning, and were Mr. Erskine at a loss for it, I would be glad to help him in the search. But really it is strange that he should affect so much difficulty in the matter, when he himself has given a most sound and satisfactory explanation. "Christ came to the world," says he, * "and pardon was and is contained in him. Those who receive him, receive pardon in him; those who do not receive him, do not receive pardon." And again, "if we would have pardon and eternal life, we must have Christ; for these gifts are, in reality, not separable from him.”- "If we receive not him, we receive not them." Here the whole mystery of the case is unfolded, and I wonder how Mr. Erskine should have been so much perplexed by it, when he had the solution of it in his own mind and in his own book. Pardon is to be found in Christ alone, as all spiritual blessings are; of course if we have not Christ, we cannot possibly have pardon, but if we have Christ, then, by necessary consequence, we have pardon. So long as we reject Christ or do not believe in Christ, we are not pardoned, we are in a state of condemnation, we are exactly as we would have been had no Saviour been sent; but the moment that we exercise faith in Christ, or, according to the common phraseology" of this benighted and atheistical land, "receive Christ and rest upon him alone for salvation as he is offered to us in the gospel," that moment we are actually, fully, and for ever invested with the privilege, denominated pardon. And this is precisely what we find tion by faith conveys the important truth, that pardon and acceptance are inseparably combined in the gospel dispensation. * Unconditional Freeness, p. 178. + Do. p. 121. explicitly stated in the Bible. "He that hath the Son, hath life; he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life."* "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth upon him.”† I have no objections to say that those who are really pardoned, were pardoned before they believed, if the language is properly understood. I have no objection to say that they were pardoned on the cross, or even that they were pardoned eternally-provided nothing more be meant than that God had from eternity decreed to pardon them, and that Christ, by his vicarious suffering, made it consistent with God's justice and glory to pardon them. But I maintain that the decree of God, and the death of Christ, had respect, both of them, to the exercise of faith. That is to say, God did not decree to pardon, and Christ's death was not endured to pardon, any who should reject the Saviour, or refuse to believe in him. The faith was decreed, and was a fruit of Christ's death, as much as the pardon itself was, each of them having its place in the great scheme of redemption. And, according to this scheme, God does not actually apply or bestow the pardon which he had decreed, and which Christ died for, until the sinner flees for refuge to Christ, or receives him, or believes in him. For this statement we have the authority of Mr. Erskine himself in the passages quoted above. And it would be just as proper and correct to say that the sinner had faith when Christ died, or that he had faith from all eternity, as that he had pardon. They are both the subjects of God's predestination; they are both the result of Christ's sacrifice; they are both gifted when it seems good to Him who is the author of 1 John v. 12. † John iii. 36. all gifts; and it is his wise, holy, and sovereign appointment that pardon shall not be bestowed till the sinner believes, or that the sinner shall not receive the pardon except in consequence of his receiving Christ. Notes CC and DD, p. 316 and 321. We give the following extracts from Mr. Erskine's writings as illustrative of what is said in the paragraphs to which this note refers. "I am persuaded that faith in the gospel is always, and must be always, an appropriating faith, and that there is no true faith in the gospel which is not an appropriating faith. When a man opens his eyes upon the sun, he necessarily appropriates his share of its light, and he cannot look upon the sun without making this appropriation. In like manner, no man can look upon the sun of righteousness, which is the love of God manifested in the making and accepting of a propitiation for the sins of the world, without appropriating his own share of its blessed light.” Unconditional Freeness, p. 137. "The gospel reveals to us the existence of a fund of Divine love, containing in it a propitiation for all sin, and a promise to destroy all the works of the devil,-the sin,-the misery,-the death, which he has introduced; and this fund is general to the whole race,—every individual has a property in it, of the same kind that he has in the common air and light of this world, which he appropriates and uses simply by opening his mouth or his eyes. Is it not clear, that as soon as any one really knows that such a fund exists, and that it is, indeed, the gift of God to the world, and the common property of all the individuals in the world, just as the material air or |