Page images
PDF
EPUB

APPENDIX.

Note A, p. 52.

I Do not find that Mr. Erskine has made any comment on this verse. But he has given a comment on Acts x. 43. which I presume he will, as he may with equal propriety, apply to this.

"To him," said Peter, "give all the prophets witness, that whosoever believeth on him shall, through his name, receive the remission of sins." "The word receive here," says Mr. Erskine, "has the same sense that it has in John i. 11. which has been already quoted, ' He came to his own, and his own received him not,' or accepted him not. He had come to them whether they received him or not, and so had the remission of sin; but those only who believed in his true character, viz. that he had come as a destroyer of the works of the devil, and a propitiation for the sins of the world, would in that very character of him, read and receive their own forgiveness."*

1. Now, in the first place, on what authority does Mr.

Unconditional Freeness, p. 181.

way; it is not presented to us for our acceptance; and it does not fail to belong to us, because we have refused it. All our guilt is cancelled, and we can never be punished for the sin, to which that act of amnesty referred, in whatever way we may treat the message or the messenger of God. Christ offered himself to the Jews, and they refused the offer. Pardon, Mr. Erskine maintains, is not, and cannot be offered to us, pardon being already bestowed in the very atonement itself which was made for sin, Here then Mr. Erskine is altogether inconsistent. And to regain his consistency he must either allow that Christ was actually the Redeemer of the Jews, in spite of their rejection of him, which would broadly contradict the Scripture testimony respecting the matter of fact, or he must allow, that as the Jews would not accept Christ, though they might and should have accepted him, so we may accept or reject the pardon which comes to us as provided, though not yet conferred-which is proposed to us, and therefore not yet possessed. Mr. Erskine may say that accepting the remission of sins means believing that this blessing is already ours. This is perfectly absurd; and a most unwarranted explanation of terms. But, admitting it-then when it is said that the Jews would not accept Christ, it imports that they would not believe that all the blessings, implied in his Messiahship, belonged to them; that, of course, these did belong to them, notwithstanding their rejection of Christ; and that, therefore, their eternal salvation, which was certainly the grand object of his coming as the Messiah, was as secure as if they had believed on him with all their heart.

4. Finally, see with what ease Mr. Erskine can give up his case. Christ "had come to the Jews whether they received him or not, and so had the remission of sin.” Very well so far; both had come-Christ as a person, par

don as a blessing; both of them offered, but neither as yet accepted. "But those only," adds Mr. Erskine, "who believed in his true character, viz. that he had come as a destroyer of the works of the devil, and a propitiation for the sins of the world, would, in that very character of his, read and receive" (why not accept?) "their forgiveness." And add to this what Mr. Erskine says in p. 178. as a comment on John i. 12. “but as many as received him, to them gave he the privilege of becoming sons of God, even to them who believed in his name. He came to the world, 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." What more can we desire from Mr. Erskine, than such concessions as these? Accepting or receiving Christ, and believing in his name, are convertible phrases in the passage quoted. Be it that Christ came to the world; still though he came to the world, and though "pardon was and is contained in him," which I would be sorry to gainsay, it is admitted-distinctly and unequivocally admitted by Mr. Erskine, that those only who receive, accept, or believe in Christ, receive pardon in him; and that those who do not receive, accept, or believe in him, do not receive pardon. What more, I repeat it, can we desire from Mr. Erskine ? He has granted that they who do not believe are not pardoned. And yet his book is written for the very purpose of showing that sinners are pardoned, whether they believe or not!

Note B, p. 72.

Mr. Erskine is exceedingly perplexed by the inconsistency of " a man being pardoned and yet condemned after

all." He explains himself by saying, that man " is not condemned for the offence which had been pardoned, but for a new one; is not condemned for breaking the law, but for rejecting the gospel."* This gentleman has the art of as easily, though not quite so successfully, getting out of a dilemma as he has of getting into it. He gives an explanation of the absurdity he has broached, and his explanation is as unsupported as is his absurdity. He just calmly and simply avers what he thinks necessary to his purpose, and supposes his readers will implicitly receive whatever he is pleased to stamp with the imprimatur of his opinion. An example of this ipse dixit style of his is afforded by the passage I have now quoted. He wilfully and obstinately shuts out from his view all the Scriptures that represent unbelieving men as under the condemnation of the law. If these are not under the condemnation of the law, how could our Saviour have said to the Jews,† "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" And how could James have said, "that whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all," " if thou kill thou art become a transgressor of the law," and that "he shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy?" And how could Jude § have said that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah" suffer the vengeance of eternal fire" for certain specified violations of the moral law, and of judgment coming upon all who are guilty of similar offences ? And how could the apostle Paul|| say of certain acts of immorality which he enumerates,

* Introductory Essay, p. xlvi.
James ii. 10, 11, 13.
Ephes. v. 6.

+ Mat. xxiii. 33.

§ Jude 7, et seq..

« PreviousContinue »