clares to him something in God, which is an immovable ground of confidence," he adds, that this confidence "sets its seal to the record of the Father, that he hath given us eternal life in his Son,"-evidently making the record mean, that the sins of every creature are already washed away in the blood of the Lamb, or that, by the shedding of that blood, eternal life is in the possession of every creature. But, forgetting this broad and unqualified statement which he had made of every creature having eternal life, he afterwards coolly and gravely informs us, in despite of himself, that "as the eternal life consists in the knowledge of God, as manifested in Christ, those who have not this knowledge have not the eternal life." Such is Mr. Erskine's treatment of" every creature," that he will neither let him have eternal life, nor will he let him want it,—and all this on the authority, if we may credit Mr. Erskine, of the word of God!

Note GG, p. 354.

I refer to the following passages of Scripture as illustrations of my meaning:-1 Peter ii. 24; 1 John i. vi. 10; Ephes. i. 3-13; Rom. viii.; Matt. . 32; John x. 27, 28, xiv. 23, xvi. 27; Heb. v. 9; 1 Peter iii. 12; 2 Peter i. 112; Acts v. 31, 32; Philip. ii. 5-17; Col. i. 21, 22; Titus ii. 9-15; Matt. v. 3-13.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.

Note H H.

Mr. Erskine is pleased to make salvation and sanctification synonymous. For this there is no authority but his own, and he evidently has recourse to it because his theory will not stand without such aid. But we must have Scripture warrant for it, else it is inadmissible. It is a subject of life and death. The glory of God and the safety of man are concerned in the present question; and let Mr. Erskine be as devout and holy as he may, he must not be allowed to trifle with such mighty interests, by inventing hypotheses at will, and building up one by the introduction of another. What sanction has he, I ask, from the word of God, for making salvation and sanctification convertible terms?" say he has none, and I challenge him to the proof. That proof I defy him to bring forward, because it does not exist. And were he not blinded by his passion for theorizing, and by his prejudice in favour of his own scheme of doctrine, his acquaintance with the Bible might easily convince him that it furnishes no support to the opinion in question.

I

Salvation is a term of general import, and means deliverance from evil. And so far as sanctification is deliverance from the power and pollution of sin, the terms may be regarded as equivalent. But even here sanctification is only a part, not the whole, of salvation. And to say that they

are so uniformly or so frequently the same, as that the one may, and should be, used for the other, is to speak in defiance of the teaching of the Holy Ghost.

Can there be a doubt that salvation implies pardon in all those cases where Christ is called our Saviour, or where the object of his mission is said to be to save? Mr. Erskine himself cannot consistently deny this: and whether he denies it or not, every man of common understanding in such things, must be fully satisfied, that when it is said that Christ 66 came to seek and to save that which was lost”*that he "came into the world to save sinners"+-that "the Father sent him to be the Saviour of the world,"‡ &c. deliverance from punishment is included in the term, and cannot be separated from it.

The same thing is established still more precisely by those passages in which, from antithesis, the word salvation is fixed to be what we denominate forgiveness or remission of penalty. It is opposed to wrath,||-it is opposed to destruction,-it is opposed to judgment,T-it is opposed to perishing,**-it is opposed to condemnation,++-it is opposed to perdition.‡‡-Will Mr. Erskine venture to maintain that sanctification is the proper or intended contrast to these terms, or to any one of them? Or is it not clear to every person that these terms intimate that penal fatehat punishment, from which salvation is the deliverance? And then see how faith is connected with salvation in that ense, so as to be essentially requisite for the attainment of ardon or freedom from the penalty. Take two of the

pas

+1 John iv. 14.

James iv. 12.

+ John iii. 16, 17.

sages now referred to. Hebrews x. 39, "We are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but of them who believe to the saving of the soul." And again, John iii. 16, 17, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life; for God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved."

As additional proofs that save and salvation are not convertible terms with sanctify and sanctification, but that they refer to condition rather than to character, I appeal to 1 Tim. iv. 16,-Jude 23,-Luke xxiii. 39,-Acts xxvii. 20, -Rom. x. 1,-Rom. v. 9,-Matt. x. 22,-Luke i. 71,— 1 Peter i. 5,-Rom. xiii. 11,-Heb. ix. 28,-Heb. v. 9.

Note I I.

One grand objection that Mr. Erskine has to what he calls "man's religion" which is the "prevalent religion of the land—” “taught from the pulpits and received by the religious people," is, that it is pervaded and characterized by selfishness. Now it is freely granted that selfishness not only forms no part of true religion, but is at utter variance both with its doctrines and its precepts; and if any man preach selfishness, or if any man practice it, he is so far a recreant to the gospel. But really I am yet to learn from competent authority that selfishness has, got any such hold, either of the ministrations of our preachers, or of the creed of our population. Much of it certainly prevails in practice. We are all too apt to yield to its influence. And Mr. Erskine's sect, I fear, are fully more beset by it, than are the many of whom they make it

characteristic. That, however, is quite a different thing from the religion which is preached and believed being selfish in its principles; and, I tell Mr. Erskine, that he blunders and misrepresents in this, as he does in almost every other part of his lucubrations.

The truth is, Mr. Erskine, with his usual indistinctness, confounds self-love and selfishness, as if they were one and the same thing. He finds self-love in the prevalent system. He calls it, or mistakes it for, selfishness. And then he takes the liberty of consigning the system which he has thus interpolated with his own blunders to deep reprobation. His disregard to the difference between the two qualities alluded to must be obvious to every, the most superficial reader of Mr. Erskine's volume, and no elaborate proof of it, therefore, is necessary.

He is inspired with such a hatred of selfishness that he not only would altogether sink self, but would absolutely get quit of it, by merging it in Deity. I consider the following as a piece of as raving mysticism as I ever met with. "There is something inexpressibly mysterious and solemn in the relation of the creature to the Creator. There is no parallel to it in the universe. When I think

of it, I am overwhelmed by it. I cannot conceive how I have the consciousness of a separate existence distinct from my Creator. It seems to me that I am in regard to him as a ray of light to the sun, proceeding continually out of his substance, and having no individuality of my own." Why, truly, if this be the tendency of Mr. Erskine's thoughts, I should imagine that a little of the system of self would be the best counteractive for such a distemper as he has contracted, in the "sundry contemplations of his travels." He is in danger of believing himself an emanation of the Supreme Being-of mixing himself up with the Divine essence- —of mistaking himself