RELIGIOUS COMMUNICATIONS.

ERSKINE ON JUSTIFICATION.

To the Editor of the CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR,-I freely acknowledge my incompetence to treat the important subject on which Mr. Erskine has addressed the public, in the way in which it ought to be treated. I take it up only because I do not see any one else do so; but, though I cannot pretend to do what some others would be able to do, I trust 1 shall not lead any one astray.

In my last letter I reached the point at which the subject of Justification was introduced.-Mr. Erskine perceived at once, that if Justification were understood in its ordinary sense, there existed an insuperable obstacle to the establishment of his hypothesis. Mr. E. freely admits that Justification is dependent upon Faith:If then Pardon and Justification are inseparably identified, it is evident that Pardon must be as much dependent upon Faith as Justification. To get rid of this difficulty, Mr. E. proposes to consider the term Justification, in a new sense"I have," says

he, 66 sometimes been led to think that Justification often is used

to signify, not Pardon, but a sense of Pardon :"-Mr. E. conscious that he is giving utterance to an opinion at variance with the received notions on the subject of Justification, speaks modestly and doubtingly-"I bave," he says, "been sometimes led to think," and he only thinks that the word often signifies what he supposes, by the use of which qualifying term, he seems to admit that the general sense of Justification is Pardon, and not a sense of Pardon. It is however so necessary to the establishment of Mr. Erskine's views, that Justification should mean, not Pardon, but the sense of it, that his failure in proving this position is fatal to his scheme. It is, I suppose, a consciousness of this, that makes him afterwards assert with some confidence, what in its first introduction is rather put forward as a surmise, than as a fact. In page 59, Mr, E. says, "An universal amnesty is the subject of the Divine testimony, a sense of Pardon, or Justification, belongs to those who believe the testimony."

As Mr. Erskine's hypothesis stands or falls, according as he is or is not able to prove that Justification means a sense of Pardon, and not Pardon itself; we have nothing to do, but to show that he fails in proving his position as to the meaning of the term Justification, and if we can do that, the whole scheme is found to be resting on a bad foundation. I do not stop at present to inquire, whether Mr. Erskine is right in supposing that Justification and Pardon mean precisely the same thing; they are sufficiently identified at all events, for the present argument.

The first thing I would observe is, that when we propose to employ a term in what we may call an improper sense, there

should be a good reason produced for such a deviation from ordinary usage. I read in the New Testament, that we are justified by Faith:-Now, Sir, if I am to understand these words, not in their common and obvious sense, but in a sense quite different from that, I ought to be furnished with very convincing reasons, that in so doing I am not putting a false construction upon the passage; and let it be observed that, in the present instance, the proposed alteration involves the solution of an important casuistical question; for if having Faith necessarily supposes not only Justification, but a sense or consciousness of our being justified, it seems an indubitable consequence from such premises, that those who are not conscious of their Justification, are not justified. Whether this is or is not the case I do not at present enquire; I only state the fact as an additional reason for caution in the admission of any proposal to depart from common usage, in assigning a meaning to the term in question.

"I

The next thing I observe is, that Mr. E. admits that the term Justification, is employed frequently in its ordinary sense. know," says he, that Justification is generally considered to mean Pardon, or the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and I believe that very frequently it has this meaning in the Bible." I do not stop to inquire whether this passage is expressed with sufficient precision or not:-Mr. E. at all events admits, that the term in question very frequently means a change in the personal condition of a man, and not his sense of such a change: he adds, however, "I am persuaded.... that Justification by Faith always means, a sense of Pardon;" if this be so, I should really wish to know in what passages of Scripture it is, that Justification signifies "Pardon, or the imputation of Christ's righteousness." Where, but in those places in which Justification is made to depend upon Faith, does the term, or which is the same thing, its kindred verb, denote what Mr. E. acknowledges it very frequently denotes ? I ask again, does not Justification, in its dogmatical sense, always. occur in connection with Faith? and if so, must it not, according to Mr. Erskine's own acknowledgment, but in contradiction to his opinion as formerly stated above, very frequently when thus made to depend upon Faith, signify not "a sense of Pardon," but Pardon itself?

As a departure from ordinary usage requires an apology, if not a vindication, I confess I was anxious to know by what arguments Mr. E. would support his proposed alteration of the sense of this most important term. The only argument I can find occurs in page 150, and is as follows." By the deeds of the law shall no. flesh be justified, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." The knowledge of sin, or the sense of sin, Mr. E. says, is placed in direct antithesis to Justification, which therefore ought to mean a knowledge of Pardon, or a sense of Pardon. This is the argument by which Mr. E. would defend an alteration of meaning in a word of so much importance as the word Justification:-It is at least, the only argument I have been able to find. Now, Sir,

it appears to me, that in order to take away all weight from this argument, nothing more is necessary than to show that by parity of reason, the word Justification must signify, not a sense of Pardon, but Pardon itself. I read in the 8th chapter of Romans, "It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth :"-Here I find Justification placed in immediate contrast with Condemnation, from which I infer that it ought to mean, not a sense of Pardon, but Pardon itself, or freedom from Condemnation. There is no way that I know of, by which this objection can be obviated, but by making Condemnation not signify Condemnation itself, but the sense of it. I presume however, that Mr. E. would not employ a mode of reasoning that would introduce a vagueness into language, which would disqualify it from being a vehicle of mutual communication, at least where precision is necessary. On the supposition that Mr. E. was right in stating that a direct opposition was intended between Justification, and the knowledge of sin, his argument might be retorted, as I have shown above :-But is this the case? I should think not. The knowledge of sin need not have any reference to what the law effects, but merely what it is calculated to effect. Such is the nature of the law, that it is fitted to make known what sin is; and if no human being should be the wiser for it, still the law would be the same; and we might say, "By the law is the knowledge of sin." Knowledge is frequently used in this sense, "though I understand all mysteries and all knowledge:"The words however in the original of the passage from which Mr. E. reasons are, εлiуνwσis aμаρrias, literally "the recognition of sin." The law recognizes the existence, and proclaims the desert of sin. And this being its office, to expect Justification by it, would be as reasonable as for a man to expect to be saved from drowning by means of a millstone hanging about his neck. This seems the plain import of the passage in question; and to build upon it any material deviation from common usage in the meaning of any term, much more of one of so much importance as the term Justification, would be in my humble opinion to put to hazard every revealed truth. But in the passage quoted by me from Romans viii. there is a real and obvious opposition between Condemnation and Justification, such a one as warrants us to consider the presence of the one as involving the absence of the other.

I do not wish to do Mr. Erskine any injustice, but I must say, that I am not able to perceive in his book any other arguments by which he attempts to make good his opinion, that Justification, when connected with Faith, does not relate to a change in the condition of the individual, but in the state of his mind; nor do I think that any passage could be produced from Scripture, in which the term in question clearly signifies what Mr. E. supposes. Under these circumstances we seem to be warranted in coming to this conclusion, that Justification as opposed to Condemnation, is dependent upon the personal faith of the individual, and cannot be separated from it:-Mr. E. himself not only admits, but affirms

in the most decided manner, the dependence of Justification upon Faith "It appears to me," he says, page 138, "quite clear and decided, that Justification is described by St. Paul as proceeding from, or arising out of Faith:"-Mr. E. must know, that if a man is justified in the ordinary sense of the word, by Faith, he must also be pardoned by Faith; and hence, unless he was to abandon his scheme altogether, he was obliged to show, that Justification has nothing to do with the personal state of the believer. Mr. E. would not, I am sure, deliberately misinterpret any passage of Scripture:-He is, I have no doubt, fully convinced of the truth of his doctrine in relation to this point, as well as of its fitness to remove a difficulty by which he thinks the preacher of the Gospel is fettered, and the private Christian needlessly disquieted; but he is not exempt from the infirmity that besets every human being; and that he is warped upon the present occasion by his attachment to a favourite opinion, and thereby led to attribute to an important term an unscriptural meaning, I cannot entertain any doubt.

I must stop for the present, and indeed I fear I have already extended my letter to an unreasonable length. When I began my observations on Mr. Erskine's book, I thought two, or at most three letters would have been all I should have had occasion to trouble you with. In this expectation I have been greatly deceived; but it will be your duty Mr. Editor, to take care of your readers, and whenever you think I have written enough, to give me a hint to stop, by declining the insertion of my communication; this duty I shall take for granted you will perform. I am, Sir, very truly yours,

T. K.

REMARKS ON THE CATECHISM OF KING EDWARD VI. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER. SIR-The observations of X. on the Millennian State in your number for December have recalled to my recollection the excellent remarks of W. T. on the same subject in a previous number. I would willingly enter at large into the subject, could I compress into a brief article, adapted to a periodical publication, what I consider it necessary to advance for the lucid explanation of topics infinitely interesting in themselves, and perspicuously laid down in Scripture, but which have been greatly obscured by the traditionary misapplication of a great variety of texts, by a large portion both of the learned and unlearned. It will answer my present design to express my agreement with W. T. in his exposition of the petition in the Lord's Prayer-" thy kingdom come; thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven;" but I believe that it is also still further allusive to a terrestrial dispensation, which the Millennium will only usher in, and which is to be marked by the resignation of his Me

diatorial Sovereignty by the Son; and by the universal submission of all creatures in the true spirit of affectionate obedience to the Father.-1 Cor. xv. 24, 25. My object in writing is to present your readers with the following extract from KING EDWARD THE SIXTH'S Catechism of 1553, which proves that the doctrine in question was the primitive doctrine of the Church of England, at the commencement of the Reformation.

"Master-The end of the world Holie Scripture calleth the fulfyllynge and parformaunce of the Kyngdome and mystery of CHRIST, and the renewing of all things; for, (say the the Apostle Peter, in bis second epistle, the third chapter,) 'We loke for a new heaven and a new earth, according to the promise of God, whearein dwelleth ryghteousness. And it semeth reason that corruption, unstedfaste change, and synne, whereunto the whole world is subiect, should at length have an end. Now bi what way, and what fashion, circumstances, these thinges shal come to passe, I would fayne heare thee tell."

"Scholer-I will tell you as well as I can, accordynge to the same Apostle. The heavens shal passe awaye like a storme: the elements shal melt awaye: the earthe, and all the workes therein shall bee consumed wyth fyre: as thoughe he shulde saye as gould is wont to bee fined; so shall. the whole world be purified with fyre, and be broughte to hys full perfection. The lesser worlde, whiche is man, followynge the same, shall lykewyse bee delyvered from corruption and chaunge. And so for man this greater worlde (which for bys sake was first created) shall at length be renewed, and be clad wyth another hew, much more pleasaunt and beautiful."

St. Peter's language is thus expressly considered to be figurative, and the new heavens and the new earth to precede the general doom, which the Scholar is then immediately led to describe as decidedly distinct from the other. There is also another clause in the same Catechism, on the second article in the Lord's Prayer, even more explicit.

For we

"Scholer-In the second part we require, that thys kyngedom come. see not yet all thynges in subiection to Christe; we see not the stone hewed of the mountayne wythoute woorke of man, whiche all to brosed and brought to nought the image, whiche Daniell descriveth, that the onlye rocke Christe may obtayne and possesse the dominion of the hole world, graunted him of his Father. Antichriste is not yet slayne. For thys cause do we longe for and praye that it may at length come to passe and be fulfylled, that Christe may reign with his Sainctes, accordynge to God's promises; that he may lyve and bee Lord in the worlde, accordynge to the decrees of the Holye Gospell; not after the traditions and lawes of men, nor pleasure of worldlye tyrauntes."

"Master-God graunte his kyngdome may come, and that speedilye."

With this interesting quotation I conclude, hoping that the present race of Protestants will more generally imbibe the sentiments of the first Protestant Catechumens; and learn heartily to join in its true sense, in the animating prayer offered by their well-instructed Master in the conclusion of the above extract.

J. D. S.