ter anew, as it appears in the lessons of the Cross; to see the awfulness of the lovely, and the loveliness of the awful-the two united inspiring affectionate fear, and reverential love; and that he may graciously grant you repentance, to the acknowledging of the truth!

66

9. But, to return from this digression. There is another description of evidence adduced in support of the doctrine of universal pardon, of which it is necessary for me to take some notice; although I cannot enter into it at any length, without being in danger of roaming into adjacent fields of argument, and extending this Essay quite beyond due bounds. I allude to the question respecting the nature and extent of the curse pronounced by God against the transgression of his law. I can enter no further into the discussion of this question (a question far from being without its difficulties-its things hard to be understood") than as it has been introduced into the present controversy. According to the advocates of the scheme of universal pardon, there is positive proof of all being forgiven, in the fact that all are actually delivered from the curse. Could this be made out, it would be a very simple and decisive way of settling all debate. The forgiveness of sin is the remission of its penalty; so that if, in point of fact, the penalty be remitted, there is in such remission an irrefragable evidence, more than sufficient to silence all argumentation, that the sin is pardoned. Let us see, then, how this argument is put. "But, it may be asked," says Mr. Erskine," what sort of a pardon is that which admits of a man's being finally condemned? Is it consistent with justice that a man should be condemned for an offence which had been already pardoned? No, surely! What is the meaning, then, of a man being pardoned, and yet condemned after all? The explanation is just this: he is not

condemned for the offence which had been pardoned, but for a new one; he is not condemned for breaking the law, but for rejecting the gospel. Whilst man was under the dispensation of the law, the condemnation was for breaking the law; and now when, through the death of Christ, we are redeemed from the transgressions that were under the first covenant, and delivered from that condemnation, and are placed under the dispensation of the gospel, the condemnation is for rejecting the gospel, see John xii. 48. As the dispensation of the law was universal, so the dispensation of the gospel is universal. And it is from the condemnation of the law that the pardon of the gospel delivers us. But, for the better understanding of this, we must first understand the nature of the penalty denounced by the law. The penalty, according to the record, is this: In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die.' Men, by their traditions, have converted this penalty into a threefold death-death temporal, death spiritual, and death eternal. But death spiritual is nothing more or less than the sin itself-for sin is the shutting God out from the heart, and that is shutting out spiritual life. And, therefore, if I am told that spiritual death is the punishment of sin, I might answer, then sin is the punishment of spiritual death, for they are one and the same thing. And death eternal is not a punishment under the law, but under the gospel. The death denounced by the law was just the separation of soul and body. This does not, however, make the penalty nugatory; for the soul which had shut God out must have been miserable in its state of separation from the body. This was the sentence on the whole race-and whilst it remained unreversed, it must have kept every man in his grave-it must have lain upon every man like a tombstone, and kept him down-no one could

·

have risen. But if death be the penalty, resurrec tion is the reversal of the penalty. And what is pardon but the reversal of a penalty? It is true, then, of every man, who is to be raised from the dead, that with regard to him the sentence of the law is reversed, or, in other words, that he is pardoned. But we know that there is to be a resurrection of the whole race, both of the just and of the unjust. Every man is to be raised, the unbeliever as well as the believer. So that, with regard to every man, the penalty of the law is reversed, that is, he is pardoned; and thus we see the meaning of that text, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, having been made a curse for us,' Gal. iii. 13.; and of that other, for which cause he is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first testament, they that are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance,' Heb. ix. 15.; and of that other, as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive,' 1 Cor. xv. 22.; and of that other, Jesus Christ is the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe.' And thus also we see the meaning of that passage in 1 Tim. ii. 6. where it is said, that Christ Jesus gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time-for in the resurrection of the unbelievers a testimony will be given that Christ had died for them-for only thus could they have been delivered from the power of the grave. This also is the explanation of those passages in the fifth chapter of the Romans, which assert that the redemption by the second Adam is co-extensive with the fall by the first Adam. thus it is that the preaching of the resurrection of Christ as the second Adam, is in fact the preaching of the gospel to all men, because it is the pledge of resurrection to all men; and, therefore, it contains

And

an assurance to all men, that God has put away their sin, and forgiven them. And it is for this reason, that the resurrection of Christ, as well as the resurrection of all men, is so much insisted on by the apostles, both in their sermons, as appears from the Acts of the Apostles, and also in the epistles."*

I have given this extract at full length, that I may not appear, by partial citation, to do injustice to the argument. I remark upon it

First. The doctrine of universal pardon, as here stated, is so far at least consistent with itself, in the answer which is given to the very natural and therefore very common question, "What is the meaning of a man being pardoned, and yet condemned after all?" The reply is, that he is "not condemned for breaking the law"-that would have been, of course, a flat contradiction in terms-" but for rejecting the gospel." Knowing this to be the ground assumed, I have not insisted, as some readers might expect me to do, upon the apparently anomalous supposition of a pardoned sinner ultimately perishing; because, according to the hypothesis, the perdition comes not upon him for the sins that have been pardoned, but for a new set of sins altogether-or rather, I should say, for the one sin of unbelief, or the rejecting of the gospel. It may here be remarked, however, that, with much of apparent explicitness in the distinction between being condemned for sins against the law, and being condemned for unbelief, there is in reality no small difficulty and confusion. The guilt of all sin lies in the principle of it,—in the state of heart from which it arises and of which it is the indication. External violations of law are effects and manifesta

* Introductory Essay to Letters by a Lady, pp. xlvi. xlix.

tions of that enmity of the heart against God, which is in fact the essential element of all moral evil. The Apostle represents this enmity as at once proved by actual insubordination to law, and at the same time preventing the possibility of subjection to it: The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."*-Now what is the source of unbelief? It is the very same. It arises from this very enmity; and it partakes of guilt, just in proportion as it has this origin. The principle of evil, then, in the violation of the law, and in the rejection of the gospel, is the very same. Are we, therefore, to say, that the enmity of the sinner's heart is pardoned as far as it is indicated by violations of law, not pardoned in as far as it discovers itself in the refusal of grace? This were a very extraordinary fancy. For in fact, when we say that the rejection of the gospel arises from the enmity of the heart against God, we only say, in other words, that it arises from fondness for those very sins that are condemned by the law. But if fondness for the sins which are condemned by the law be the cause of unbelief, and that which constitutes its criminality; then unbelief itself is in truth a violation of the principles of the law. And so it is; and of all violations of them the most flagrant. The law is summed up in love; and unbelief, like all other descriptions of transgression of the divine will, has the essence of its evil in the want of this love. When we say, then, that unbelief is to be punished with death eternal, what is it that is to be so punished? It cannot be simple unbelief; but unbelief as connected with its moral causes. Suppose, then, a man is addicted to licentious indulgences. He loves his sins; and he re

*Rom. viii. 7.