LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Theological Seminary, 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 BX 97A7 .F844 
 
 Fuller, Andrew, 1754-1815. 
 
 Strictures on Sandemanianisit' 
 
 A DONATION 
 
 Keceived ^^ /Z-/^, 
 
 1L • 
 
STRICTURES 
 
 ON 
 
 SANDEMANIANISM, 
 
 IN 
 
 TWELVE LETTERS TO A FRIEND. 
 
 BY ANDREW FULLER, 
 
 AUTHOR OF THE CALVINISTIC AND SOCINIAN SYSTEMS C0MrARED,6«, 
 
 SECOND EDITION, REVISED. 
 
 PRINTED FOR T. WILLIAMS AND SON, 
 
 STATION ERS' COX}RT, LUDGATE STREET. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 hettef Page 
 
 I. Introduction. -_„._ \ 
 
 II. Containing a general view of the system, witli its lead- 
 
 ing points of difference from the systems which it 
 opposes, 16 
 
 III. Containing a niore particular inquiry into the conse- 
 
 quences of Mr. Sandem an's notion of justifying 
 faith, 45 
 
 IV. On the faith of devils and nominal christians, 6'4 
 
 V. On the connection between repentance toward God, 
 
 and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, 82 
 
 VI. On the connection between knowledge and disposi- 
 tion, --. 103 
 
 VII. An inquiry whether, if believing be a spiritual act of 
 the mind, it does not presuppose the subject of it 
 
 to be spiritual, • ___- . I39 
 
 VIII, An inquii-y whether the principles here defended af- 
 fect the doctrine of free justification by faith in 
 the righteousness of Christ, 151 
 
 IX. On certain New Testament practices, I76 
 
 X. An inquiry into the principles on which the Apostles 
 proceeded in forming and organizing Christian 
 Cliurches, 192 
 
 XI. Of the kingdom of Christ, 215 
 
 XII. The spirit of the system compared with that of pri- 
 mitive Christianity, --..--. 225 
 
STRICTURES 
 
 OS 
 
 SAMIDEMAMIANISM, 
 
 LETTER I. 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 MY DEAR FRIEND, 
 
 I HAVE been told more than once, that 
 my not answering the piece written some years 
 since, by Mr. A. M'Lean, has been considered as 
 a proof that I felt it unanswerable. But if so, I 
 must have felt the productions of many other op- 
 ponents unanswerable as well as his, for I have 
 seldom had the last word in a controversy. The 
 truth is, I was not greatly inclined to answer 
 INIr. M. I felt disgusted with the illiberallty of his 
 repeatedly arraigning my motives, his accusing me 
 of intentional misrepresentation, and liis insinuat- 
 ing as though I could " take either side of a ques- 
 tion as I found occasion." I contented myself 
 therefore with writing a small tract, called, The 
 great question answered^ in which, while complying 
 with the desire of a friend, I endeavoured to state 
 
 J* 
 
2 Introduction, 
 
 my views ivithoiit controversy ; and as Mr. M. had 
 given a caricature description of what my princi- 
 ples would amount to^ if applied in the form of an 
 address to the unconverted, I determined to re- 
 duce them to that form ; hoping also that, with the 
 blessing of God, they might prove of some use to 
 the parties addressed. 
 
 Whether it was owing to this tract, or not, I have 
 reason to believe, that the friends of religion who 
 attended to the subject, did me justice at the time, 
 and that even those who favoured Mr. M.'s side of 
 the question, thought he must have mistaken the 
 drift of my reasoning, as well as have imputed mo- 
 tives to me of which I was innocent. 
 
 Whatever Mr. M. may think of me, I do not 
 consider him as capable of either intentional mis- 
 representation, or taking either side of a question ' 
 as he may find occasion. That my principles are 
 misrepresented by him, and that in a great num- 
 ber of instances, I could easily prove: but the 
 opinion that I have of his character, leads me to 
 impute it to misunderstanding, and not to design. 
 
 I am not conscious of any unbrotherly feeling 
 towards Mr. M. : in resuming the subject however, 
 after such a lapse of time, I have no mind to write 
 a particular answer to his performance, though I 
 may frequently notice his arguments. It is in con- 
 sequence of observing the nature and tendency of 
 the si/stem, that 1 vmdcrtake to examine it. Such 
 au examination will not only be more agreeable to 
 
Introduction, 3 
 
 my own feelings, but more edifying to the reader, 
 than either an attack on an individual opponent, or 
 a defence of myself against him. 
 
 In calling the sentiments I oppose Sandcmmii- 
 anisj)i, I mean nothing invidious. The principles 
 taught by Messrs. Glass and Sandeman, about half 
 a century ago, did certainly give a new turn and 
 character to almost every thing pertaining to the 
 religion of Christ, as must appear to any one who 
 reads and understands their publications. In the 
 North it is the former of these authors who gives 
 name to the denomination : with us it is the latter, as 
 being most known by his writings. 
 
 I have denominated Sandemanianism a si/stetn; 
 because it not only, as I have said, affects the 
 whole of Christianity, but induces all who embrace 
 it, to separate from other Christians. Mr. San- 
 PEMAN manifestly desired that the societies which 
 were connected with him, should be unconnected 
 with all others, and that they should be considered 
 as the only true churches of Christ. Such a view 
 of things amounts to more than a difference on a 
 few points of doctrine ; it is a distinct species of re- 
 ligion, and requires for distinction's sake to have 
 a name, and till some other is found by which it 
 can be desigilated, it must be called after that of its 
 author. 
 
 It is not my design to censure Sandemanianism 
 in the gross. There are many things in the system 
 which, in my judgment, are worthy of serious at- 
 
 B 2 
 
4 Introduction. 
 
 tontion. If Mr. Sandeman, and his followers, bad 
 only taught that faith has revealed truth for its ob- 
 ject, or that which is true antecedent to its being 
 believed, and whetlicr it be believed or not — that 
 the finished work of Christ, exclusive of every act, 
 exercise, or thought of the human mind, is that for 
 the sake of which a sinner is justified before God 
 — that no qualifications of any kind are necessary 
 to warrant our believing in him — and that the first 
 scriptural consolation received by the believer arises 
 from the gospel, and not from reflecting on the feel- 
 ings of his own mind towards it, they would have 
 deserved well of the cliurch of Christ. 
 
 Whether those against whom Mr. S. inveighs, 
 under the name of popular jyreacJters, were so 
 averse to these principles as he has represented 
 them, is another question. I have no doubt, how- 
 ever, but they, and many other preachers and 
 writers of the present times, stand corrected by 
 him and by other writers who have adopted his 
 principles. 
 
 Mr. EcKiNG remarks on some passages in Mr. 
 Boston's Fourfold State vi'iXh much propriety, par- 
 ticularly on such language as the following — " Do 
 wiiat you can; and it may be while you are doing 
 what you can for yourselves, God will do Tor you 
 what you cannot.'^ Again, " Let us believe as we 
 can, in obedience to God's command, and while we 
 are doing so, although tlic act be at the beginning 
 but natural, yet in the very act, promised and pur- 
 
Introduction, ^ 
 
 chased grace strikes in^ and turns it into a superna- 
 tural act of believing." Essays, p. 33. From other 
 parts of Mr. Boston '^s work, it appears that he did 
 not consider grace as promised to any of the works 
 of the unregenerate ; but allowing him by " promised 
 grace," in this passage, to mean that which was pro- 
 mised to Christ on behalf of those who were given 
 him by the Father, yet the language is unscriptu- 
 ral and dangerous, as giving the sinner to under- 
 stand that his inability is something that excuses 
 him, and that in doing what he can while in enmity 
 to God, he obeys the divine command, and is at 
 least in a more hopeful way of obtaining supei'na- 
 tural grace. The apostles exhorted sinneis to re- 
 pent and believe the gospel, and to nothing short of 
 it ; making no account of their inability. If we 
 follow their example, God may honour his own or- 
 dinances by accompanying them with his Holy 
 Spirit ; but as to any thing being done in concur- 
 rence with the endeavours of the unregenerate, 
 we have no such idea held out to us in the oracles 
 of God. 
 
 It is God^s ordinary method indeed, prior to his 
 bestowing that supernatural grace which enables a 
 sinner to repent and believe the gospel, by various 
 means to awaken him to reflection, and to the seri- 
 ous consideration of his condition as a transgressor 
 of the divine law. Such convictions may last for a 
 considerable time, and may issue in true conver- 
 sion ', but they may not : and so long as the gospel 
 
 B 3 
 
G Introduction, 
 
 way of salvation is rejected, or neglected, in fa- 
 vour of some self-righteous scheme, there is no- 
 thing truly good in them. They are as the noise, 
 and the shaking of the dry bones, but not the 
 hreath of life. They are the means by which God 
 prepares the mind for a wjelcome reception of the 
 gospel ; but they contain no advance towards 
 Christ on the part of the sinner. He is not nearer 
 the kingdom of heaven, nor less in danger of the 
 wrath to come, than when he was at ease in his 
 sins. Nay, notwithstanding the outward reforma- 
 tion which such convictions ordinarily produce, he 
 is not upon the whole a less sinner in the sight of 
 God than he was before. On the contrary, " He 
 who continiics under all this light, and contrary to 
 the plain dictates, and pressing painful convictions 
 of his own conscience, obstinately to oppose and 
 reject Jesus Christ; is, on the account of this his 
 impenitence and obstinacy under this clear light 
 and conviction of conscience, (whatever alteration 
 or reformation has taken place in him in other re- 
 spects) more guilty^ vile, and odious in God*s sight 
 than he zvas before,"* 
 
 For a minister to withhold the invitations of the 
 gospel till he perceives the sinner sufficiently, as 
 he thinks, convinced of sin, and then to bring 
 them forward as something to which he is entitled, 
 holding up his convictions and distress of mind as 
 
 • Hopkins's True state cf the Unrcgenerate. p. 6. 
 
Introduction, ? 
 
 signs of grace, and persuading him on this ground 
 to think himself one of God's elect, and warranted 
 to believe in Christy is doing worse than nothing. 
 The comfort which the apostles presented to awak- 
 ened sinners consisted purely in the exhibition of 
 Christ, and the invitations to believe in him. Nei- 
 ther the company addressed by Peter, nor the 
 Philippian jailor were encouraged from any thing 
 in the state of their own minds, though each were 
 deeply impressed; but from the gospel only. The 
 preachers might and would take encouragement on 
 perceiving them to be pricked in their hearts, and 
 might hope for a good issue ; but it had been at 
 their peril to encourage them to hope for mercy any 
 otherwise than as believing in the Son of God. 
 
 The hyper-calvinlsts, w^ho set aside the invitations 
 of the gospel to the unregenerate, abound in these 
 things. They are aware that the scriptures do in- 
 vite sinners of some sort to believe in Christ ; but 
 then they conceiv^e them to be sensible sinners only. 
 It is thus that the terms hunger, thirsty labour, hea- 
 vy-laden, &)C. as used in the scripture invitations, 
 are considered as denoting spiritual desire, and as 
 marking out the persons who are entitled to come 
 to Christ. That gospel invitations should be ad- 
 dressed to sinners as the subjects of those ivants and 
 desires which it is adapted to satisfy, such as the 
 thirst for happiness, peace, rest, &c. is no more 
 than might be expected. It had been strange if 
 living waters had been presented to theui who in no 
 
8 Introduction, 
 
 sense were thirsty, or rest to them who were In no 
 sense weary and heavy-laden ; but it does not fol« 
 low that this thirst and this weariness is spirituaL 
 On the contrary, they who are invited to buy and 
 eat without money and without price, are suppos- 
 ed to be " spending their money for that which is 
 not bread ;" are admonished as " wicked" men to 
 forsake their way ', and invited to return to the Lord 
 under a promise of abundant pardon, on their sa 
 returning. The '^ hea^'y-laden'* also are supposed 
 as yet not to have come to Christ, nor taken Ids 
 7/oke, nor learned his spirit ; and surely it could not 
 be the design of Christ to persuade them to think 
 well of their state, seeing he constantly teaches 
 that till a sinner come to him, or believe in him, he 
 is under the curse. It is also observable that the 
 promise of rest is not made to them as Jieavy-laden^ 
 but as coming to Christ with their hnrdens. There 
 is no proof that all who were " pricked in their 
 hearts" under Peter's sermon, and who enquired 
 ^^ what shall we do?" believed and were saved. On 
 the contrary, it seems to be intimated that only a 
 part of them ^' gladly received the word, and were 
 baptized." Had they cdl done so, it would proba- 
 bly have been said, then they gladli/ received his 
 tvordj and were baptized. Instead of this it is said,. 
 '^ then they that gladly received his word were bap- 
 tized &c." implying, that there were some who, 
 though pricked in their hearts, yet received not the 
 word of the gospel; and were not baptized; and 
 
Introduction, D 
 
 who might leave the place under an impression that 
 the forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus Christ 
 was a hard saying. There are many, it is to be 
 feared, who at this day feel guilt to be a heavy bur- 
 den, and yet never bring it to Christ; but lay it 
 down on some self-righteous resting place, and so 
 perish for ever. 
 
 It does not follow however that all convictions of 
 sin are to be resolved into the operations of an awak- 
 ened conscience. There is such a thing as a con- 
 viction of the evil nature of sin, and that by a view 
 of the spirituality and equity of the divine law. It 
 was by the commandment that Paul perceived sin 
 to be exceeding sinful. Such a conviction of sin 
 cannot consist with a rejection of the gospel way 
 of salvation, but, as soon as it is understood, in- 
 stantly leads the sinner to embrace it. It is thus 
 that through the law, lue become dead to the law, 
 that IV e may live unto God.^ 
 
 I may add, the attention of christians appears to 
 have been too' much drawn towards wliat may be 
 called suhjective religion to the neglect of that which 
 is objective. Many speak and write as though the 
 truth of the gospel was a subject out of doubt, and 
 as though the only question of importance was, 
 whether they be interested in its blessings; and 
 there are not a few who have no doubt of their be- 
 lieving the former, but many doubts respecting the 
 
 » Rom. vii, 13. Gal, ii, 19. 
 
10 Introdiictio72, 
 
 latter. Hence, it is probable the essence of faith 
 came to be placed^ not in a belief of the gospel, 
 but in a persuasion of our being interested in its 
 benefits. If however we really believe the one, 
 there is no scriptural ground to doubt of the other, 
 since it is constantly declared that he who believ- 
 eth the gospel shall be saved. 
 
 If the attention of the awakened sinner, instead 
 of being directed to Christ, be turned inward, and 
 his mind be employed in searching for evidences 
 of his conversion, the effect must, to say the least, 
 be uncomfortable, and may be fatal, as it may lead 
 him to make a righteousness of his religious feel- 
 ings, instead of looking out of himself to the Sa- 
 viour. 
 
 Nor is this all : — If the attention of christians be 
 turned to their own feelings instead of the things 
 which should make them feel, it will reduce their 
 religion to something vastly different from that of 
 the primitive christians. Such truths as the fol- 
 lowing were the life of their spirits. " Jesus 
 Christ came into the world to save sinners — Christ 
 died for our sins according to the scriptures, and 
 was buried, and rose again the third day according 
 to the scriptures. — ^Remember that Jesus Christ, 
 of the seed of David, was raised from the dead ac- 
 cording to my gospel — We have a great high priest 
 that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of 
 God,'* &c. But by the turn of thought, and strain 
 of conversation in many religious connexions of the 
 
Introduction, 1 \ 
 
 present day, it would seem as if these things had 
 lost their influence. They are become " dry doc- 
 ti'ines," and the parties must have something else. 
 The elevation and depression of their hopes and 
 fears, joys and sorrows, is with them the favourite 
 theme. The consequence is, as might be expected, 
 a living to themselves rather than to him that died 
 and rose again ; and a mind either elated by un- 
 scriptural enjoyment, or depressed by miserable de- 
 spondency. It is not by thinking and talking of the 
 sensations of hunger, but by feeding on the living 
 aliment, that we are filled and strengthened. 
 
 Whether the above remarks will satisfy Mr. 
 M'Lean that these are " really my fixed senti- 
 ments," and that he has greatly misunderstood the 
 ends for v.hich I wrote the piece on which he ani- 
 madverted, and of course misrepresented my prin- 
 ciples as to their effect on awakened sinners*, I 
 cannot tell. Be this as it may, I trust other readers 
 will be under no temptation to do me injustice. 
 
 But whatever danger may arise from those princi- 
 ples which are too prevalent amongst us, they are 
 not the only errors, nor does all the danger arise 
 from that quarter. Subjective religion is as neces- 
 sary in its place as objective. It is as true that 
 *' without holiness no man shall see the Lord, as 
 that " without the shedding of blood there is no re- 
 mission." It is necessary to look into ourselves for 
 
 * See his Reply, pp. 46, 47, 153. 
 
1 2 Introduction, 
 
 the puqiose of conviction, though not for the cause 
 of salvation ; and though the evidence of the truth 
 of the gospel is without us, and independent of our 
 state of mind towards it, yet this is not the case 
 with respect to evidence of an interest in its bles- 
 sings. We have no warrant to expect eternal life, 
 but as being the subjects of those things to which it 
 is promised. 
 
 1 do not perceive, therefore, how it can be justly 
 affirmed, as it lately has been, that ^^ self-examination 
 is not calculated to quiet the conscience, to banish 
 slavish fear, or to remove doubts and apprehensions 
 of our being unbelievers;" and still less how it can 
 be maintained, that " peace of mind founded on any 
 thing In ourselves will always puif us up with pride." 
 If the state of our souls be bad, indeed, self-exami- 
 nation must disquiet the conscience, rather than 
 quiet it: but are there no cases in which, through 
 the accusations of others, or a propensity In our- 
 selves to view the dark side of things rather than 
 the bright one, or the afflicting hand of God, our 
 souls may be disquieted within us, and in which 
 self-examination may yield us peace ? Did the re- 
 view which Job took of his past life * yield no 
 peace to him ; and though he was not clear when 
 examined by the impartial eye of God, yet were 
 all his solemn a})peals respecting his integrity the 
 workings of self-righteous pride? Was David puf- 
 
 * Chap. xxxi. 
 
Introduction* 1^ 
 
 fed up when he said, " Lord, I have hoped In thy 
 salvation, and have done thy commandments?" 
 Did John encourage a confidence in the flesh, when 
 he said, " If our hearts condemn us not, then have 
 we conHdence towards God?" or Peter, when he ap- 
 pealed to Christ, '' Lord, thou knowcst all things, 
 thou knowest that I love thee ?" 
 
 Had it been only affirmed, that no peace of mind 
 can arise from the recollection of what we have felt 
 or done in times past, while at present we are 
 unconscious of any thing of the kind, this had 
 been true. Past experiences can no otherwise be 
 an evidence of grace to us, than as the remem- 
 brance of them rekindles the same sentiments and 
 feelings anew. But to object to all peace of mind 
 arising from a consciousness of having done the will 
 of God, and to denominate it "• confiden'^e in the 
 flesh," is repugnant to the whole tenor of scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 A system may contain much important truth, 
 and yet be blended with so much error, as to de- 
 stroy its salutary efficacy. Mr. Sandeman has ex- 
 punged from Christianity a great deal of false reli- 
 gion; but whether he has exhibited that of Christ 
 and his apostles, is another question. It is much 
 easier to point out the defects and errors of other 
 systems, than to substitute one that is even less 
 exceptionable; and to talk of " simple truth,** and 
 ** simple belief," than to exhibit the religion of Je- 
 sus in its genuine simplicity. 
 
14 Introduction. 
 
 In discussing the points at issue, we shall meet 
 with some things which may be thought of too 
 metaphysical a cast to be of any great importance : 
 and, had not the effects produced convinced me 
 of the contrary, I might have thought so too. But 
 though the principles on which the system rests, be 
 many of them so minute as almost to elude detec- 
 tion, yet they are not the less efficacious. The seed 
 is small, but the branch is not so. 
 
 It has been regretted that any person who drinks 
 thoroughly into these views, is at once separated 
 from all his former religious connexions, whatever 
 they might be ; and where the heart has been unit- 
 ed, it must needs be a matter of regret : yet, upon 
 the whole, it may be best. Whatever fruits are 
 produced by this species of religion, whether good 
 or bad, they are hereby much more easily ascer- 
 tained. Its societies bear some resemblance to so 
 many farms, taken in different parts of the king- 
 dom, for the purpose of scientific experiment ; and 
 it must needs be apparent in the course of fifty or 
 sixty years experience, whether, upon the whole, 
 they have turned to a better account than those of 
 their neighbours. 
 
 I will only add, in this place, that though I do 
 not conceive of every one as embracing this doc- 
 trine, who in some particulars may agree with Mr. 
 Sand EM AN, (for in that case, I should be reckon- 
 ed to embrace it myself,) yet many more must be 
 considered as friendly to it in the main, than those 
 
Introduction, 15 
 
 who chuse to be called either Sandemanlans or 
 Glassites. It has been held by people of various 
 denominations 5 by Presbyterians, Independents, 
 and Baptists ; and has been observed to give a dis- 
 tinctive character to the whole of their religion. 
 In tliis view of the subject, I wish to examine it, 
 paying attention, not so much to persons or names, 
 as to things, let them be embraced by whom they 
 may, 
 
 I am yours; &c. 
 
 C 1 
 
16 General View 
 
 LETTER IT. 
 
 CONTAINING A GENERAL VIEW OF THE SYSTEM, 
 WITH ITS LEADING POINTS OF DIFFERENCE FROM 
 THE SYSTEMS WHICH IT OPPOSES. 
 
 My dear Friend, 
 
 ALTHOUGH the vvritin.crs of such men 
 as Flavel, Boston, Guthrie, the Erskines, &c. 
 are represented by Mr. Sand em an as furnishing 
 " a devout path to hell," and the writers them- 
 selves as pharisees, " than whom no sinners were 
 more hardened, and none greater destroyers of 
 mankind," yet lie allows them to have " set before 
 us many articles of the apostolic doctrine," yea, 
 and to have " asserted almost all the articles be- 
 longing to the sacred truth.'* Considering this, 
 and that so far as these writers held with '^ good 
 duties, good endeavours, and good motions" in un- 
 believers, preparing them for faith, we give them 
 up, it may seem as if there could be no great dif- 
 ference between Mr. Sande.man and us. Yet a 
 difference there is, and of that importance too, as 
 
t>f the Si/ St em. i 7 
 
 deeply to affect the doctrine, the worship, the spirit, 
 and the practice of Christianity. 
 
 The foundation of whatever is distinguishing iu 
 the system seems to relate to the nature of justify- 
 ing faith. This Mr. S. constantly represents as 
 the bg.re hetief of the hare truth; by which defini- 
 tion he intends, as it would seem, to exclude from 
 it every thing pertaining to the will and the affec- 
 tions, except as effects produced by it. 
 
 When Mr. Pike became his disciple^ and wish- 
 ed to tlilnk that by a ** bare belief" he meant a 
 hearty persuasion, and not a mere notional belief, 
 Mr. S. rejected his construction, and insisted that 
 the latter was his true meaning. ^* Every one 
 (says he) who obtains a just notion of the per- 
 son, and work of Christ, or whose notion corresponds 
 to what is testified of him. Is justified, and finds 
 peace with God simply by that notion, f 
 
 This notion he considers as the effect of truth 
 being Impressed upon the mind, and denies that 
 the mind is active in it. The inactivity of the mind 
 in believing Is of so much importance in his ac- 
 count, that the doctrine of justification by grace 
 depends upon it. " He who maintains (says he) 
 that we are justified only by fiiith, and at the same 
 tinic affirms, with Aspaslo, that faith is a work ex- 
 erted by the human mind, undoubtedly maintains, 
 if he have any meaning to his words^ that we arc 
 
 t F4)is. Cor. Let. II, 
 c 3 
 
18 General View 
 
 justified by a work exerted by the human mind." * 
 
 Mr. Sand EM AN not only opposes all active en- 
 deavours previous to faith, and as tending to pro- 
 duce Itj (In which I liave no controversy with him,) 
 but sets himself against all exhortations, calls, 
 warnings, and expostulations, with the sinner to be- 
 lieve in Christ. " If," says he, *' it be inquired 
 what I would say for the relief of one distrest with 
 a sense of guilt ? I would tell him to the best of my 
 ability what the gospel says about Christ. If he 
 still doubted, T would set before him all the evi- 
 dence furnished me by the same gospel. Thus, 
 and thus only w^ould I press, call, invite, exhort, or 
 urge him to believe. I would urge him with evi- 
 dence for the truth.'' f And when asked, how he 
 would exhort, advise, or address stupid unconceimed 
 souls ? He answers, " I am of the mind that a preach- 
 er of the gospel, as such, ought to have no influence 
 on men, but by means of the gospel which he 
 preaches. — When Paul discoursed concerning the 
 faith in Christ, and as he reasoned of righteousness, 
 temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled. 
 — It is the duty of every man, in every condition, 
 to obey every divine command. The gospel al- 
 ways supposes this, while, addressing all men as 
 sinners, it demonstrates their danger, and discovers 
 the remedy. Yet it Is absurd to suppose that any 
 
 * Letters on Ther. and Asp. vol. I. p. 483. 
 t Epis. Cor. p. 8. 
 
of the System, 19 
 
 man can love the gospel, or obey it, till he believe 
 it. Therefore, to urge unbelievers to any shadow 
 of that obedience as preparative to justification by 
 faith, can have no other effect than to lead them 
 to establish their own righteousness, and to stand 
 in- awe of the preacher." * 
 
 If there be any meaning in this answer, it would 
 seem to be that faith itself is not a duty, and that 
 unbelievers ought not to be exhorted to it, lest it 
 should lead them to self-righteousness ; but barely 
 to have the evidence of truth stated to them, 
 
 Mr. S. represents the sinner as justified, and as 
 having obtained peace to his soul, while utterly des- 
 titute of the love of God. " I can never begin 
 to love God (says he) till I first see him just in 
 justifying me ungodly as I stand." f But being 
 justified in this his ungodly state of mind, he loves 
 God on account of it; and here begins his godli- 
 ness: " It all consists in Icve to that which first 
 relieved him." % 
 
 If he had represented the doctrine of Christ as 
 giving relief to the guilty creature irrespective of 
 any consciousness of a change in himself; or as 
 furnishing him with a ground to conclude that God 
 can be just and the justifier of him if he believes in 
 Jesus^ this had accorded with Paul's gospel : || but 
 for a sinner to perceive himself justified, implies 
 a consciousness that he is a believer, and such a 
 
 * Epis. Cor. p. 29. f Ibid. p. 12. J Ibid. p. 8. URom.iv. 24. 
 
20 General View 
 
 consciousness can never be separate from a con- 
 scious love to the divine character. If^ indeed, the 
 gospel were an expedient merely to give relief to 
 sinners, and no regard v, as had in it to the glory of 
 God, a sinner iwW of enmity to God, miglit receive 
 it, and derive peace from it : but if it be an 
 essential property of it to secure the glory of the 
 divine character, the belief of it must include a 
 sense of that glory which cannot consist with en- 
 mity against it. 
 
 Let it also be seriously considered, whether it be 
 true that a sinner is justified ^^ ungodly as he 
 stands?" If it be, he must have been so either 
 antecedently to his " seeing" it to be so, and then 
 it must be equally true of all ungodly sinners 5 or 
 it becomes so tvhen he sees it, and by his seeing it, 
 which is the very absurdity which Mr. S. fastens 
 on the popular preachers. 
 
 Mr. S. and many others have caught at the 
 phrase of the apostle Paul, of " God's justifying the 
 ungodly ;" but unless they can prove that by wi" 
 godly the apostle meant one who was at the tune 
 an enemy of God, it makes nothing in their favour. 
 The amount is, Mr. S.'s relief arises from his " see- 
 ing" what is not to be seen ; viz. God to be just in 
 justifying him ungodly as he stands : and his relief 
 being founded in falsehood, all his godliness, which 
 confessedly arises from it, must be delusive. The 
 root is rottenness^ and the blossom will go tip us 
 the dust. 
 
of the System. 21 
 
 From the leading principles of doctrine above 
 stated, it is easy to account for almost all the other 
 peculiarities of the system. Where the root and 
 substance of religion is placed in knowledge, ex- 
 clusive of approbation, it may be expected that the 
 utmost stress will be laid on the former, and that 
 almost every thing pertaining to the latter, will be 
 run down under the name of pharisaism, or some 
 other odious appellation. Thus it is that those who 
 have drank into this system generally value them- 
 selves on their clear views ; thus they scarcely ever 
 use any other phrase by which to designate the 
 state of a converted man, than his knowing the 
 truth ; and thus all those scripture passages which 
 speak of knowing the truth, are constantly quoted 
 as being in their favoui;, though they seldom, if 
 ever, mean knowledge as distinguished from appro- 
 bation, but as including it. 
 
 Farther, I do not perceive how a system whose 
 first principle is *' notion," and whose love is con- 
 fined to " tliat which first relieves us," can have 
 the love of God in it. It cannot justify God as a 
 lawgiver, by taking blame and shame to ourselves, 
 for it necessarily supposes, and even professes, an 
 abhorrence to both law and justice in every other 
 view than as satisfied by the cross of Christ. The 
 reconciliation to them in this view, therefore, must 
 be merely on the ground of their becoming friend- 
 ly to our interests. But if God be not justified as 
 a La\^giver, Chri^it can never be received as a Sa- 
 
22 General Vieiv 
 
 viour. There is no more grace in justification, 
 than there is justice in condemnation ; nor is it pos- 
 sible we should see more of the one than of the 
 other, for we cannot see things otherwise than as 
 they are to be seen. But surely a system which 
 neither justifies the Lawgiver, nor receives the Sa- 
 viour as honouring him, cannot be of God. The 
 love of God as God is not in it. Conversion on 
 this principle is not turning to the Lord. It pro- 
 fesses indeed to love God, but it is only for our 
 own sake. The whole process requires no renova- 
 tion of the spirit of the mind ; for the most deprav- 
 ed creature is capable of loving himself and that 
 which relieves him. 
 
 Is it any wonder that a religion founded on such 
 a principle should be litigious, conceited, and cen- 
 sorious towards all who do not come into it ? It is 
 of the nature of a selfish spirit to be so. If God 
 himself be loved only for the relief he affords us, 
 it cannot be surprising that men should ; nor that, 
 under the cover of loving them only for the truth's 
 sake, all manner of bitterness and contempt should 
 be cherished against every one who dares to dis- 
 pute our dogmas. 
 
 Farther, the love of God, being in a manner 
 excluded from the system, it may be expected that 
 the defect will be supplied by a punctilious atten- 
 tion to certain forms; of which some will be found 
 to arise fiom a misunderstanding of the scriptures, 
 and others whicli may not, yet being regarded to 
 
of the System, 23 
 
 {lie neglect of weightier matters, resemble the 
 tithing of mint, anise, and cummin. 
 
 Such, from the repeated views that I have been 
 able to take of the system, appear to me to be its 
 grand outlines ; and I am not surprised to find, that 
 in the course of half a century it has landed so 
 large a part of its votaries on the shores of infi- 
 delity, or sunk them in the abyss of worldly confor- 
 mity. Those who live near them say, there is 
 scarcely any appearance of serious religion in their 
 families, unless vve might call by that name the 
 scrupulosity that would refuse to pray with an un- 
 believer, but would have no objection to accompa- 
 ny him to the theatre. Mr. S. and his admirers 
 have reproached many for their devotion; but I 
 cannot learn that they were ever reproached with 
 this evil in return. 
 
 The grand argument of Mr. S. against faith 
 being an act of the mind, and against admitting of 
 any active advance of the soul towards Christ, as 
 necessary to justification, is, that it is rendering 
 faith a work ; and that to be justified by faith, 
 would after all be to be justified by a work of our 
 own. This is the principal idea pertaining to what 
 he calls " the very rankest poison of the popular 
 doctrine."* If this argument can be overturned, 
 the greater part of his system falls with it. That 
 it may appear in all its force, I will quote his strong- 
 est representations of it. 
 
 r * Letters on Ther. anil Asp. p. 448. 
 
24 General View 
 
 *^ Perhaps it will be thought needful that I should 
 define with greater precision than I have hitherto 
 done, what I mean by the popular doctrine, especial- 
 ly as I have considered many as preachers thereof, 
 who differ remarkably from each other; and par- 
 ticularly as I have ranked among them Mr. Wes- 
 LKY, who may justly be reckoned one of the most 
 virulent reproachers of that God whose character 
 is drawn by the apostles, that this island has pro- 
 duced. To remove all doubt concerning my mean- 
 ing, I shall thus explain myself. Throughout these 
 letters I consider all those as teachers of the popu- 
 lar doctrine, who seek to have credit and influence 
 among the people by resting our acceptance with 
 God, not simply on what Christ has done, but 
 more or less on the use we make of him, the advance 
 we make towards him, or some secret desire, wish, or 
 sigh to do so ; or on something we feel or do con- 
 cerning him, by the assistance of some kind of 
 grace or spirit : or, lastly, on something we employ 
 him to do, and suppose he is yet to do for us. In 
 sum, all who would have us to be conscious of some- 
 thing else than the bare truth of the gospel; 
 all w^ho would have us to be conscious of some 
 beginning of a change to the better, or some de- 
 sire, however faint, toward wich change, in order to 
 our acceptance with God ; these I call the popular 
 preachers, however much they may difl:er from 
 each other about faith, grace, special or common, 
 ©r about any thing else, — My resentment is ail 
 
of the System, « 25 
 
 along chiefly pointed against the capital branch of 
 tlie popular doctrine, which, while it asserts almost 
 all the articles belonging to the sacred truth, at the 
 same time deceitfully clogs them with the opposite 
 falsehoods." 
 
 Again, " That the saving truth is effectually un- 
 dermined by this confusion, may readily be seen 
 in the following easy view." — (This is what I call 
 his grand argument:) " He who maintains that 
 
 WE ARE JUSTIFIED ONLY BY FAITH, AND AT THE 
 SAME TIME AFFIRMS, WITH AsPASIO, THAT FAITH 
 IS A WORK EXERTED BY THE HUMAN MIND, UN- 
 DOUBTEDLY MAINTAINS, IF HE HAS ANY MEAN' 
 ING TO HIS WORDS, THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED B¥ 
 A WORK EXERTED BY THE HUMAN MIND. 
 
 " I have all along studied to make use of every 
 form of expression I could think of, for evincing 
 in the most clear, palpable^ and striking manner^ 
 a difference of the last importance, which thou- 
 sands of preachers have laboured to cover with a 
 mist. If I have made that difference manifest to 
 those who have any attention for the subject, my 
 great end in writing is gained, on whatever side 
 of it men shall chuse to rank themselves. It has 
 frequently appeared to me a thing no less amaz-^ 
 ing than provoking, when the great difference be- 
 tween the ancient gospel here contended for, and 
 the popular doctrine, has been pointed out as clear 
 as words could make it, to find many, after all, 
 so obstinately stupid, as to declare they saw no 
 
 D 
 
26 • General View 
 
 real difference. This I cannot account for by as- 
 signing any other cause than the special agency of 
 the prince of darkness."* 
 
 After this it may be thouglit an act of temerity 
 to complain of not understanding Mr. Sandeman ; 
 and indeed I shall make no such complaint, for I 
 think I do clearly understand his meaning; but 
 whether he has fairly represented that of his oppo- 
 nents, I shall take the liberty to inquire. 
 
 The popular preachers " rest our acceptance with 
 God, (it seems) not simply on what Christ hath done, 
 but on the active advance of the soul towards him." 
 Do they then consider faith, whether we be active 
 or passive in it, as forming a part of our justifying 
 righteousness ? In other words, do they consider 
 it as any part of that for the sake of which a sinner 
 is accepted ? They every where declare the con- 
 trary. I question if there be one of those whom 
 Mr. S. ordinarily denominates popular preachers, 
 who would not cordially subscribe to the passage 
 which he so highly applauds in Aspasio, and consi- 
 ders as inconsistent with the popular doctrine — viz. 
 ^' Both grace and faith stand in direct opposition to 
 works; all works whatever, whether they be works 
 of the law, or works of the gospel ; exercises of 
 the heart, or actions of the life ; done while we re- 
 main unregenerate, or when we become regene- 
 rate ; they are all and every of them equally set 
 
 * Lett, on Ther. and Asp. vol. II. pp. 480. 483. 
 
of the System, 27 
 
 aside in this great affair." Tlier. and Jtsp. vol. I. p, 
 27(i» If the popular preachers maintain an active 
 advance of the soul to he necessary to our accep- 
 tance with God, it is in no other sense than that in 
 which he himself maintains " the bare belief of the 
 truth" to be so; that is, not as a procuring cause, 
 but as that without tvhich, according to the esta- 
 blished order of things, tliere is no acceptance. To 
 accuse them therefore of corrupting the doctrine 
 of justification on this account, must be owing either 
 to gross ignorance or disingenuousness. 
 
 Yet in this strain the eulogists of Mr. Sandeman 
 go on to declaim to tliis day. " His main doctrine," 
 says one, " appears to be tliis — the bare work of Je- 
 sus Christ, which he finished on the cross, is suffi- 
 cient, without a deed or a thought on the part of 
 man, to present the chief of sinners spotless before 
 God."* If by sufficient be meant that it is that 
 only on account, or for the sake of which a sinner is 
 justified, it is very true ; and Mr. Sandeman's op- 
 ponents believed it no less than himself: but if it 
 be meant to deny that any deed or thought on the 
 part of man is necessary in the established order of 
 things, or that sinners are presented spotless before 
 God without a deed or a thought on the subject, 
 it is very false, and goes to deny the necessity of 
 faith to salvation : for surely no man can be said to 
 believe in Cinist without thinking of him. 
 
 * Cooper's Letters, p. 33. 
 D 2 
 
28 General P^iew 
 
 Mr. Pike, who liad embraced Mr. Sandeman's 
 views of faith, yet says to him, " I cannot but con- 
 ceive that you are sometimes mistaken in your re- 
 presentations of what you call the popular doctrine 5 
 for instance, upon the popular plan^ say you, ive can 
 never have peace in our consciences jmtil ive he 
 sensible of some heghming of a good disposition in 
 us towards Christ. Now setting aside some few un- 
 guarded expressions and addresses, you will find 
 that the general drift and purport of their doctrine 
 is just the contrary to tliis ; and they labour this 
 point, both Marshall and Hervey, to convince 
 persons tbat nothing of this nature does or can re- 
 commend them to God, or be any part of their jus- 
 tifying righteousness : and their principal view is to 
 beget, and to draw forth such thoughts in the mind, 
 as lead the soul entirely out of itself to Christ alone 
 for righteousness.^'-* It is observable too, that though 
 Mr. S. answered this letter of Mr. Pike, yet he 
 takes no notice of this passage. 
 
 I am not vindicating either Marshall or Her- 
 vey in all their views ; but justice requires that 
 this misrepresentation should be corrected, especial- 
 ly as it runs through the whole of Mr. Sandeman's 
 writings, and forms the basis of an enormous mass 
 of invective. 
 
 By works opposed to grace and faith, the new 
 testament means ivorks done witJi a vieiv of obtaining 
 
 * Epis. Cor. p. C4. 
 
of the Si/stem, 29 
 
 life, or of procuring acceptance ivith God as the re- 
 ward of them. If repentance, faith, or sincere obe- 
 dience, be recommended as being such a condition 
 of salvation, as that God may be expected to bestow 
 it in reward of them, this is turning the gospel into 
 a covenant of works, and is as much opposed to 
 grace, and to the true idea of justification by faith^ 
 as any works of the law can be. But to deny the 
 activity of the soul in believing, lest faith itself 
 should become a work of the law, and so after all 
 we should be justified by a work, is both antiscrip- 
 tural and nugatory : antiscriptural, because the 
 whole tenor of the Bible exhorts sinners to forsake 
 their ways, and return to the Lord that he may have 
 mercy iipori them — to believe in the light, that they 
 may he children of light — and to come to him, that 
 they may have life : — nugatory, because we need 
 not go far for proof that men know how to value 
 themselves, and despise others on account of their 
 notions, as well as of their actions, and so are capable 
 of making a righteousness of the one as well as of 
 the other. 
 
 Farther : If there be any weight in Mr. Sande- 
 Man's argument, it falls equally on his own hypo- 
 thesis as on that of his opponents. Thus we might 
 argue, he who maintains that we are justified only 
 by faith, and at the same time affirms, with Mr. 
 San DEM AN, tliat faith is a notion formed by the 
 human mind, undoubtedly maintains, if he have 
 
 D 3 
 
30 Gaierul Ftew 
 
 any meaning to his words, that we are justified by 
 a notion formed by the human mind. 
 
 Mr. S. as if aware of his exposed n ess to this re- 
 tort, labours in the foregoing quotation, to make 
 nothing of the beUef of the truth, or to keep every 
 idea but that of the truth believed out of sight. So 
 fearful is he of making faith to be any tbing which 
 has a real subsistence in the mind, that he plunges 
 into gross absurdity to avoid it. Speaking of that 
 of which the believer is *^ conscious," he makes it 
 to be truth, instead of the belief oi it ; as if any thing 
 could be an object of consciousness but what passes 
 or exists in the mind ! 
 
 It may be thought that the phrase, '• All who 
 would have us to be conscious of something else 
 than the bare truth of the gospel," is a mere slip 
 of the pen ; but it is not ; for had Mr. S. spoken 
 of belief instead of the truth believed as an object 
 of consciousness, his statement would have been 
 manifestly liable to the consequence which he 
 charges on his opponents. It might then have 
 been said to him, he who maintains that we are 
 justified only by faith, and at the same time affirms 
 that faith is something inherent in the human mind, 
 undoubtedly maintains, if he have any meaning to 
 his words, that we are justified by something in- 
 herent in the human mind. 
 
 You must by this time perceive, that Mr. San- 
 peman's grand argument, or, as he denominates 
 
of the St/ stem. 31 
 
 It, Ills " easy view/' turns out to be a mere so- 
 phism. To detect it you have only to consider 
 the same thing in different views ; which is what 
 Mr. Sandeman himself does on some occasions, 
 as do all other men. " I agree with you, (says 
 he to Mr. Pike,) in maintaining that faith is the 
 principle and spring of every good disposition, or 
 of every good work: but, at the same time, I 
 maintain that fahh does not justify the ungodly as 
 a principle of good dispositions." * Why then 
 may we not maintain that we are justified only by 
 faith, and at the same time affirm that faith is a 
 grace inherent, an act of the human mind, a duti/ 
 commanded of God; and all this without affirm- 
 ing that we are justified by any thing inherent, 
 any act of ours, or any duty that we perform? 
 And vvhy must we be supposed to use words with- 
 out a meaning, or to contradict ourselves, when 
 we only maintain, that we are justified by that 
 which 1.9 inherent, is an act of the human mind, 
 and is a duty ; while yet it is not as such, but as 
 uniting us to Christ, and deriving righteousness 
 from him, that it justlfieth ? f 
 
 Assuredly there is no necessity for reducing 
 faith to a nullity, in order to maintain the doctrine 
 of justification by the imputed riglitcousness of 
 Christ, While we hold that faith justlfieth not in 
 
 * Epis. Cor. p. 10. t See President Edwards's Sermons on 
 Justification; pp. 14, 26, 
 
32 General View 
 
 respect of the act of believing, hut of the righteous^ 
 ness on which it terminates, or that God's pardoning 
 and receiving us to favour is in reward, not of our 
 believing, but of his Son's obedience unto death, 
 every purpose is answered, and all inherent righte- 
 ousness is excluded. 
 
 I have been the more particular on this ^^ easy 
 view*' of Mr. Sandeman, because it is manifest- 
 ly the grand pillar of his doctrine. If this be over- 
 turned, there is nothing left standing but what will 
 fall with a few slight touches ; and whether it be so, 
 I now leave you and the reader to judge. 
 
 To establish the doctrine of free justification, 
 Mr. S. conceives it necessary to reduce justifying 
 faith to a " bare belief," exclusive of every " ad- 
 vance" of the mind towards Christ, or of coming 
 to him, trusting in him, &c. and to maintaining 
 that these terms denote the effects of faith in those 
 who are already in a justified state. * 
 
 In opposing Mr. S. many have denied that the 
 belief of the gospel is justifying faith. Observ- 
 ing, on the one hand, that numbers appear to be- 
 lieve the truth, on whom, nevertheless, it has no 
 salutary influence; and on the other, that believ- 
 ing in Christ in the new testament is synonymous 
 with " receiving him," " trusting in him," and 
 " coming to him," they have concluded, that the 
 belief of the gospel is rather to be considered as 
 
 *Epis, Cor. p. 34. 
 
of the System* 33 
 
 something presupposed in faitlij than faith itself. 
 But there can be no doubt that the belief of the 
 gospel has, in a great number of instances, the pro- 
 mise of salvation ; and as to those nominal chris- 
 tians on whom it has no salutary influence, they 
 believe Christ no more than the Jews believed Mo- 
 ses, which our Lord would not allow them to have 
 done. " If ye believed Moses (saith he) ye would 
 believe me, for he wrote of mc.'^ 
 
 But though the belief of the gospel is allowed to 
 have the promise of salvation, and so to be justi- 
 fying, yet it does not follow that it is so exclusive 
 of receiving Christ, trusting in him, or coming to 
 liim. It were easy to prove that repentance has 
 the promise of forgiveness, and that by as great a 
 variety of passages, as are brought to prove that 
 the belief of the gospel is saving faith : but were 
 this attempted, we should be told, and justly 
 too, that we are not to consider repentance, in 
 these passages, as excluding, but including faith in 
 the Saviour. Such then is the answer to the argu- 
 ment drawn from the promises of salvation made 
 to the belief of the gospel : belief in these con- 
 nexions is not to be understood exclusive of re- 
 ceiving the Saviour, coming to him, or trusting in 
 him, but as supposing and including them. 
 
 It is not denied that the ideas conveyed by these 
 terms are metaphysically distinct from that of be- 
 lieving the gospel, nor that they arc its innnedi- 
 ate effects j but it is not in this metaphysical sense 
 
34 General View 
 
 that faith is used in reference to justification. 
 That belief of the gospel which justifieth, in- 
 cludes receiving Christ, coming to him, and trust- 
 ing in him. Whatever shades of difference there 
 be between belief and these ** advances of the 
 mind towards Christ," the scriptures represent them, 
 ivith respect to an interest in justification, and other 
 collateral blessings, as one and the same thing. 
 This is manifest from the following passages — " As 
 many as received him, to them gave he power (or 
 privilege) to become the sons of God, even to 
 them that believe on his name — I know whom I 
 have believed, and am persuaded, that he is able to 
 keep that which I have committed to him against 
 that day — ^That we should be to the praise and glo- 
 ry of his grace who first trusted in Christ. In 
 whom ye also trusted, after ye heard tlie word of 
 truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also 
 after ye believed ye were sealed, &c. — He that 
 conieth to me shall never hunger, and he that be- 
 lieveth in me shall never thirst — Ye will not come 
 unto me that ye may haxje life — Come unto me all 
 ye that labour and are heavy-laden, and I will give 
 you rest.^ 9 
 
 In these, and many other passages, it is mani- 
 fest that believing, coming, trustin.^, &c. are 
 used as convertible terms, and that the thing sig- 
 nified by them is necessary to justification. If 
 
 ♦John i> 12.— -2 Tim. i. 12.— Epli. i. 12, 13.— Juhn vi. 15.—*. 
 40.— Matt. x.i. 28c 
 
of the Syste7iu 35 
 
 *f receiving" Christ were an effect of faith in per- 
 sons aheady justified, why is it used as synony- 
 mous with it^ and held up as necessary to our be 
 ing " the sons of God ?'' If " coming to Christ" 
 were an e;iercise of mind in one who was already 
 in a state of justification, why is he said to come 
 to him that he may have life ? And why is it said 
 of apostates, that " they received not the love of 
 the truth that they might be saved," if salvation be 
 promised to a mere " notion'* of the truth without 
 any love to it ? Let those who have their senses 
 exercised to discern between good and evil, judge 
 from these things whether a mere notion of the 
 truth, exclusive, or, if you please, antecedent to 
 the consideration of receiving Christy coming to 
 him, and trusting in him, be the faith that justifieth ; 
 and whether, if the former were separate from the 
 latter, it would not leave the sinner under condem- 
 nation. 
 
 Tt has been said, " in defining saving faith, some 
 have included in its essence almost every holy tem- 
 per; and by insisting so much on this faith, and 
 giving such laboured descriptions of it, have almost 
 inevitably led their followers to look more to their 
 faith, than to the great object of faith ; to be more 
 occupied in attending to the working of their own 
 minds, than with that truth which reconciles the sin- 
 ner to God. It is in consequence to be feared, that 
 not a few who are reckoned orthodox, are in fact 
 trusting to their faith, and not to Christ j making 
 
3G General Plew 
 
 liim merely a minister of their own self-righteous* 
 iiess : for we may go about to establish our own 
 righteousness under the name of faitli, as well as 
 under any other name/' 
 
 T doubt not but preachers may abound in de- 
 scribing one part of divine truth to the neglect of 
 another, and may go even beyond the truth ; people 
 also may make a righteousness of their faith as well 
 as of other things. If no more were meant than 
 that a sinner whose inquiry is, what must I do to be 
 saved? ought to be directed immediately to Christ, 
 and not to an examination into the nature of faith, 
 I should most cordially acquiesce in it : but it does 
 not follow, that nothing should on any occasion be 
 said of the true nature of faith. There may be a 
 time when the same person shall come with another 
 and very different question, namely, am I a true 
 believer ? Such questions there must have been in 
 the Apostle's time, or there would not have been 
 answers to them.* Now in answer to such an in- 
 quiry the true nature and genuine eflxscts of faith 
 require to be stated, and distinguished from that 
 which leaves thousands short of salvation. And as 
 to men making a righteousness of their faith, men 
 may make a righteousness of simple belief, as well 
 as of trust, or any other idea supposed to be includ- 
 ed in justifying iaith : and whether there be not ac- 
 tually as much laboured description, self-admiration, 
 
 * 1 John ii. 3.— iii. 14, 18—21. 
 
of the System, 3/ 
 
 and contempt of others (things nearly akin to self- 
 righteousness), among the advocates of this system 
 as among their opponents, let the candid ohserver 
 judge. If we are to say nothing about the holy 
 nature of faith, lest men should make a righteous- 
 ness of it, we must say nothing of any thing else 
 that is holy for the same reason, and so cease 
 to distinguish all true religion in the mind, from 
 that which is counterfeit : but so did not the sacred 
 writers. 
 
 To the same purpose Mr. McLean writes in his 
 treatise on the Commission. " Now when men 
 include in the very nature of justifying faith, such 
 good dispositions, holy affections, and pious exer- 
 cises of heart, as tlie moral law requires, and 
 so make them necessary (no matter under what 
 consideration) to acceptance with God, it perverts 
 the Apostle's doctrine upon this important subject, 
 and makes justification to be at least as it were by 
 the works of the law." 
 
 I know not of any writer who has given such a 
 definition of faith as these statements would repre- 
 sent. No more holy aff^ection is pleaded for in 
 faith, than unholy dlsafi^ection is allowed to be in 
 imbelief. But the design is manifestly to exclude 
 all holy affection from faith, as being favourable to 
 self-righteousness. 
 
 If therefore repentance be considered as necessary 
 to forgiveness, seeing this must be allowed to in- 
 clude holy affection, it will be considered as favour- 
 
 E 
 
88 General View 
 
 able to self-righteousness. And Jis to distinguish- 
 ing between what is necessary m the established 
 order of things, from what is necessary as a 2^t'0' 
 curing cause, this will not be admitted 5 for it is " no 
 matter under what consideration :" if any thing re- 
 quired by the moral law be rendered necessary, it 
 makes justification to be at least ^^ as it ivere by the 
 works of the law." Yet Mr. M. allows faith, what- 
 ever it is, to be a dut//. Is it then a requirement 
 of a 7ieiv and remedial law ? Would not the love of 
 God, which is required by the old law, lead any 
 sinner to believe in Christ? If not, why is unbe- 
 lief alleged to the Jews as a proof that they had 
 not the love of God in them ?* As Mr. M. how- 
 ever, in his piece on the calls and imntations of the 
 gospel, has gone pretty far towards answering him- 
 self, I shall transcribe a passage from that perform- 
 ance. " It is an unscriptural refinement upon 
 divine grace, (he there says,) and contrary to the 
 doctrine of the apostles, to class faith and repent- 
 ance with the works of the law, and to state them as 
 equally opposite to free justification. Indeed nei- 
 ther faith nor repentance are the meritorious, or pro 
 curing cause of a sinner's justification, any more 
 than the works of the law are ; (and who that really 
 believes and repents will imagine that they are ?) 
 But still the one is opposed to free justification, the 
 other not. To him that worketh is the reward not 
 
 * John V. 42, 43. 
 
of the Sj/stem, 31> 
 
 reckoned of grace, but of debt; and faith and re- 
 pentance corresponding exactly vvit]\ the manifesta- 
 tion of divine grace, as freely justifying the guilty 
 tlirough the atonement, are in their very nature 
 opposite to all self-dependance, and lead men to 
 glory only in the Lord/' p. 26. 
 
 We see here that there is nothing in the nature 
 of rcjientance that clashes with a free justification, 
 which yet must be allowed to include a ])ortion of 
 holy affection. Why then object to the same thing 
 in faith ? Is it because holy affection is " requiied 
 by the moral law?" Be it so, it is the same in re- 
 pentance as in faith ; and if the one may in its 
 very nature agree with a free justification, so may 
 the other. The truth is, the moral law materially 
 considered, is not opposed to free justification. The 
 love cf God and man, in Its own nature, is as op- 
 posite to self-righteous pride as faith and repent- 
 ance are. It is not the law that is against the pro- 
 mises, but those works of the law done hy a sinful 
 creature with a vieiv of ohtai^iiiig life, or of 
 procuring acceptance with God as the reivard of 
 them, if holy affection were urged with such a view, 
 then were it opposed to the free grace of the gospel ; 
 but w^hile this is not the case, all such reasonings aie 
 unscriptural refinements. 
 
 If men make a righteousness of their faith, it Is 
 not owing to ihese representations of it, but to 
 their own corruptions; for let faith include what 
 good disposition it may, it is no part of the 
 
 E 2 
 
<I0 General Vieiv 
 
 meritorious cause of justification, and let it be sim- 
 plified as it may, even till it shall contain no more 
 of the holy nature of God than a glance of the 
 eye, 3^et is it not on this account more friendly to 
 the doctrine of grace, nor less liable to become 
 the food of a self-righteous spirit. The way in 
 which this spirit is cut up in the new testament is, 
 not by reducing faith to an unfeeling speculation, 
 but by denouncing the curse against every one 
 who Cometh short of perfect obedience. Gal. iii. IQ. 
 It has been further said, ^' Faith purifies the 
 heart, worketh by love, and discovereth itself sin- 
 cere by the performance of good works. Faith 
 therefore is not holiness, love, or new obedience, 
 unless the effect is the same with the cause, or the 
 evidence with the thing proved." Faith certainly 
 is not the same thing as holiness, or love, or jiew 
 obedience. Neither is unbelief the same thing as 
 unhollness, enm.ity, or disobedience : but it is not 
 so distinct from either, as not to partake of the 
 same general nature. It is not only the root of all 
 other sin, but is itself a sin. In like manner, faith 
 is not only the root of all other obedience, but is 
 itself an exercise of obedience. It is called 
 " obeying the truth," and " obeying the gospel."* 
 To say that faith includes no holiness, (which this 
 objection certainly does,) and yet produces it, as 
 the seed produces the plant, is to contradict the 
 
 * Rom. vi. 17.— 1 Pet. i. 22.— -Rom. \. 16. 
 
of the System. 41 
 
 established laws of nature, according to which, 
 every seed produces its oimi hody. God can pro- 
 duce something out of nothing, but in the ordina- 
 ry course of traduction every seed produces after 
 its kind. If holiness therefore were not included 
 in faith, it would not giow out of it. 
 
 Mr. M'Lean does not agree with Mr. Sande- 
 MAN in considering faith as a passive admission of 
 the truth, but allows it to be an act or exercise of 
 the mind.* A large part of his work, however, is 
 taken up in attempting to prove that it is a mere 
 exercise of the understanding, exclusive of every 
 thing pertaining to the will and affections. It is 
 no part of the question between him and me, whe- 
 ther, properly speaking, it has its seat in the under- 
 standing ; for this it may have, and yet be influ- 
 enced by the disposition. Unbelief hath its seat in 
 the understanding as much as belief, yet it is not 
 denied that this is influenced by the disposition. 
 " It arises (says Mr. M'Lean) not merely from 
 ignorance, but also from the aversion of the will, 
 whereby the judgment is blinded, and most unrea- 
 sonably prejudiced against 'he truth.'' f — Nor had 
 Mr. M'Lean any just ground for construing what 
 I had said in proof of faith in Christ, being such a 
 belief as arises from a renewal of the spirit of the 
 mind, as an attempt to " prove that faith is more 
 than belief.'' p. SO. He allows unbelief to arise 
 
 ♦ Reply, p. 74, 75. f Ibid. p. 16, 
 E 3 
 
42 General Vieiv 
 
 in part from disposition; yet I suppose he would 
 not be thought by this concession to make it some- 
 thing more than unbelief. If unbelief may consist 
 in such a discredit of the gospel as arises from 
 aversion to it, and yet be nothing more than unbe- 
 lief, faith may consist in such a credit of the gospel 
 as arises from a renewal of the spirit of the mind, 
 and yet be nothing more than belief. 
 
 To this may be added, if faith in Christ be a 
 duty commanded of God, an act of the human 
 mind, an exercise of obedience to God, (all which 
 Mr. M. acknowledges,) it must be the effect of re- 
 generation, or it will follow that thei/ that are in 
 the flesh may please God. 
 
 Mr. McLean speaks much of simple belief, as 
 Mr. Sandeman did of hare belief. Mr. S. mani- 
 festly intended hereby to exclude every " ad- 
 vance" of the sinner to Christ, as signified by 
 such terms as coming to Christ, trusting in him, 
 he. from justifying faith. Such may be the in- 
 tention of Mr. M'Lean : if it be not, 1 do not un- 
 derstand the use of the epithet. He however can- 
 not consistently reject every " advance" of the 
 mind to Christ, as belonging to justifying faith, 
 since he acknowledges the soul to be active in be- 
 lieving. But while dwelling so much on simple be- 
 lief, why does he not dwell also on simple unbelief? 
 If belief be simple, so must unbelief, for they are 
 opposites. And I readily acknowledge, there are 
 such things as simple belief and simple unbe- 
 
of the System, 43 
 
 lief; but neither of them apply to the credit or 
 discredit of the gospel. If a stranger, who has no 
 claim on my confidence, relate a story of some- 
 thing that he has seen in a distant country, but which 
 in no way concerns me, I may believe him, or dis- 
 believe him : my faith in the one case, or my un- 
 belief in the other, would be perfectly simple. 
 But if it be a story of deep interest, if the un- 
 doubted veracity of the party have a claim on my 
 confidence, and if my future course of life turns 
 upon the credit or discredit that I give him, nei- 
 ther the one nor the other will be simple, but com- 
 pounded of a number of moral principles, which 
 influence my decision : if to discredit his testimo- 
 ny, they are prejudices which blind me to the force 
 of evidence ; if to credit it, candour, or open- 
 ness to conviction. It is thus in believing the gos- 
 pel, which is a subject of the deepest interest, 
 testified by a Being, whose veracity it is a crime to 
 question, and of such consequence to a sinner, 
 even in this life, that if he admit it, he must re- 
 linquish all his former courses, and live a new life. 
 Intrenched in prejudice, self-righteousness, and 
 the love of sin, he continues an unbeliever till 
 these strong holds are beaten down ; nor will he 
 believe so long as a wreck of them remains suffi- 
 cient to shelter him against the arrows of convic- 
 tion ; nor, in short, till by tlie renovating influ- 
 ence of the Holy Spirit, they fall to the ground. 
 It is then, and not till then, that the doctrine of 
 
44 General Fieiu of the System, 
 
 salvation by mere grace through a mediator, is cor- 
 dially believed. 
 
 Mr. M'Lean in his arguing for what he calls sim^ 
 pie belief, seems to be aware that ifc is not the pro- 
 per opposite of unbelief, as described in the scrip- 
 tures. Hence he somewhere alleges that we can- 
 not reason from the nature of unbelief to that of 
 belief, any more than from that of demerit to me- 
 rit. But the disparity between demerit and me- 
 rit, to which he refers, does not respect their na- 
 ture, but the condition of the party who is the sub- 
 ject of them. Merit is the desert of good, and 
 demerit the desert of evil : they are therefore pro- 
 perly oppcsites, whatever m.ay be the condition 
 of the party as to being equally capable of exer- 
 cising them ; and it is fair, in ascertaining their na- 
 ture, to argue from the one to the other. 
 
 Upon the whole, I see no reason to retract \vliat 
 I have in substance said before, that if faith and 
 unbelief be oppcsites, (which to deny, were dis- 
 owning that which is self-evident,) the one can be 
 no more simple, or exclusive of the influence of 
 the will, than the other. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
45 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 CONTAINING A MORE PARTICULAR INQUIRY INTO 
 THE CONSEQUENCES OF MR. SANDBMAN's NO- 
 TION OF JUSTIFYING FAITH. 
 
 My dear Friend^ 
 
 You will not conclude from any thing I 
 have said, or may yet say, that I accuse every one 
 who favours this doctrine, of holding all the conse- 
 quences which may be proved to arise from it ; it 
 is, however, a fair method of trying a principle by 
 pointing out other principles to which it leads, 
 which, if contrary to the scriptures, furnish reasons 
 for rejecting it. 
 
 If the faith by which wc are justified be a mere 
 passive reception of light, or contain no exercise 
 of affection, it follows : — 
 
 First, That repentance is not necessary to forgive- 
 ness. It is allowed on all hands, that justification 
 includes the forgiveness of sin. Whatever differ- 
 ences there be between them, they are not so 
 different but that he that is justified is forgiven. 
 
46 Co)isequences of 
 
 If therefore we be justified by a mere notion 
 of the truth, antecedent to all exercise of affection, 
 we are forgiven in the same way ; that is, our sins 
 are forgiven before we repent of them. 
 
 Mr. Sandeman, I conceive, would have avowed 
 this consequence. Indeed he does avow it, in 
 effect, in declaring that " he can never begin to 
 love God, till he first sec h.im just in justify- 
 ing him, ungodly as he stands." If he cannot begin 
 to love God, he cannot begin to be sorry for having 
 sinned against him, unless it be for the conse- 
 quences which it has brought upon himself. By 
 being justified " ungodly as he stands," he means 
 to say, therefore, that he is justified, and forgiven, 
 while his mind is in a state of impenitence, and 
 that it is the consideration of this that renders him 
 penitent. 
 
 Whether this notion be not in direct oppo- 
 sition to the whole current of both the old and 
 new testament, let the following passages, out of 
 many more which might be selected, determine. 
 — " I said I will confess my transgressions unto 
 the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my 
 sin. — If thy people Israel sin against thee, and re-^ 
 pent, and make supplication unto tliee towards this 
 house, then hear thou from heaven thy dwelling place, 
 and forgive thy people. — He that covcreth his sins 
 shall nc>t prosper: but whoso confesseth and for^ 
 saketh tliem shall have mercy. — Let the wicked for^ 
 sake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, 
 
Mr. S's Notio7i of Justifying Faith. 47 
 
 and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have 
 Tuercy upon him, and to our God^ for he will 
 abundantly iKtrdon. — Thus it behoved Christ to suf- 
 fer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and 
 that repentance and remission of sins should be 
 preached, in his name, among all nations, begin- 
 ning at Jerusalem — Repent therefore and be bap 
 tized, every one of you, for the remission of sins, — - 
 J{epe?it ye therefore and he co7iverted, that your 
 sins may he blotted out. — Him hath God exalted to 
 be a prince and a saviour, to give repentance to Is- 
 rael, and the forgiveness of sins. — If we confess 
 our sins y he is faithful and just to forgive us pur sins^ 
 and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." '^ 
 
 I shall not stop here, to inquire into tlie order in 
 which the scriptures represent repentance towards 
 God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 This I shall attend to in a letter by itself. It is 
 sufficient at present to observe, that whatever be 
 the order of repentance in respect of faith, it is 
 uniformly represented in the scriptures as necessary 
 to forgiveness. Every notion therefore of standing 
 forgiven in a state of impenitence, and of this be- 
 ing the only motive that can lead a sinner to re- 
 pentance, is false and delusive. 
 
 Secondly, On this principle faith in Christ is not 
 a duty, and unbelief is not a sin. I am not sure 
 
 * Ps, xxxii. 5. — 1 Kings viii. 46 — 50. — Prov. xxviii. 13. — Isa. Iv. 
 7.— Luke xxiv. 46, 47.— Acts ii. 38.— iii. 19.— v. 31. 1 John 
 
 i. 9. 
 
48 Consequences of 
 
 whether Mr. Sandeman would have avowed both, 
 or either, of these consequences. He however 
 utterly disavows urging vinbelievers to the least 
 shadow of obedience to the gospel, in order to jus- 
 tification, as leading them to establish their own 
 righteousness.* The faith therefore which he al- 
 lows to be necessary to justification, includes no 
 obedience, which is the same thing as its being no 
 duty. And if it be not a duty, unbelief is not a 
 sin ; for where there is no obligation, there can be 
 no transgression. 
 
 But a system which goes to nullify the command 
 of God to believe in his Son Jesus Christ, and to 
 excuse the sin which is threatened with eternal 
 damnation, must be fundamentally erroneous, and, 
 as far as it operates, subversive of true religion. 
 
 Mr. M'Lean is very far from admitting this con- 
 sequence, though he retains in part the principle 
 from which it proceeds. He allows, as we liave 
 seen aheady, that faith is a duty, an act of obedi- 
 ence to God, and a holy exercise of mind : yet he 
 pleads for its containing nothing pertabiing to the 
 ivill. Is it possible then for any thing to be either 
 an act, or a duty, or to contain obedience, which is 
 purely intellectual? In whatever belongs to the 
 understanding only, exclusive of the will and af- 
 fections, the soul, I conceive, is passive. There 
 are acts, no doubt, which pertain to the intellectual, 
 
 * Epi«. Cor. p. 29. 
 
Mr, S*s Notion of Justifying Faith. 49 
 
 as well as to the vislve faculty ; but they are only 
 such as fall under the influence of the ivill. It is 
 an act to look, but not to see, and to collect infor- 
 mation, but not to be informed. If therefore be- 
 lieving be an act of the mind, it must fidl under 
 the influence of the will. 
 
 Mr. Sandeman is consistent with himself, how- 
 ever inconsistent he may be with the scriptures. 
 In confining faith to the understanding, he was 
 aware that he disowned its being an act, and there- 
 fore in his usual strain of banter, selected some of 
 the grossest representations of his opponents, 
 and endeavoured to hold up acts of faith to ridi- 
 cule. But JMr. M'Lean allows of faith being aa 
 act, and an act of obedience, and yet will have it 
 that it contains nothing pertaining to the will , except 
 in its effects. T can no otherwise account for such 
 reasoning, in a writer of his talents, than by as- 
 cribing it to the influence of early prejudices, con- 
 tracted by having drank too deeply into the system 
 of Mr. S.,' and retained by a partiality for what he 
 has once im billed, though utterly inconsistent with 
 other sentiments which he has since learned from 
 the scriptures. — That notliing can contain obedi- 
 ence but that which includes the state or exer- 
 cises of the will, or has some dependence upon it, 
 is manifest from universal experience. Tell a man 
 that God hath commanded him to be or do that in 
 which he is absolutely involuntary, and that the 
 contrary is a sin, and see whether you can fasten 
 
 F 
 
50 Consequences of 
 
 conviction on his conscience. Nay, make the ex- 
 periment on yourself. Did you ever perceive 
 yourself obliged to any thing in which your will 
 had no concern, or for a moment repent of living 
 in the neglect of it? Knowledge may be a duty, 
 and ignorance a sin, so far as each is dependent on 
 the will, and comprehensive of approbation, but 
 no further. Love is the fulfilling of the 
 LAW, or that which comprehends the wliole of 
 duty. So much therefore as there is of love in any 
 exercise of mind, so much there is of duty, or obe- 
 dience, and no more. Duty supposes knowledge 
 indeed, as Christianity supposes humanity; but 
 the essence of it consists in disposition. It may be 
 our duty to examine, and that with care, diligence, 
 and impartiality; but if disposition have no place 
 in faith, it cannot be our duty to believe. 
 
 If faith be merely light in the understanding, un- 
 belief must be merely the, absence of it; and if the 
 former include nothing pertaining to the will, nei- 
 ther does the latter. To say that though unbelief 
 contain a voluntary rejection of the truth, yet faith 
 contains no voluntary reception of it, is saying that 
 belief and unbelief are not opposites, which is equal to 
 denying a self-evident proposition. If one be purely 
 intellectual, so is the other; and as there is no obedi- 
 ence in the first, there is no disobedience in the last. 
 
 Mr. M'Lkan has said every thing on this su])ject 
 that I could desire, except drawing the conclusion. 
 Thus he reasons when proving faith to be a duty. 
 
Mr. tS.'s Notion of Justifying Faith. 51 
 
 ^* Unbelief, whicli is the opposite of faith, is ahvays 
 represented as a very great and heinous sin against 
 God. The unbeheving heart is termed an evil 
 heart, Heb iii. 12, and there are many evils in the 
 heart of man, which both occasion and attend unbe- 
 lief. It is frequently ascribed to ignorance^ Matt. 
 xiii. 19. — Horn. x. 3. — xi. 7^ 25; yet not to simple 
 ignorance from want of information, or natural ca- 
 pacity, in which case it would be excusable, John 
 ix. 41. — XV. 22, 24; but such as arises from the 
 agency of the god of this world^ blinding the minds 
 of them that believe not, 2 Cor. iv. 4. It is 
 wilful ignorance, occasioned by their loving dark- 
 ness, and hating the light, John iii. 19, 20, and so 
 they are represented as having closed their eyes 
 lest they should see. Matt. xiii. 15. From' this it 
 appears that unbelief is founded not merely on sim- 
 ple ignorance, but aversion from the things of 
 of God.— 
 
 '^ Now if unbelief be a sin, and seated in the de- 
 pravity of the heart, as has been shown, it ne- 
 cessarily follows that faith, its opposite, must be a 
 duty," [and have its seat also in the heart.] Ser^ 
 mons, pp. 40, 41. The words added in crotchets 
 merely go to draw the conclusion ; and whether it 
 be fairly drawn, let the reader judge. 
 
 Mr. M. cannot consistently object, that by al- 
 lowing unbelief to be seated in the heart, he did 
 not mean to grant that it was seated in the willy 
 since liis whole argument asserts the contrary; and 
 
 F 2 
 
52 Consequences of 
 
 he elsewhere says, " the scriptures always repre- 
 sent the regenerating and sanctifying influences of 
 the spint as exerted upon the heart ; which in- 
 cludes not only the understanding, but the will 
 and affections, or the prevalent inclinations and 
 dispositions of the soul." TForks^ voL II, p, 91. 
 
 I had said, ' I can scarcely conceive of a truth 
 more self-evident than this, that God's commands 
 extend only to that which comes under the in- 
 fluence of the will.'* Mr. M. allows this to 
 be '' a principle on W'hich my main arguments 
 seem to be grounded.'' It became lilm therefore, 
 if he were able, to give it a solid answer. And what 
 is his answer ? "^ It is so far, he says, from being 
 §elf-evident, that to him it does not appear evident 
 at all.'' He should instance then in something 
 which is allowed not to come under the influence 
 of the will, but which nevertheless is a duty. In- 
 stead of this, he says, the commands of God ^' ex- 
 tend not only to what comes under the influence 
 of the will, but also to the belief of the revealed 
 truths and motives^ by ivhich the ivill itself is in- 
 Jluenced.'^ f But who does not perceive, that this is 
 proving a thing by Itself; or alleging that as evi- 
 dence which is the very point in dispute ? 
 
 The argument was this : — all duty comes under 
 the influence of the will — But faitli is a duty — 
 Therefore, faith comes under the influence of the 
 
 » App. p. 1^3. t Repb'^ P- TO. 
 
Mj\ S*s Notmi of Justifymg Faith, 53 
 
 will. To have overturned the first of these propo- 
 sitions, which is that which he calls in question, he 
 should have shown by something' else than belief, 
 something that is aUoived not to come under the 
 influence of the will, that it may nevertheless be 
 commanded of God. But this he has not shown, 
 nor attempted to show. 
 
 All that Mr. M'Lean has done towards answer- 
 ing this argument, is by labouring to fasten certain 
 absurdities upon it. " If believing God with the 
 understanding (he says) be not a duty, it must be 
 either because lie has not given a clear revelation 
 of the truth, and supported it with sufficient evi- 
 dence, or if he has, that there is no moral turpitude 
 in mental error."* 
 
 By this way of writing, it would seem as if I 
 pleaded for men's believing without their under- 
 standing, of which I certainly have no idea, any 
 more than of their disbelieving without it. I hold 
 no more in respect of faith, than Mr. M, does in 
 respect of unbelief, namely, that it does not per- 
 tain to the understanding only. The greatest evi- 
 dence or authority cannot oblige us to that in 
 which we are absolutely involuntary. God com- 
 mands us to love him with all our powers, but not 
 beyond our powers. To love him with all our 
 hearts, includes every thing that depends upon dis- 
 position, even the bowing of our understandings to 
 
 *Reply, p. 76. 
 f3 
 
54 Consequences of 
 
 revealed truths instead of proudly rejecting it; 
 but that is all. So far as knowledge or belief is 
 absolutely involuntary, we might as well ascribe 
 duty to the con\ailsive motions of the body as to 
 them. And as to " mental error," if it could be 
 proved to be merely mental ; that is, not to arise 
 from indolence, prejudice, aversion, or any other 
 evil disposition^ it would be innocent. Christ did 
 not criminate the Jews for simply misunderstanding 
 him, but refers to the cause of that misunderstand- 
 ing as the ground of censure. " Why do ye not 
 imderstand my speech? because ye cannot hear 
 my wo7'd," — that is, because they were utterly averse 
 to it. * Mr. M'Lean acknowledges ^s much as 
 this when he speaks of the neglect of the great sal- 
 vation being the effect of " 2)erverseness, and aver- 
 sion, and therefore inexcusable.'* What is this 
 but admitting, that if it arose from simple ignorance 
 it would be excusable ? 
 
 Another consequence which Mr. M. endeavour* 
 to fasten upon this principle is, " If faith be not a 
 duty, unless It be influenced by the moral state of 
 the heart, then it can be no man's duty to believe 
 the testimony of God concerning his Son, till he is 
 previously possessed of that moral state,'' f But 
 if this consequence were just, it would follow from 
 his own principles as well as mine. He considers 
 
 ♦ Joiin viii. 43. 
 + Reply, p. 73. 
 
Mr. S*s Notion of Just if y big Faith, 55 
 
 the illumination of the Holy Spirit, as necessary to 
 heileving; but does he infer, that till such illumi- 
 nation take place, it is not a sinner's duty to believe ? 
 He also considers repentance as the fruit of faith; 
 but does he infer, that till a sinner is in possession 
 of faith, it is not his duty to repent ? The truth is, 
 that God in requiring any one duty, requires that, 
 as to the state of the rnind, be it repentance or faith, 
 or what it may, which is necessary to it. It was 
 not the duty of Absalom to ask pardon of David 
 without feeling sorry for his offence : but it does 
 not follow, that while his heart was hardened he 
 was under no obligation to ask pardon. He was 
 under obligation to both ', and so are men with 
 regard to believing the gospel. They are obliged 
 to be of an open, upright, unprejudiced mind, and 
 so to believe the truth. 
 
 If faith be a duty, believing is a holy exercise 
 of the mind ; for what else is holiness but a con- 
 formity of mind to the revealed will of God ? Mr. 
 M. allows of a belief which is " merely natural,^' 
 and that it has " no holiness in it." He also al- 
 lows that that which has the promise of salvation 
 is holy. So far then we seem to be agreed. Yet 
 when he comes to state wherein its holiness consists, 
 he seems to resolve every thing into the cause, 
 and the nature of the truth helievecL * Each of 
 these indeed afford proof of the holy nature of 
 
 * Reply, p. 67. 
 
56 Consequences of 
 
 faith : but to say that it consists in either, is \o 
 place the nature of a thinj^ in its cause, and in the 
 object on which it terminates. The objects of be- 
 lief are exactly the same as those of unbelief; 
 but it will not be alleged, I presume, that unbelief 
 is a holy exercise ! 
 
 The sum is, Mr. M. thinks he ascribes duty and 
 holiness to faith ; but his hypothesis is inconsistent 
 with both. And this is all that I ever meant to 
 charge him with. It never was in my heart to 
 " impeach his honesty," * though he has more than 
 once impeached mine. 
 
 Thirdly, On this principle, calls, invitations, and 
 exhortations to believe, have noplace in the christian 
 ministri/. — To call, invite, or exhort a man to 
 that in which his will has no concern, is self-evident 
 absurdity. Every man must feel it if he only make 
 the experiment. Mr. Sandeman is aware of this, 
 and therefore utterly gives up the practice, declar- 
 ing that the whole of what he has to offer is evi- 
 dence. " I would set before him (the sinner) all 
 the evidence furnished me by the gospel. Thus, 
 and thus only, (says he) would I press, call, invite, 
 exhort, or urge him to believe. f That is, he would 
 not press, call, invite, exhort, or urge him to 
 believe at all. So far he is consistent with him- 
 self, though at the utmost vanance with the 
 scriptures. 
 
 ♦ Reply, p. 64. f Epis. Cor. p. 8. 
 
Mr S's Notion of Justifying Faith, 57 
 
 God however, by the prophets and apostles, did 
 not barely offer evidence, but addressed every 
 power and passion of the human mind. Mr. San- 
 DEMAN may call this ^' human clamour, pressing 
 men on to the blind business of performing some 
 task called believing;'* but this will prove nothing 
 but his dexterity, when pressed w^ith an argument 
 which he cannot answer, at turning it off by rail- 
 lery. The clamour of the prophets and apostles 
 was such as follows. — " Kiss the Son lest he be an- 
 gry, and ye perish from the way. — Ho, eveiy one 
 that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that 
 hath no money ; come ye, buy and eat ; yea come, 
 buy wine and milk without money and without 
 price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that 
 which is not bread, and your labour for that which 
 satisfieth • not ? Hearken diligently unto me, and 
 eat ye that which is good, and let your soul de- 
 light itself in fatness. Incline your ear and come 
 unto me : hear and your soul shall live ; and I will 
 make an everlasting covenant with you, even the 
 sure mercies of David." 
 
 If this figurative language should be thought to 
 leave the subject in doubt, the following verses 
 express the same sentiments without a figure. 
 " Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye 
 upon him while he is near : let the wicked forsake 
 his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; 
 and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have 
 mercy upon him, and to our God^ for he will abun- 
 
5S Consequences of 
 
 dantly pardon. — Look unto me and be ye saved, all 
 the ends of the earth : for I am God, and there is 
 none else. — Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the 
 ways, and see, and ask for the old paths where is the 
 good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest 
 for your souls. — Come unto me all ye that labour 
 and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 
 Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am 
 meek and lowly in heart : and ye shall find rest 
 unto your souls. — Repent ye, and believ^e the gos- 
 pel. — Ho, eveiy one that thirsteth, let him come 
 unto me and drink ! — While ye have the light, be- 
 lieve in the light, that ye may be the children of 
 light. — Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but 
 for that which endureth to everlasting life.— 
 Compel them to come in that my house may be 
 filled. — Repent and be converted, that your sins 
 may be blotted out. — Draw nigh to God, and he 
 will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye 
 sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double minded. 
 Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep. — Humble 
 yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall 
 lift you up. — All things are of God, who hath re- 
 conciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath 
 
 given to us the ministry of reconciliation. Now 
 
 then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God 
 did beseech (men) by us, we pray (them) in Christ*s 
 stead, (saying) be ye reconciled to God."* 
 
 * Ps. ii. 12. — Isa. Iv. 1 — 7- — xlv. 22. — Jer. vi. 16. — Matt. xi. 
 28 — Mark i. 15. — John vii. 37. — tii. 3b\ — vi. 27 — Luke xiv^ 
 23.— -Acts iii. 19.--Jain. iv. B— 10.— ;^ Cor. v. 18—20. 
 
Mr. S,'s NotioJi of Justifying Faith, 5f 
 
 Mr. San'dkman may tell us that the character of 
 ambassadors does not belong to ordinary min inters, 
 and may attribute the invitations used in the pre- 
 sent day to " priestly pride, and strutting self-im- 
 portance ;" but this will only prove that he has rea- 
 soned himself into a situation from which he has 
 no other way of extricating himself, than by having 
 recourse to abuse instead of argument. What does 
 it make for him whether ordinary ministers be 
 ambassadors for Christ or not ? If faith be a mere 
 passive reception of the truth, it were as improper 
 for the apostles to beseech sinners to be reconciled 
 to God, as for ordinary ministers to do so. Extra- 
 ordinary powers could not render that consistent, 
 which is in itself absurd. 
 
 But I need say the less on this head, as JMr. 
 M'Lean, in the First Part of his Thoughts on the 
 Calls and Invitations of the Gosjjel, has not only 
 alleged the foregoing passages, with others, but 
 shown their connexion and pertinency to the point 
 at issue. Suffice it for me to say, that a system 
 which requires the disuse of the most distinguished 
 means pertaining to the ministry of the word, 
 must be fundamentally erroneous, and of a ten- 
 dency to render the good news of salvation of none 
 effect.* 
 
 * It bocomes me here to acknowledge, that in the Appendix to 
 the last Edition of " The Gospel worthy of all acceptation," I was 
 guilty of an oversight, in attributing' many of the foregoing sen- 
 timents to Mr, xM'Lean, which did not belong to hiin. This nii>;- 
 statemeut was owing to wxy having at the time entirely forgot his 
 
GO Consequences of 
 
 ^^To urge unbelievers (says Mr. Sandkman) to any^ 
 shadow of obedience to the gospel^ as preparative 
 to justification by faith, can have no other effect 
 than to lead them to establish their own righteous- 
 ness, and to stand in awe of the preacher."* 
 Obedience to the gospel, in Mr. Sandeman's 
 view, is the effect of faith : the scriptures however, 
 as we have seen, make faith itself to be obedience, 
 and unbelief to be disobedience. If by " prepa- 
 rative" he mean any thing which contributes to the 
 ground or reason of justification, what he says of 
 its self-righteous tendency is true ; and the same 
 would be true of his " notion," or " bare belief :" 
 but to represent obedience to the gospel as neces- 
 sary, in the established order of things, to justifica- 
 tion, is to represent it according to the whole cur- 
 rent of scripture, as is manifest from the foregoing 
 passages ; and this can have no self-righteous 
 tendency. 
 
 piece "Otithe Calls of the Gospel," and my considering an anony- 
 mous performance, entitled " Simple Truth," written by a Mr. 
 Br.RNARD, as his. It is true I had the means of knowing- better, 
 and should have been more attentive to them: in this, however, 
 lay the whole of my fault. It never was my design for a moment 
 to misrepresent Mr. M. or any other man ; nor did I ever feel 
 the least reluctance to make the most explicit acknowledgement. 
 
 I may add, though I am sorry that I mistook him, yet I am glad 
 I was mistaken. The ditference between us is so much the 
 less, which to any one who wishes to unite with all who love the 
 Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, as far as possible, must afford a 
 degree of satisfaction. 
 
 * Epis. Cor. p. 29. 
 
Mi\ S.'s Notion of Justifying Faith. G\ 
 
 He that believeth ivorketh not, in respect ofjusti^ 
 Jication. He does not deserve what he obtains, but 
 receives it as a free gift ; and it is of the nature of 
 faith so to receive it. We can distinguish between 
 a man who lives by his labours, and one that lives 
 by alms ; and without denying that the latter is ac- 
 tive in receiving them, can clearly discern that his 
 mode of living is directly opposed' to that of the 
 other. He that should contend, that living by 
 alms actively received was the same thing as liv- 
 ing by works, would not be reckoned a reasoner, 
 but a driveller. 
 
 To set ourselves against the practice of the pro- 
 phets and apostles, in order to support the freeness 
 of justification, is supporting the ark with unhal- 
 lowed hands; or, as Mr. McLean expresses it, 
 replying against God. " Cannot the wicked (con- 
 tinues he) be exhorted to believe, repent, and seek 
 the Lord, and be encouraged to this by a promise 
 of success, (Isa. Iv. 6, 7-) without . . . .making the 
 success to depend on human merit ? Are such ex- 
 hortations and promises always to be suspected of 
 having a dangerous and self-righteous tendency? 
 Instead of taking them in their plain and simple 
 sense, must our main care always be to guard 
 against some supposed self-righteous use of them^ 
 till we have explained away their whole force and 
 spiait, and so distinguished and refined upon them, 
 as to make men more afraid to comply with them, 
 than to reject them, lest they should be guilty of 
 
62 Consequences of 
 
 some exertion of mind or body, some good dis- 
 position or motion towards Christ, which is supposed 
 to be the highest wickedness^ and a despising of the 
 work of Christ?"* 
 
 I can assure you, that while 1 feel sorry to have 
 mistaken Mr, M'Lean on this subject, I am not a 
 little happy in being able to make such important 
 extracts as the above from his writings. Yet when 
 I think of some of the principles which he still 
 avows, I feel concerned at what appears to me his 
 inconsistency; and not merely his, but that of many 
 others whom I sincerely esteem. 
 
 If, after what has passed, I could hope for a can- 
 did attention, I would intreat Mr. McLean, and 
 others like-minded with him, to consider whether 
 that practical neglect of calls and invitations 
 to the unconverted, which is said to prevail 
 wherever these sentiments are imbibed, and which 
 he almost acknowledges to have attended his own 
 ministry, f has not arisen from this cause. So long 
 as he considers faith as something in which the 
 will has no concern, instead of my being smprised 
 at Ills feeling a diflliculty in carrying the principles 
 pleaded for in his Thoughts on the Calls of the Gos* 
 
 • * Thoughts on Calls, &c. p: 36. 
 
 f His words are, " However ncsrlij^ent I may be in uri^n^ sin- 
 ners to repentance, it has always been my firm belief, that not 
 only the unconverted, but even the converted themselves, need 
 often to be called to repentance, and that in order to forgiveness." 
 Reply, p. 36. 
 
Mr, S.''s Notion of Justifying Faith. CS 
 
 pel into execution, I should be much more surprised 
 at the contrary. If he be able to exhort sinners to 
 repent and believe the gospel, it is more than I 
 should be, with his professed principles. So far as 
 I know myself, I could not possibly call or invite 
 any man to that, in which his will had no concern, 
 without feeling at the same time that I insulted 
 him. 
 
 It may seem a little remarkable tliat this system, 
 and that of the high, or hyper-calvinists in England, 
 which in almost all other things are opposite, 
 should on this point be agreed. The one confines 
 believing to the understanding, the other repre- 
 sents sinners, awakened sinners at least, as being 
 willing to believe, but unable to do so, any more 
 than to take wings and fly to heaven. Hence nei- 
 ther of them hold it consistent to call on sinners to 
 believe in Christ; nor is it consistent luith their 
 principles ; but how it is that they do not perceive, 
 by the uniform practice of Christ and lils apostles, 
 that these principles are antiscriptural, I cannot 
 otherwise account for, than by ascribing it to the 
 perverting influence of hypothesis. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 G 2 
 
a 
 
 LETTER IV 
 
 ON THE FAITH OF DEVILS* AND NOiMINAL CHRIS- 
 TIANS 
 
 Ml/ deal' Friend, 
 
 You are aware tlmt the apostle James 
 speaks of some, whose faith '^ was dead being alone,'* 
 and that, in answer to their boastings, he reminded 
 them, tliat " the devils also believed and trembled,'* 
 From hence it has been generally thought, there 
 must be an essential difference between the nature 
 of the faith of nominal christians and devils on the 
 one hand, and that of true christians on the other. 
 But this would overturn a leading principle of the 
 Sandemanian system. Its advocates therefore have 
 generally contended, that " whosoever among men 
 believes what devils do about the Son of God, are 
 born of God, and shall be saved ;" * and that the 
 design of the apostle was not to compare but rather 
 to contrast it with that of the nominal christian j 
 
 ♦Ecking's Essays, p. 107. 
 
On the Faith of Devils, 65 
 
 the latter as having no effect upon the mind, the 
 former as causing its subjects to tremble. It has 
 also been commonly maintained on that side of the 
 question, that the faith of which the apostle James 
 speaks, instead of being of a different nature from 
 that of true christians, was in reality nothing but 
 profession, or '^ saying I have faith/* " The de- 
 sign of the apostle (it has been said) is to represent 
 that faith, whether it be on earth or in hell^ if it 
 really existed, and was not merely pretended^ or 
 professed, was always productive of corresponding 
 works." 
 
 As the whole argument seems to rest upon the 
 question, whether the faith of nominal christians be 
 here compared to that of devils, or contrasted with 
 it, and as the solution of this question involves a fun- 
 damental principle of the system, it is worthy of a 
 particular examination. 
 
 The words of the apostle are as follow^ : — ^' What 
 doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he 
 hath faith, and have not works ? Can faith save 
 him ? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute 
 of daily food, and one of you say unto them, de- 
 part in peace, be ye warmed and filled 5 notwith- 
 standing ye give them not those things which are 
 needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even 
 so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 
 Yea, a man may say, thou hast faith, and I have 
 works : show me thy faith without thy works^ and 
 I will show thee my faith by my works. Thou 
 
 G 3 
 
^0 On the Faith 
 
 believest that there is one God; thou doest well: 
 the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou 
 know^ O vain man, that faith without works is 
 dead." Chap. ii. 14 — 20. 
 
 If the design be to contrast the faith of devils 
 with that of nominal christians, the apostle must 
 undoubtedly mean to render the latter a nonentity, 
 or a mere pretence, and to hold up the former as 
 a reality; and, what is more, to represent the 
 '^ trembling'* of the fallen spirits as a species of 
 good fruit, good at least in its nature, and wanting 
 nothing to render it saving, but the circumstantial 
 interference of a more favourable situation. 
 
 To this view of the passage I have several ob- 
 jections. — 
 
 First, The apostle does not treat the faith of no- 
 minal christians as a nonentity, but as something 
 which existed, though void of life, as " a dead 
 body without the spirit." On the principle here 
 opposed there is no such thing as a dead faith ; that 
 which is so called being mere pretence. The par- 
 ty is indeed represented as saying he hath faith, 
 but the same may be alleged of the true christian 
 with respect to works, v. 18. If the faith of the 
 one be from hence considered as a nonentity, the 
 wprks of the other must be the same. 
 . Secondly, The place in which the faith of de- 
 vils is introduced, proves that it is for the purpose 
 of comparison^ and not of contrast. If it had been 
 for the latter, it should have been introduced in 
 
of Devils, C7 
 
 verse 18, and classed with the operative belief of 
 true christians, rather than in verse 19, where it is 
 classed with that of nominal christians. The argu- 
 ment then would have been this : ' Show me thy 
 faith without thy works, and I will show thee my 
 faith by my works : the devils believe and tremble : 
 but thou believest and tremblest not: therefore thy 
 faith is a mere pretence/ 
 
 Thirdly, The copulative particle " also,*' instead 
 of the disjunctive, determines it to be a compari- 
 son, and not a contrast. If it were the latter, the 
 argument requires it to have been thus expressed — 
 * Thou believest there is one God ; thou doest well : 
 hut the devils believe and tremble/ If kx} be ren- 
 dered and or even, as it often is, instead of also, yet 
 the meaning is the same. ' Thou believest tliere 
 is one God : thou doest well ; and the devils believe 
 and tremble — or even the devils believe and trem-^ 
 ble.' None of these forms of expression convey 
 the idea of contrast, but of likeness. 
 
 Judge, my friend, and let the reader judge, 
 whether the meaning of the apostle be not expres- 
 sed in the following paraphrase — ' Show me, if thou 
 canst, a faith which is of any value without works, 
 and I will show thee a faith which is of value by 
 its fruits. Thou believest that there is one God; 
 a great matter truly : and may not the same be 
 said of the worst of beings ? yea, and more : for 
 they, having felt the power of God's anger, not 
 only believe, but tremble ; whereas thy faith suffers 
 
VB On the Faith 
 
 thee to live at ease. But as their's, with all theit 
 trembling, is of no account, neither is thine : for 
 faith without holy fruits is dead.' 
 
 If the language of the apostle may be under- 
 stood as a contrast, it may be used to express that 
 which subsists between other things that differ as 
 well as these : e. g. between the faith of Christians 
 and that of Jews. But the absurdity of this would 
 strike any reader of common discernment. ' Thou 
 believest that there is one God ; thou doest well : 
 christians also believe and obey! To make sense 
 of it, it should be, but christians believe and obey. 
 On the other hand, make an experiment in an in- 
 stance of likeness, and the language is plain and 
 easy. One boasts that he is not a heathen, nor a 
 jew, nor a deist, but a christian; while yet he is 
 under the dominion of avarice. A man might say 
 to him, ' Thou believ^est there is one God ', thou 
 doest well : Felix the heathen was so far convinced 
 of this, and, what is more, trembled : yet Felix's 
 convictions were of no value, and brought forth no 
 good fruit; neither are thine, for faith without 
 works is dead.' 
 
 There is no reason to conclude, that the faith and 
 trembling of devils differ in any thing, except in 
 degree, from the convictions and trembling of Fe- 
 lix: if therefore the former would in our circum- 
 stances have terminated in salvation, why did not 
 the latter, whose situation was sufficiently favour- 
 able, so terminate? The convictions of James's 
 
of Devils, fJ9 
 
 nominal christian might not be so strong as those of 
 Felix, and his might not be so strong as those of tlie 
 fallen angels ; but in their nature they were one and 
 the same. The first was convinced that there was one 
 God; but it was mere light, without love. If, like 
 what Is said of the stony-ground hearers, a portion 
 of joy at first attended it, yet the gospel having no 
 root in his mind, and being in circumstances 
 wherein he saw no remarkable displays of the di- 
 vine majesty, it made no durable impression upon 
 him. The second might also be convinced that 
 there was a God, and neither were his convictions 
 accompanied by love ; but " righteousness, temper- 
 ance, and a judgment to come," being set before 
 him, he " trembled." The last are convinced of 
 the same truth, and neither are their convictions 
 accompanied by love; but being placed in circum- 
 stances wherein the awful majesty of God is conti- 
 nually before their eyes, they know already in part, 
 by sad experience, the truth of his threatenings, and 
 tremble in expectation of greater torments. 
 
 - There is just as much holiness in each of these 
 cases, as in the trembling of an impenitent malefac- 
 tor under the gallows. To reckon it in any of 
 them, tlierefore, among ^^ the corresponding fruits 
 which always attend faith, if it really exists," is to 
 reckon that as fruit which the scriptures reject as 
 unworthy of the name. Of the four sorts of hear- 
 ers only one brought forth fruit. 
 
70 On the Faith 
 
 It is remarkable that Mr. M'LiiAy^ after wliat Ite 
 lias written, when discoursing on the parable of the 
 sower, particularly on those who are said to have 
 " believed for a while," should introduce the fol- 
 lowing sentiment in the form of an objection — 
 *' Such as fall away have never been enlightened 
 in the knowledge of the truth, nor really believe 
 the gospel ; but had only professed to believe."-— 
 His answer to this objection is still more remark- 
 able. " The scripture (he says) supposes them to 
 have been once enlightened — to have received the 
 knowledge of the truth, and of the way of righ- 
 teousness — to have believed for a while — and to 
 have escaped the pollutions of the world, through 
 the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ; see Heb. vi. 4 — x. 26*. — Luke viii. 13. — 
 2 Pet. ii. 20. And their falling away after such 
 attainments, is that which constitutes the very sin 
 of apostacy, and by which the guilt of it is aggra- 
 vated. For it had been better for them not to have 
 known the way of righteousness, than after they 
 have known it, to turn from the holy commandment 
 delivered unto them." Sermons^ p. 66. 
 
 All this I account very good, though I should 
 not have expected it from Mr. M. But his refus- 
 iqg after this to admit an essential difference be- 
 tween the faith of these apostates, and that of true 
 believers, is most remarkable of all. If the differ- 
 ence lie not in the nature of their faith, nor in the 
 
of Devlh. 71 
 
 nature of the tilings believed, against which he 
 also reasons, where does it lie ? They must, one 
 would tliink, have been true believers so far as 
 they went, and so long as they continued to be- 
 lieve ; and their falling away must aftbrd an exam- 
 ple of the apostacy of true believers. But if a 
 person may be a true believer at one time, and an 
 apostate at another, he can have no scriptural 
 ground at any period of his life, from any con- 
 sciousness of believing the gospel, to conclude on 
 his own particular salvation. Yet this is what Mr. 
 M. has pleaded for in his Treatise on the Commis^ 
 sioii. Moreover, if there be not an essential dif- 
 ference between the nature of the faith of apostates, 
 and that of true believers, why does he himself, 
 when describing them, write as follows ? — " What- 
 ever appearances of faith there may be in false 
 professors, they have not the same perception of 
 the truth, nor that persuasion of it upon its proper 
 evidence, which real believers have.'* Works, 
 Vol. II. p. 96. I do not say of Mr. M. as he does 
 of me, that " he can take either side of the question 
 as he finds occasion :'* but this I say, he appears to 
 me to feel the force of some truths which do not well 
 comport with some of his former reasonings; and 
 wot being able, it should seem, to reconcile them, he 
 leaves them unreconciled. 
 
 Surely it were more agreeable to the truth, and 
 to the passages on which he discourses, to admit of 
 an essential difference between the faith of nominal 
 
5^2 On the Faith 
 
 and real christians. In discoursing on the " good 
 ground/' in the parable, he very properly represents 
 true believers, and them only, as being " taught by 
 the special illuminating influences of the Holy Spi- 
 rit ;'' but surely that which is the fruit of this special 
 influence possesses a special nature. Why else do we 
 read, that " that which is born of the spirit is spirit ;" 
 and why does it denominate a man spiritual ? * 
 We may not, as he says, be " able to distinguish 
 in the first impressions of the gospel, the faith of 
 a stony-giound hearer from that of a true believ- 
 er ;" but it does not follow that there is not an es- 
 sential difl^erence notwithstanding. 
 
 The unrenewed character, with all his know- 
 ledge, " knoweth nothing as he ought to know/* 
 He perceives not the intrinsic evil of sin, and, 
 consequently, discerns not the intrinsic excellence 
 of the knowledge of Christ. That in the gospel 
 which pleases him is, its giving relief to his trou- 
 bled conscience. Hence " all his godliness (as 
 Mr. Sandeman says) consists in love to that which 
 first relieved him.'' 
 
 We have been told more than once, that " there 
 need be no question about hoiv we believe, but 
 luhat we believe." Mr. M'Lean will answer this, 
 tliat " the matter or object of belief, even in apos- 
 tates, is said to be the word of the kingdom — the 
 truth — the way of righteousness — the Lord and 
 
 * John ili, 6.— 1 Cor. ii. 13. 
 
of Devils, 73 
 
 Saviour Jesus Clirist; and what other object of 
 faith have true believers ?" Sermons, p. 6G, 67, 
 
 I have no objection to allowing however, that if 
 we believe the very truth as it is in Jesus, there 
 can be nothing wanting in the manner of believin|]^ 
 it. But though this be true, and though an in- 
 quirer after the way of salvation ought to be direct- 
 ed to the saving doctrine of the cross, rather thaa 
 to the workings of his own mind concerning it, 
 yet there is in the workings of a believer's mind 
 towards it, something essentially diiferent from 
 those of the merely nominal christian -, and which, 
 when the inquiry comes to be, ' Am I a be- 
 liever?' ought to be pointed out. He not only 
 believes truth which the other does not, but be- 
 lieves the same truths in a different manner. In 
 other words, he believes them on different grounds, 
 and with different affections. That which he know- 
 eth, is in measure " as he ought to know it." He 
 discerns spiritual things in a spiritual maimer, and 
 which is the only manner in which they can be 
 discerned as they are. 
 
 It might be said, there need be no question about 
 how we repent, or hope, or love, or pray; but 
 irfiat we repent of, what we hope for, what we love, 
 and what \\e pray for. And true it is, that if we 
 repent of sin as sin, ht>pe fur the things which the 
 gospel promises, love the true character of God, 
 and all that bears his image, and pray for those 
 things which are according to his will, there will be 
 
 11 
 
74 Oil the Faith 
 
 nothing wanting as to the manner: but it does not 
 follow, that there is no difference as to the manner 
 of these exercises in true christians and In merely 
 nominal ones. Our being right as to the objects 
 may be a proof of our being right as to the man- 
 ner, as the needle's pointing to the magnet proves 
 the correspondence of the nature of the one with 
 that of the other : but as in this case we should not 
 say, it is of no account whether the needle be made 
 of steel or of some other substance, so that it points 
 to the magnet, neither in the other should we con- 
 sider the nature of spiritual exercises as a matter of 
 no account, but merely the objects on which they 
 terminate. 
 
 When we read concerning the duty of prayer, 
 that " The Lord is nigh unto all that call upon 
 him in truth;*' and that " we know not what to 
 pray for as we ought,'* we infer that there is some- 
 thing in the nature of a good man's prayers, which 
 distinguishes them from others. But there is just 
 the same reason for inferring that there is some- 
 thing in the nature of a good man's knowledge, 
 which distinguishes it from that of others : for as 
 he only that is assisted by the Holy Spirit prays 
 as he ought, so he only that is taught of God 
 knoweth any thing as he ought to know. 
 
 The holy nature of llviftg faith may be difficult, 
 and even impossible to be ascertained, but by its 
 effects; as it is difficult, if not impossible, to dis- 
 tinguish some seeds from othcjs, till they have 
 
of Devils, 75 
 
 each brought forth their respective fruits) but a 
 ditforence there is notwithstanding. If there need 
 be no inquiry as to the nature of faith, but merely 
 concerning its objects, how was it that the Corin- 
 thians, \s\\o by their unworthy spirit and conduct 
 liad rendered their being Christ's disciples indeed 
 a matter of doubt, should be told to examine them- 
 selves, whether they were in the faitli, and should 
 be furnished with this criterion, that if they were 
 true believers, and not reprobates, or such as would 
 be disapproved as dross, " Jesus Christ was in them." 
 On the principle here opposed, they should have 
 examined not themselves, but merely their creed, 
 or ivhat they believed, in order to know whether 
 they were in the faith. 
 
 If tlie faith of devils would have issued in their 
 salvation, provided they had been placed in cir- 
 cumstances of hope like us, it will follow that 
 faith is not produced by the grace of the Holy 
 Spirit, but merely by Divine Providence. No 
 one, I presume, will ascribe the belief of devils 
 to the Holy Spirit : whatever they believe must 
 be owing to the situation in which they are placed, 
 and the circumstances attending them. But if 
 faith may be the mere effect of situation and cir- 
 cumstances in one case, why not in another? San- 
 demanians have often been charged with setting 
 aside the work of the Spirit; and have often 
 denied the charge: but whatever •lay be said of 
 their other principles, their notion of the faith of 
 
 II 2 
 
76 On the Faith 
 
 devils must sup the foundation of that Impoiianl 
 doctrine. If this notion be true, all that is neces- 
 sary is, that the party be placed under the influence 
 of truth clearly stated and sufliciently impressive, 
 and within the limits of the promise of salvation. 
 All the change therefore, which is necessary to 
 eternal life, may be wrought by only a proper ad- 
 justment of moral causes. Only place mankind 
 in circumstances in which their minds shall be im- 
 pressed with terror equal to that of the fallen 
 angels, and let the promise of salvation to be- 
 lievers be continued as it is, and all would be 
 saved. And with respect to the fallen angels 
 themselves, only extend to them the promise to 
 believers, and they are at once in a state of salva- 
 tion. Such, on this hypothesis, would have been 
 the happy condition of both men and devils ; but 
 the hope of mercy, and the sense of wrath, 
 are both rendered abortive for want of being 
 united. Providence places sinners on earth under 
 the hope of salvation ', but then they are not in 
 circumstances sufficiently impressive, and so it 
 comes to nothing. In hell the circumstances are 
 sufficiently impressive, and they actually believe; 
 but then there is no hope, and so again it comes 
 to nothing ! 
 
 vSurely the parable of the rich man and Lazarus 
 might suffice to teach us the insufficiency of all 
 means to brnig sinners to God, when we are 
 assured, that if they believed not Moses and the 
 
of Devils, 77 
 
 prophets, neither would they be persuadetl, tlioiiprh 
 one should rise from the dead. I am far from 
 accusing all who have pleaded for the faith of 
 devils, being such as would be saving in our cir- 
 cumstances, as designing to undermine the work of 
 the Spirit ; but that such is its tendency, is, I 
 presume, sufficiently manifest. 
 
 Nor is this all : not only is the influence of the 
 Spirit set aside in favour of the mere influence of 
 moral suasion, but the fruits of the Spirit are made 
 to consist of that which is the ordinary effect of 
 such influence. '' When any person on earth (it 
 has been said) believes Jesus, who is now invisi- 
 ble, with equal assurance as the devils, he rejoices 
 in hope, is animated by love to him, and feels dis- 
 posed to obey his will, and to resist his own evil 
 inclinations." 
 
 There are, I grant, sensations in the human mind, 
 which arise merely from the influences of hope 
 and fear, and which bear a near resemblance to 
 the fruits of the Spirit ; but they are not the same. 
 The judgments of God inflicted upon the carnal 
 Israelites in the wilderness, caused the survivors to 
 tremble, and wrought in them a great care to be 
 more religious, and to resist their evil inclinations. 
 " When he slew them, then they sought him : and 
 they returned early after God; they remembered 
 that God was their rock, and the High God their 
 Redeemer." — Such was the effect of moral influ- 
 ence, or of the word and works of God : but what 
 
 h3 
 
?8 ' On the Faith 
 
 follows ? *' Nevertheless they did flatter him with 
 their mouthy and they lied unto him Avith tlieir 
 tongues: for their heart ivas not right with him, 
 neither were they stedfast in his covenant/' * Tims 
 we still see men on the approach of death greatly 
 affected. Light as they may have made of religion 
 before, tliey now believe enough to make them 
 tremble. At such times, it is common for them to 
 think how good they would be, and what a differ- 
 ent life they would lead, if it w^oiild please God to 
 restore them. And should a favourable turn be 
 given to their affliction, they are affected in another 
 way; they weep, and thank God for their hopes 
 of recovery, not doubting, but that they shall be- 
 come other men. But I need not tell you, or the 
 reader, that all this may consist with a heart at en- 
 mity with the true character of God, and that it 
 frequently proves so hy their returning, as soon as 
 the impression subsides, to their old courses. The 
 whole of this process may be no more than an o- 
 peration of self-love, or, as Mr. Sandeman calls it, 
 " a love to that which relieves them,*' which 
 is something at a great remove from the love of 
 God, and therefore is not *^ godliness.*' Godli- 
 ness has respect to God, and not merely to our 
 own relief. The distress of an luigodly mind, con- 
 sisting only in a fearful apprehension of conse- 
 <jueiiccs, may be relieved by any tiling that fur- 
 
 « Psalm Ixxviii. 34—37. 
 
of Devils, 79 
 
 nislics him with a persuasion of the removal of 
 those consequences. It may be from an idea that 
 he has performed the conditions of salvation; or 
 from an impulse that his sins are forgiven ; or from 
 his imagining that he " sees God just in justifying 
 him, ungodly as he stands." Any of these con- 
 siderations will give relief ; and no man will be so 
 wanting to himself, as not to " love that which 
 relieves him." There may be some difference in 
 these causes of relief: the first may be derived 
 from something in ourselves ; and the last may 
 seem to arise from what Christ hath done and suf- 
 fered : but if the undertaking of Christ be merely 
 viewed as a relief to a sinner, we overlook its 
 thief glory ; and the religion that arises from such 
 views, is as false as the views themselves are par- 
 tial. 
 
 The first idea in the doctrine of the cross is, 
 ^^ Glory to God in the highest." Its proclaiming 
 ^' peace on earth, and good will to men," Is conse- 
 quent on this. But that which occupies the first 
 place in the doctrine itself, must occupy the first 
 place in the belief of it. The faith of the gospel 
 corresponds with the gospel : "So we preached, 
 and so ye believed." God will assert his own 
 glory, and we must subscribe to it, before we are 
 allowed to ask or hope for the forgiveness of our 
 sins ; as is clearly taught us in what is called the 
 Lord's prayer. He, therefore, that views the cross 
 of Christ merely as an expedient to jelicve the 
 
so On the Faith 
 
 guilty, or only subscribes to the justice of God in 
 his condemnation, when conceiving himself deli- 
 vered from it, has yet to learn the first principles 
 of Christianity. His rejoicing in the justice of 
 God as satisfied hy the death of Christ, while he 
 hates it in itself considered, is no more than re- 
 joicing in a dreaded tyrant being appeased, or 
 somehow diverted from coming to hurt him. 
 And shall we call this the love of God ? To make 
 our deliverance from divine condemnation the 
 condition of our subscribing to the justice of it^ 
 proves, beyond all contradiction, that we care 
 only for ourselves, and that the love of God is 
 not in us. And herein, if I may adopt Mr. San- 
 deman's term, consists the very '^ poison'* of his 
 system. It is one of the many devices for obtain- 
 ing relief to the mind, without justifying God, 
 and falling at the feet of the Saviour; or, 
 which is the same thing, without " Repentance 
 toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus 
 Christ.'' 
 
 The doctrine of the cross presupposes the 
 equity and goodness of the divine law, the 
 exceeding sinfulness of sin, the exposedness of 
 the sinner to God's righteous curse, and his 
 utter insufficiency to deliver his soul. To be- 
 lieve this doctrine, therefore, must needs be to 
 subscribe with our very heart to these princi- 
 ples, as they respect ourselves; and so to re- 
 ceive salvation as being what it is, a message 
 
of Devils, 81 
 
 of pure grace tlirough a mediator. Such a con- 
 viction as this never possessed the mind of a 
 fallen angel, nor of a fallen man untaught by 
 the special grace of God. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
S2 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 ON THE CONNECTION BETWEEN REPENTANCE TO- 
 WARD GOD, AND FAITH TOWARD OUR LORD JE" 
 SUS CHRIST. 
 
 3fi/ dear Friend^ 
 
 The advocates of tliis system do not con- 
 sider the order in which these graces are ordinarily 
 introduced in the new testament, as being the true 
 order of nature, and therefore generally reverse it, 
 putting fahh before repentance, and invariably 
 placing repentance among the effects of faith. 
 A sinner therefore has no spiritual sense of the evil 
 of sin, till he has believed in the Saviour, and stands 
 in a justified state. Then, being forgiven all tres- 
 passes, and reconciled to God through the death of 
 his Son, he is melted into repentance. 
 
 The question is not whether the gospel, when 
 received by faith, operates in this way ; for of this 
 there can be no doubt. Nothing produces godly 
 sorrow for sin, like a believing view of the suffering 
 Saviour. Nor is it denied that to be grieved for 
 
Connection of JRcpentayice and Faith. 83 
 
 having dishonoured God, we must first bcheve 
 that he " Is ;" and before we can come to him in 
 acceptable worship, that tlirough a mediator he is 
 ^' the rewarder of them that diligently seek him." 
 Without a mediator, repentance, even if it could 
 have existed, must have been hopeless. I have 
 not such an idea of the sinner being brought to re- 
 pentance, antecedent to his believing in Christ for 
 salvation, as Mr. Sandeman had of his believing 
 antecedent to repentance. According to him, he 
 believes and is justified, not merely considered as 
 ungodly, or ivithout any consideration of godliness 
 in him, but actually " ungodly as he stands ;" and 
 then, and not till then, begins to love God, and 
 to be sorry for his sin. This is manifestly holding 
 up the idea of an impenitent believer, though not 
 of one that continues such. But the antecedency 
 which 1 ascribe to repentance does not amount to 
 this. I have no conception of a sinner being so 
 brought to repentance, as to sustain the character 
 of a penitent, and still less to obtain the forgive- 
 ness of sin, previous to his falling in with the wiiy 
 of salvation. I believe it is not possible for a sin- 
 ner to repent, and at the same time to reject the 
 Saviour. The very instant that he perceives the 
 evil of sin so as to repent of it, he cannot think 
 of the Saviour without believing in him. I have 
 therefore no notion of a penitent unheliever. — 
 All that I contend for is, that in the order of 
 cause and effect, whatever may be said as to 
 
84 Connection of 
 
 the order of time, repentance precedes as well 
 as follows the faith of Christ ; and that faith in 
 Christ cannot exist without repentance for sin. 
 A sense of sin appears to me essential to believing 
 in the Saviour; so much so, tliat without it, the 
 latter would not only be a mere ^^ notion," but an 
 essentially defective one. 
 
 It is admitted on both sides, that there is a pri- 
 ority of one or other of these graces in the order 
 of nature, so as that one is influenced by the other ; 
 and if no other priority were pleaded for, neither 
 the idea of a penitent unbeliever on the one hand, 
 nor an impenitent believer on the other, would 
 follow : for it might still be true, as Mr. McLean 
 acknowledges, that " none believe who do not re- 
 pent,'' {p. 39.) and as I also acknowledge that none 
 repent, w-ho, according to the light they have, do not 
 believe. But if we maintain not only that faith is 
 prior in the order of nature, but that antecedent 
 to any true sorrow for sin, we must '* see GJod to be 
 just in justifying us ungodly as we stand," this is 
 clearly maintaining the notion of an impenitent be- 
 liever. 
 
 From these introductory remarks, it will appear 
 that I have no objection to faith being considered 
 as cotem})orary with repentance in the order of 
 time, provided the latter were made to consist in 
 an acquiescence with the gospel way of salvation, 
 so far as it is understood : but if it be made to in- 
 clude such a clear view of the gospel as necessarily 
 
Repentance and Faith, 85 
 
 Lrlngs peace and rest to the soul, I believe that re- 
 pentance fur shi often precedes it even in the order 
 of time. 
 
 Such is the connection between repentance and 
 faith in the scriptures, that the one commonly sup- 
 poses the other. Repentance, when followed by 
 the remission of sins, supposes faith in the Sa- 
 viour ;* and faith, when followed with justification, 
 equally supposes repentance for sin. 
 
 Attempts have been made, by criticising on the 
 word '^iTuvdix, to explain away, as it would seem, the 
 proper object of repentance, as if it were a change 
 of mind with regard to the gospel. ^^ Repentance, 
 (says Mr. S.) is the change of a man*s mind to love 
 the truth, which always carries in it a sense of 
 shame and regret at his former opposition to it." f 
 But this is confounding repentance and faith objec- 
 tively considered. The objects of both are so mark- 
 ed in the apostolic ministry, that one would think 
 they could not be honestly mistaken. Repentance 
 is toward God, and faith is toward our Lord Jesus 
 Christ : the one has immediate respect to the Law- 
 giver, the other to the Saviour, 
 
 It cannot be denied, that the order in which the 
 new testament commonly places repentance and 
 faith, is in direct opposition to what our opponents 
 plead for 3 and what is more, that the former is 
 
 * Luke xxiv. 47. 
 t Letters on Ther. and Asp. p. 408, 
 
 I 
 
86 Connection of 
 
 represented as influencing the latter. This Is ma- 
 nifest in the following passages, — " Repent ye and 
 believe the gospel. — Testifying repentance toward 
 God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. — 
 They repented not, that they might believe him. — 
 If God peradventure might give them repentance 
 to the acknowledging of the truth,'' * Mr. Sandb- 
 MAN, Mr. McLean, and all the writers on that side of 
 the question, very rarely make use of this language ; 
 and when they have occasion to write upon the 
 subject, ordinarily reverse it. To accord with their 
 ideas it should have been said, Believe the gospel 
 and repent. — ^Testifying faith toward our Lord Je- 
 sus Christ, and repentance toward God. — They 
 believed not, that they might repent. — If God per- 
 Jidventure may give them faith to repent. 
 
 To this I add, it is impossible, in the nature of 
 things, to believe the gospel, but as being made 
 sensible of that which renders it necessary. The 
 guilty and lost state of sinners goes before the re- 
 velation of the grace of the gospel ; the latter 
 tlicrefore cannot be understood or believed, but as 
 we are convinced of the former. There is no grace in 
 the gospel, but upon the supposition of the holiness, 
 justice, and goodness of the law\ If God be not in the 
 right, and we in the wTong; if we have not transgress- 
 ed without cause, and be not fairly condemned; 
 grace is no more grace, but a just exemption from un- 
 
 ♦ Mark i. 15.— Acts xx. 21.— Matt. xxi. SS.-^-S Tim. ii. 25. 
 
llepcntancc and FaitJi, 87 
 
 deserved punishment. And as faith must needs cor-- 
 respond with truth, it is impossible that we 
 should believe the doetrine of salvation by grace, 
 in an impenitent state of mind, or without feeling 
 tiiat we have forfeited all claim to the divine favour. 
 We cannot see things but as they are to be seen : 
 to suppose that we first believe in the doctrine of 
 free grace, and then, as the effect of h, perceive 
 the evil of sin, and our just exposedness to divine 
 WTath, is like supposing a man first to appreciate the 
 value of a physician, and by this means to learn 
 that he is sick. It is true the physician may visit 
 the neighbourhood, or the apartments of one who 
 is in imminent danger of death, while he thinks 
 himself mending every day ; and this circumstance 
 may be held up by his frientls as a motive to him 
 to consider of his condition, and to put himself un- 
 der his care. It is thus tltat the eomintg of Christ, 
 nnd the setting up of his spiritual kingdom in the 
 world, were alleged as motives to repentance both 
 to Jews and Gentiles. Repent, for the kingdom 
 of heaven is at hand. — Repent ye therefore, — llie 
 times past of this ignorance God winked at ; but now 
 commandeth att' men everif^ where to repent, * But as 
 it would not follow, in the one case, that the sick man 
 could appreciate the value of the physician till he 
 felt his sickness, neither docs it follow in the other, 
 that faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ precedes 
 
 * M*tt. iii. 2.— iv. i7._Acts xvii, 30, 
 I 2 
 
88 Connection of 
 
 such a sense of the evil of sin, as involves the first 
 workings of repentance toward God. 
 
 To argue as sonie have done, from the motives of 
 repentance being fetched from the gospel, that it 
 supposes their believing the gospel ere they could 
 repent, proves too much ; for it is not to repentance 
 only, but to faith, that the coming of Christ's king- 
 dom is lield up as a motive : bnt to say tliat this 
 supposes their belief of the gospel, is saying, they 
 must believe in order to believing. 
 
 That a convictmi of sin (whether it include tlie 
 first workings of repentance or not) is necessary to 
 faith in Christ, is a matter so evident, that those 
 who have declaimed most against it, have not been 
 able to avoid such a representation of things. It is 
 remarkable, that wdien Mr. Sandeman comes to 
 describe his *' ungodly man,'* he always contrives 
 to make him not only full of distress, but divested 
 of all self-righteous pride : he represents him as con- 
 ceiving that there are none more ripe for hell than 
 he, and as having no hope but in the great propiti- 
 ation."* Thus also Mr, F^CKiyiGy when describi?ig 
 a " mere sinner,** represents him as one who *^ feels 
 himself in a perishing condition, and is conscious 
 that he deserves no favour." f 
 
 We must not say that repentance, or any degree 
 of a right spirit, so precedes faith in Christ as to 
 enter into the nature of it ; but if we will but call 
 
 * Letters on Ther. and Asp. p. 4G, 43, f Essays, p. 41. 
 
Hepentancc and Faith, 89 
 
 tlie sinner by a few hard names, we inay describe 
 him in coming to the Saviour as sensible of his 
 utter unworthiness, as divested of self-righteous- 
 ness, and as ripe for hell in his own eyes ! In sjiort, 
 we may depict him as the publican, who sought 
 mercy under a humilating sense of his utter un- 
 worthincss to receive it, so that we still call liim 
 tingodly. And to this we have no objection, so 
 that it be understood of the character under which 
 he is justified in the eye of the Lawgiver: but if it 
 be made to mean that he, at the time of his justi- 
 fication, is in heart an enemy of God, we do not 
 believe it. If he be, however, why do not these 
 writers describe him as an enemy ought to be de- 
 scribed ? — They teach us elsewhere, that " an at- 
 tachment to self-righteousness is natured to man as 
 depraved;'* how then came these ungodly men to 
 be so divested of it? Why do they not represent 
 them as thinking themselves in a fair way for hea- 
 ven ; and that if God does not pardon them he will 
 do them wrong? Such is the ordinary state of 
 mind of ungodly men, or mere sinners, which is 
 just as opposite to that whjch they are constrained 
 to represent, as the spirit of the pharisee was to 
 that of the publican. 
 
 Mr. M'Lean will tell us, that " this is tliat part 
 of the scheme, whereby persons, previous to their 
 believing in Christ, are taught to extract comfort 
 from their convictions;''* but whatever Mr. M. 
 
 * Reply, p. 148. 
 I 3 
 
^0 Connection of 
 
 may think or say^ 1 hope others will give me credit 
 when I declare^ that we have no idea of any well 
 grounded comfort being taken, antecedent to 
 believing in Christ. The publican is described as 
 humbling himself before God exalted him : but he 
 did not derive comfort from this. If, instead of 
 looking to the mercy of God, he had done this, it 
 would have been a species of pharisaic self-exalt- 
 ation. But it does not follow from hence, that 
 there was nothing spiritually good in his self-abase- 
 ment. 
 
 But Mr. M. ^^ believes a person may be 
 so convicted in his conscience, as to view him- 
 vself merely as a guilty sinner, that is, as having no 
 righteousness to recommend him to the favour of 
 God 5 and that under such conviction, his sense of 
 the evil of sin will not be confined to its ptmish- 
 'ment; but his conscience or moral sense will tell 
 him that he deserves punishment at the hands of a 
 righteous God." f 
 
 Mr. McLean admits then of the necessity of 
 conviction of sin, previous, in the order of things, 
 to faith in Christ; only there is no holiness, and 
 consequently no true repentance in it. I have al- 
 lowed in Letter I. that many convictions are to be 
 resolved into the mere operations of an enlightened 
 conscience, and do not issue iu true conversion. I 
 xnay add, I consider all conviction of sin which 
 
 + Ibid. p. 14S. 
 
Ilcpentance and Faith* 91 
 
 docs not in its own nature lead to the Saviour, as 
 of this description. It matters not how deep the dis- 
 tress of a sinner may be; so long as it is accom* 
 panied by an unwillingness to be saved by mere 
 grace through a mediator, there is no holiness in 
 it, nor any thing that deserves the name of re- 
 pentance. An enlightened conscience, I allow, will 
 force us to justify God and condemn ourselves on 
 many occasions. It was thus in Pharoah when he 
 said, ^' The Lord is righteous, and I and my people 
 are wicked." And this his sense of the evil of sin 
 might not be " confined to its punishment ;" his 
 *^ conscience or moral sense might tell him, that he 
 deserved punishment at the hand of a righteous 
 God." So far then we are agreed. But if Pharoah 
 had had a. Just sense of the evil of sin, it would not 
 have left him where it did. There was an essential 
 difference between what he saw by the terrors of 
 God's judgments, and what Paul saw, when " sin 
 by the commandment became exceeding sinful." 
 Nor can I believe that any sinner was ever so di- 
 vested of self-righteous hope, as to consider himself 
 a mere sinner, who yet continued to reject the Sa- 
 viour: for this were the same thing as for him to 
 have no ground to stand upon, either false or true ; 
 but he who submits not to the righteousness of God, 
 is, in some form or other, going about to esta- 
 blish his own righteousness. 
 
til Connection of 
 
 There is, 1 apprehend, an important difference 
 between the case of a person, who, whatever be his 
 convictions, is still averse from giving up every 
 elaim, and' falling at the feet of the Saviour, and 
 that of one whose convictions lead him to take re- 
 fuge in the gospel, as fa)* as he iimler stands H, even 
 though at present he may have bat a very imper- 
 fect view of it. I can clearly conceive of the con- 
 victions of the first as having no repentance or ho- 
 liness in them, but not so of the last. I believe 
 repentance has begun to operate in many persons 
 of this description, who as yet have not found that 
 peace or rest for their souls, which the gospel is 
 adapted to afford. — In short, the question is, whe- 
 ther there be not such a thing as spirihcal convictio?i, 
 or conviction which proceeds from the special in- 
 fluence of the Spirit of God, and which in its own 
 nature invariably leads the soul to Christ ? It is not 
 necessaiy that it should be known by the party, or 
 by others, to be so at the time, nor can it be known 
 but by its effects, or till it has led the sinner to be- 
 Meve in Christ alone for salvation. But this does 
 not prove but that it may exist. And when I read 
 of sin " by the commandment becoming exceeding 
 infulj" — of our being ** through the law, dead to 
 he law, that ive might live unto God,'' — of the law 
 eing appointed, as a scliool master, to bring us 
 » Christ, that tue might he justified h/ faith,^' — I 
 Xi persuaded it does exists and that to say all 
 
Repent ante and Faith, 93, 
 
 spiritual conviction of sin is by means of the gospel, 
 is antisciiptural and absurd. 
 
 In places wliere the gospel Is preached, and 
 where persons have long heard it, it is not suppos- 
 ed that they are necessarily first led to think of 
 the law, and of themselves as transgressors of it; 
 and then, being convinced of the exceeding sin- 
 fulness of sin by it, are for the first time led to 
 think of Christ. No, it Is not the order of time, 
 but that of cause and effect, for which I plead.. 
 It may be by thinking of tlie death of Christ itself, 
 that we are first led to see the evil of sin ; but if 
 it be so, this does not disprove the apostolic doc- 
 trine, that " by the law is the knowledge of sin."" 
 If tlie death of Christ furnish us with this knowledge,. 
 it is as honouring the ijvecept and penalty of the 
 law. It is still therefore by the law, as exemplified 
 in him, that we are convinced. 
 
 " A spirit of grace and supplication" was to be 
 poured upon the house of David, and the inhabi- 
 tants of Jerusalem, in consequence of which, they 
 were to " look upon him whom they had pierced, 
 and mourn as for an only son, and to be in bitter- 
 ness as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn." * 
 Is this mourning described as following their for- 
 giveness ; or as preceding it ? As preceding it. It 
 is true they are said first to " look upon him whom 
 they had pierced;" but this view of the death of 
 
 » Zech. xii. 10. 
 
91 Connection of 
 
 the Saviour is represented as working only in a way 
 of conviction and lamentation : the view which 
 gave peace and rest to their souls follows upon 
 their mourning, and is thus expressed — " In that 
 day there shall be a fountain opened to the house 
 of David^ and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem^ for 
 sin and for uncleanness." 
 
 Judge, my friend, and let the reader judge, 
 whether this account accords with our first viewing- 
 God as just, and justifying us ungodly as we stand; 
 and then beginning to love him, and to repent of 
 our having sinned against him. Judge whether it 
 does not represent things in this order rather :^ — 
 First, " a spirit of grace and supplication'^' is pour- 
 ed upon the sinner — next, he is led to think of 
 what he has done against the Lord and his Christ, 
 and mourns over it in the bitterness of his soul — 
 and then gets relief by washing, as it were, in the 
 fountain of his blood. Su<jh was doubtless the pro- 
 cess under Peter*^s sermon.* 
 
 On the connection of repentance and faith, I 
 am at a loss to make out Mr. M'Lkan's sentiments. 
 He says indeed that I know them; and suggests 
 that I must have intentionally misrepresented 
 them.f But If they be so plain, I can only say 
 my understanding is more dull than he supposes ; 
 for I do not yet comprehend how he can make re- 
 
 * Acts ii. 37, 38. 
 •^ Reply, p. 3'i., 
 
Hepentance and Faith, 95 
 
 pcntance, In all cases, a fruit of faith in Christ, 
 •and yet consider it as necessary to forgiveness* 
 He acknowledges that " none believe who do not 
 repent j" (/;. 39.) and that repentance is '^neces- 
 sary to forgiveness." (3G.) But forgiveness, though 
 not the same thing as justification, is yet an es- 
 sential part of it; If therefore he allow repentance 
 to be antecedent to forgiveness, that is the same 
 thing, in effect, as allouing it to be antecedent to 
 justification, or that tlie faith by which we are 
 justified Includes repentance. Yet he makes faith 
 to be such a belief as excludes all exercise of the 
 will or affections, and consequently repentance 
 for sin. He also considers repentance as an im- 
 mediate effect of faitli, {^S.) and opposes the idea 
 of any effect of faith being included in it as neces- 
 sary, not merely as a procuring cause, but in the 
 established order of things, to justification. But 
 this, so far as I am able to understand tilings, is 
 making repentance follow upon forgiveness, rather 
 than necessary to it. 
 
 Mr. McLean adds, " Though repentance ought to 
 be urged upon all who hear the gospel; and though 
 none believe . it w ho do not repent ; yet I strongly 
 suspect that it would be leading us astray, to press 
 repentance upon them before, and in order to their 
 believing the gospel." (39.) And why does he not 
 suspect the same thing of pressing the belief of the 
 gospel before, and in order to their repentance ? 
 If indeed the gospel were withheld from sinners, till 
 
06 Connectio7i of 
 
 they actually repent; or if it were suggested tliat 
 they should first become penitents, and th<3n think 
 of being believers, this would be leading them 
 astray: and the same might be said on the other 
 side. If exhortations to repentance were withheld, 
 till the sinner had actually believed, or it were sug- 
 gested that he should first become a believer, and 
 then think of repenting, this would be as antiscrip** 
 tural as the other. But why should we not content 
 ourselves with following the examples of the new 
 testament, repent and believe the gospel f As Mr. 
 McLean's placing faith before repentance, does not 
 require him to avoid telling sinners of the evil nature 
 of sin till they have believed, nor to consider them 
 as believers while they are impenitent, why does 
 lie impute such consequences to me for placing re- 
 pentance before faith ? 
 
 Mr. M'Lean refers to a passage in the preface to 
 the first edition of The gospel worthy of all accepta^ 
 Hon, as favouring these extravagant constructions. I 
 had said, " No sort of encouragement or hope is held 
 out in all the book of God, to any sinner as such 
 considered." That which I meant at the time, was 
 merely to disown that any sinner was encouraged 
 to hope for eternal life without returning to God by 
 Jesus Christ. Thus I explained it in my answer 
 to^ Philanthroposj p, 3. but as I perceived the idea 
 was not clearly expressed in the preface, and 
 that the words were capable of an ill construction, 
 I altered them in the second edition, and expressed 
 
Repentance and Faith, 5>7 
 
 my meaniii": as follows : — " There is no dispute con- 
 cerning who ought to be encouraged to consider 
 themselves as entitled to the blessings of the gospel. 
 Though sinners be freely invited to the participation 
 ef spiritual blessings, yet they have no interest in 
 them, according to God's revealed will, while they 
 continue in unbelief." I cannot consider Mr. 
 M'Lean's other references to the first edition, af- 
 ter a second was in his hand, as fair or candid; and 
 this appears to me unfair and uncandid in the 
 extreme. 
 
 It has been common to distinguish repentance 
 into legal and evangelical ; and T allow there is a 
 foundation in the nature of things, for this distinc- 
 tion. The former arises from the consideration of 
 our sin being a transgression of the holy, just, and 
 good law of our Creator ; the latter from the belief 
 of the mercy of God as revealed in the gospel, and 
 the consideration of our sin being committed not- 
 withstanding, and even against it. But it appears 
 to me, to have been too liglitly taken for granted, 
 that all true repentance is confined to the latter. 
 The law and the gospel are not in opposition to 
 each other; why then should repentance, arising 
 from the consideration of them, be so opposite as 
 that the one should be false and the other true ? 
 
 If we wish to distinguish the false from the true, 
 or that which needs to be repented of, from that 
 which does not, we may perhaps with more propriety 
 denominate them natural Sin^ spiritual s by the former 
 
9S Connection of 
 
 understanding that which the mere principles of un- 
 renewed nature are capable of producing, and by 
 the latter, that which proceeds from the superna- 
 tural and renovating influence of the Spirit of God, 
 
 Natural repentance thus defined, is sorrow for 
 sin chiefly with respect to its consequences, ac- 
 companied, however, wdth the reproaches of con- 
 science on account of the thing itself. It is com- 
 posed of remorse, fear, and regret, and is often 
 followed by a change of conduct. It may arise 
 from a view of the law, and its threatenings, in which 
 case it l>ath no hope, but worketh death, on account 
 of there being nothing but death held out by the 
 law for transgressors. Or it may arise from a partial 
 and false view of the gospel, by which the heart is 
 often melted under an idea of sin being forgiven, 
 when it is not so ; in this case it hath hope, but which 
 being unfounded, it notwithstanding worketh death 
 in a way of self-deception. 
 
 Spiritual repentance is sorrow for sin as sin, and 
 as committed against God. It may arise from a view 
 of the death of Christ, through which we perceive 
 "how evil and bitter a thing it is, and looking on him 
 whom we have pierced, mourn as one mourneth 
 for an only son. But it may also arise from the 
 consideration of our sin being a transgression of 
 the holy, just, and good law of God, and of our hav- 
 ing dishonoured him without cause. Such a sense 
 of the evil nature of sin, as renders it exceeding sin- 
 fill, includes the essence of true repentance : yet 
 
Repentance and Faith. 91) 
 
 tills in the apostle did not arise from the consider- 
 ation of the gospel, but of the commandment. It 
 was therefore te^ai repentance : yet, as its tendency 
 was to render him '• dead to the law" as a medium 
 of justification^ and to bri4ig him to Christ for life, 
 it was spiritual. It was repentance unto life. 
 
 The chief ground on which repentance toward 
 God has been denied to precede faith in Christ in 
 the order of nature, is, that no man can repent of 
 sin till he entertain the hope of forgiveness. — Nay, 
 it has been said, " No man can repent, unless he 
 know himself to be of God ,• and as this cannot be 
 known till he hath received Christ, faith must pre- 
 cede repentance.'* If the principle that supports 
 tills argument be true, we neither have, nor ought 
 to have, any regard to God or man but for our 
 own sake. But if so, the command ought not to 
 have been, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
 with all thy heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, 
 and thy neighbour as thyself;** but, Thou shalt 
 Ibve thyself with all thy heart, and soul, and mind, 
 and strength, and thy God, and thy neighbour so 
 far as they are subservient to thee.. INIoreover, if 
 so, the world, instead of being greatly depraved, 13 
 very nearly what it ought to be ; for it is certainly 
 not wanting in self-love, though it misses the mark 
 in accomplishing its object.. 
 
 Some have allowed, that " it is our duty to love 
 God supremely, whether he sd\ e us or nor ; bi t 
 that ncveitheless the thing is impossible." If it be 
 
100 Connection of 
 
 2)h^sieaUj/ 'impossible, it cannot be duty r for Goi 
 requires nothin<^ in respect of obedience, but that 
 we love him zvith all our strength. If it be only 
 morally impossible, that is the same as its being 
 so owing to the corrupt state of our minds. But 
 we are not to suppose that God, in saving sinners, 
 any more than in judging them, consults their de- 
 praved spirit, and adapts the gospel to it. On the 
 contrary, it is the design of all that God does for 
 VIS, to restore us to a right spirit. His truth must 
 not bend to our corruptions; but our hearts must 
 be " inclined to his testimonies.'^ So far therefore 
 as any man is renewed by the Spirit of God, so 
 far is he brought to be of God's mind, and does 
 what he ought to do. God's law is written in his 
 heart. 
 
 Farther, If the principle that supports this argu- 
 ment be true, it will hold good in reference to 
 men as well as God. And is it true, that a man 
 who is under just condemnation for breaking the 
 laws, and who has no hope of obtaining a pardon, 
 ought not to be expected to repent for his crime, 
 and, before he die, to pray God to bless his king 
 and country ? On this principle, all confessions 
 of this kind are of necessity mere hypocrisy. Even 
 those of the dying thief in the gospel, so far as 
 they respect the justice of his doom from his coun- 
 trymen, must have Ijcen insincere; for he had no 
 hope of his sentence being remitted. What would 
 an offended father say, if the offender shouJd 
 
Repentance and Faith, 101 
 
 require, as the condition of his repentance, a previ- 
 ous declaration of forgiveness, or even a willing- 
 ness to forgive ? A willingness to forgive might 
 be declared, and it would heighten the criminality 
 of the offender, if after this he continued harden- 
 ed 3 but for him to require it, and to avow that he 
 could not repent of hrs sin upon any other condi- 
 tion, would be the height of insolence. Yet all 
 this is pleaded for in respect of God. " If I be a 
 ftither, where is my honour 1" 
 
 Besides, how is a sinner to " know that he is of 
 God," othei'wise than as being conscious of repent- 
 ance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus 
 Christ? Till he is sorry at heart for having dis- 
 honoured God, he is not of God, and therefore 
 cannot know that he is so. 
 
 If some have gone into extremes in writing of 
 " disinterested love,'* as Mr. McLean suggests,* 
 it does not follow, that true religion has its origin 
 in self-love. Most men who make any pretence to 
 serious Christianity will allow, that if sin be not 
 hated as sin, it is not hated at all ; and wliy we 
 should scruple to allow, that if God be not loved 
 as God, he is not loved at all, I cannot conceive. 
 I am not surprised however, that those who have 
 been so long, and so deeply imbued in a system, 
 a leading principle of which is, " that godliness 
 consists in love to that which first relieves us,** 
 should write in the manner they do, 
 f Reply, p. 149. 
 k3 
 
102 Co7inection of, 8^c> 
 
 On some occasions however, Mr. McLean him- 
 self can say as much in favour of " disinterested 
 love," as his opponent, and can represent that 
 which arises from " a mere principle of self-love," 
 as heing of no value. " There may be some re- 
 semblances of repentance (he says) in fear, re- 
 morse, and sorrow of mind, occasioned by sin, as 
 in Cain, Judas, Felix, &c. But a mere principle 
 of self-love will make a man dread the conse- 
 quences of sin, while he has prevalent inclinations to 
 sin itself. There is a difference between mere fear 
 and sorrow on account of sin, and a prevalent ha-^ 
 tred of it; between hatred cf sin itself, and mere 
 hatred of its consequences; between that sorrow 
 for sin which flows from the love of God and of 
 holiness, and that which flows from an inferior 
 principle. Men may have even an aversion to 
 some kinds of sin, because they interfere with 
 others, or because they do not suit their natuj'al 
 constitutions, propensities, tempers, habits, age, 
 worldly interests, &c. while they do not hate all 
 sin universally, and consequently hate no sin «s 
 suck, or from a proper principle." * 
 
 Yours, &o. 
 
 * Works, vol. II. p. 95. 
 
103 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 ON THE CONNECTION BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND 
 DISPOSITJON. 
 
 Mij dear Friend^ 
 
 You need' not be told, that tins is a subject 
 of prime importance In the Sandemanlan system. 
 Tt every where considers knowledge as the one 
 thing needful, and disposition as its natural and 
 proper effect. 
 
 Mr. M'Lean represents me as maintaining that 
 the understanding, or perceptive faculty in man, 
 is directed and governed by his will and inclinations; 
 and this he supposes to be the principle on which 
 my arguments are principally founded ; a principle 
 which can only be true, he thinks, in cases where 
 the original order of things is perverted by sin. * 
 Whether these sentiments be just, or contain a 
 fair statement of my views, we shall inquire as wc 
 
 * Reply, p. 8, 9, 
 
304 Conned 1071 of 
 
 proceed : at present, I only observe, tliat the sttitt 
 of the will, or disposition, is, in Mr. McLean's ac-- 
 count, governed invariably by the understandings 
 or, if in any instance it be othcnvise, it is owing to 
 the disorder introduced by sin. I should not have 
 supposed however, that sin could have perverted 
 the established laws of nature. It certainly perverts 
 the moral order of things, that is, (as Dr. Owen 
 represents it, to whom Mr. M. refers,) instead of the 
 will being governed by judgment and conscience^ 
 judgment and conscience are often governed by 
 prejudice. But there is nothing in all this subver- 
 sive of the established law's of nature: for it is a 
 law recognized both by nature and scripture, that 
 the disposition of the soul should influence its de- 
 cisions. A humble and candid spirit is favourable, 
 and a proud and uncandid spirit is unfavourable to 
 a right judgment. 
 
 ^^ It is a maxim (says Mr. Ecking,) that has not 
 yet been refuted, that the determination of the will 
 must evermore follow the illumination, conviction, 
 and notice of the understanding.'" * By the illumi- 
 nation, conviction, and notice of the understanding 
 must be meant, either what the mind judges to be 
 right y or what it accounts agreeable. If the will 
 were always determined by the first, tliere could 
 be no such thing as knowing the will of God and not 
 doing it. But I suppose this will not be pretended. 
 
 * Essays, p. 54. 
 
Knowledge and Disposition, 10" 
 
 It must therefore be of the last that Mr. Ecking 
 writes. His meaning must be, that the will evermore 
 follows the mind's view of the object as agreeable. 
 But is it certain that the viewing of an object agree- 
 able is properly and perfectly distinct from chusing 
 it ? President Edwards conceived it was not_, and 
 therefore did not affirm that the will was determined 
 by the greatest apparent good, but merely, that 
 " the luill always is as the greatest apparent good, 
 or as ivhat appears rnost agreeable is." * This is 
 not saying that the will is determined by the under- 
 standing : for as the same author goes on to prove, 
 the cause of an object appearing agreeable to the 
 mind may be " the state, frame, or temper of the 
 mind itself." But so far as this is the case, the judg- 
 ment is determined by the state of the mind, rather 
 than the state of the mind by the judgment. 
 
 A great deal of confusion on this subject has 
 arisen from confounding simple knowledge, per- 
 taining merely to the intellectual faculty, with that 
 which is compound, or comprehensive of approbation. 
 The former is with propriety distingulslied from 
 whatever pertains to the state of the v/ill 3 but the 
 latter is not, seeing it includes it. 
 
 Mr. M'Lban, speaking of certain characters, 
 who had heard the gospel, sa3's, " It is supposed 
 that such men have now received some information 
 which they had not before, both with respect to 
 
 * On tie Will, Part I. Sect. II. p. 1 1. 
 
106* Connection of 
 
 their danger, and the remedy of it, and" — ^\vhat ? 
 that their wills or dispositions are in that proportion 
 changed ? No, but ^* that they are hereby rendered 
 quite inexaisahle if they should neglect so great 
 salvation ; which neglect must now be the effect 
 of perverseness and aversion, and not of simple ig- 
 norance. John ill. 19. — XV. 2, 25."* I do not 
 say of Mr. M. as he did of me, when I was only 
 reasoning upon the principles of my opponents^ 
 that '* he can take either side of the question as he 
 finds occasion :" but this I say, that when writing^ 
 in favour of the calls of the gospel, he felt himself 
 impelled to admit principles, which in his controver- 
 sy on the other side he has quite lost sight of. The 
 above statement appears to me to be very just : and 
 as he here so properly distinguises simple ignorance 
 fiom ignorance which arises from aversion or neg- 
 lect; the one as tending to excuse, the other to^ 
 criminate ; he cannot consistently object to my dis- 
 tinguishing between simple knowledge, which bare- 
 ly renders men inexcusable, and knowledge inclu^^ 
 sive of ci2)probafio7ij which has the promise of eter- 
 nal life. 
 
 Simple knowledge, or knowledge as distinguish- 
 ed from approbation, is a mere natural accomplish- 
 ment, necessary to the performance of both good 
 and evil, but in itself neither the one nor the other.. 
 Instead of producing love, it often occasions aa. 
 
 * Thought? on Calls, &.c.. p. U. 
 
Knowledge and Disjiosition, 1 07 
 
 nicreasiiig enmity, and in all cases renders sinners 
 the less excusable. In this sense the term know- 
 ledge, and others related to it, are used in the fol- 
 lowing passages. — " Tlie servant who kneiu his 
 lord's will, and did it not, shall be beaten with 
 many stripes. — When they knew God, they glorified 
 him not as God. — If ye know these things, happy 
 arc ye if ye do them. — If I had not come and 
 spoken unto them, they had not had sin, but now 
 they have no cloak for their sin. — If I had not done 
 ainong them the works which none otlier man did, 
 tliey had not had sin ; but now they have both 
 S€e7i and hated both me and my Father." * 
 
 But knowledge is much more frequently used 
 in the scriptures as including approhation. The 
 Lord is said to know the righteous, and never to 
 have known the workers of iniquity. To under- 
 stand this of simple knowledge, would deprive 
 God of his omniscience. As ascribed to men it is 
 what is denominated a sinritual understanding. It 
 is not necessary to an obligation to spiritual duties, 
 but it is necessary, in the nature of things, to the 
 victual discharge of them. It may be said of the 
 want of this, " The Lord hath not given you eyes 
 to see, and ears to hear, to this day,'* and that 
 without furnishing any excuse for the blindness of 
 the parties. It is the wisdom from above, impart- 
 ed by the illuminating influence of the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 * Luke xii. 47.— Rom. i. 21. — John xiii. 17.— xv. 22, 24. 
 
108 Connection of 
 
 That knowledge in tliis sense of the term pro- 
 duces holy affections, is not denied. It is in itself 
 holy^ and contahis the principle of universal holi- 
 ness. It is that by which we discern the glory of 
 God in the face of Jesus Christ, which glory being 
 beheld, assimilates us into the same image from 
 glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord. But 
 the question at issue respects knowledge in its sim- 
 ple and literal sense, or that which is purely intel- 
 lectual, exclusive of all disposition; otherwise it 
 would amount to no more than this, whether that 
 wliich includes the seminal principle of holy affec- 
 tion, (namely a sense of heart) tends to produce it 3 
 which never was disputed. 
 
 The ground on which I am supposed to have 
 proceeded is, " that the understanding, or perceptive 
 faculty in man, is directed and governed by his 
 will :" but this is a mistake. I ground no doctrine 
 upon any theory of the human mind which I may 
 have, entertained; but on wliat I consider as the 
 scriptural account of things; in which I find spi- 
 ritual perception impeded by evil disposition, and 
 promoted by the contrary.* Neither is the above 
 a fair statement of my views. If what I have writ- 
 ten implies any theory of the human mind, it is not 
 that the understanding is in all cases governed by 
 the will ; but rather that they have a mutual infiu- 
 'nce on each other. I have allowed in my A^pen- 
 
 « 1 Cor. ii. 14. 
 
Knowledge and Disposition, \09 
 
 dix, p, 207. tliat volitions are influenced by motives 
 or considerations which exist in the view of the 
 mind : and I should think it is equally evident on 
 the other hand, that our judgments are, in a great 
 number of instances, determined by a previous 
 state or disposition of the. soul. In objects which 
 do not interest the affections, the judgment may 
 be purely intellectual, and the choice may naturally 
 follow, according to its dictates ; but it is not so in 
 other cases, as universal experience evinces. 
 
 '' But must it not be owned, (says Mr. M.) that 
 so far as this is the case In man, it is an irregidar 
 exercise of his faculties, arising from the moral dis- 
 order of his lapsed nature, whereby judgment, rea- 
 son, and conscience, are weakened, perverted, and 
 blinded, so as to be subjected to his will, and cor- 
 rupt inclinations ?" {p. 8.) It must undoubtedly 
 be owned, that the influence of an evil disposition 
 in causing an erroneous and false judgment, is owing 
 to this cause ; and if that which I plead 'for, were 
 what Mr. M. elsewhere represents it, viz. a preju- 
 dice in favour of a report luhich renders the mind 
 regardless of evidence, (p. 67.) the same might be 
 said of all such judgment. But how If the state of 
 the will contended for should he that of a deliver- 
 ance from lirejadice^ In' which evidence comes to be 
 properly regarded ? It is not to rlie disorder introduc- 
 ed by sin, that we are to ascribe the general principle 
 of the moral state or disposition of the soul having 
 an influence on the judgment : for it is no less true 
 
 L 
 
110 Connectioii of 
 
 that a liuml)le5 candid, and impartial spirit Influences 
 the belief of moral truth, or truth that involves in 
 its consequences the devoting of the whole life to 
 God, than that a selfish and corrupt spirit influences 
 the rejection of it. Surely it is not owing to the 
 human faculties being tb.rown into disorder, that a 
 holy frame of mind in believers enables them to 
 understand the scriptures better than the best ex- 
 positor ! The experience of every christian bears 
 witness, that the more spiritually minded he is, the 
 better he is prepared for the discernment of spiritual 
 things. 
 
 Mr. McLean thinks I have mistaken the meaning 
 of the term heart, in applying it to the dispositions 
 and aff^ections of the soul, as distinguished from the 
 understanding. {Reply, p, 10.) When such phrases 
 as a heart of stone, a heart of flesh, a hard and 
 impenitent heart, a tender heart, a heart to know 
 the Lord, Sfc. occur, though they suppose the intel- 
 lectual faculty, yet there can be no doubt, I should 
 think, of their expressing the state of the will and af- 
 fections, rather than of the understanding. I have no 
 objection however to the account given of the term 
 by Dr. Owen, that " it generally denotes the whole 
 soul of man, and all the faculties of it, not absolute- 
 ly, but as they are all one principle of moral opera- 
 tions, as they all concur in our doing good or evil" 
 The term may sometimes apply to what is simply na- 
 tural ; but it generally, as he says, denotes the prin- 
 ciple of moral action, which being comprehended 
 
Kiioivledge a}id Disjjosifion, 111 
 
 ill love, must in all cases, whether It relate to good 
 or evil, include attection. And thus in his Treatise 
 on Justice, Dr. Owen observes, that " Assent is an 
 act of the understanding only ; but believing is an 
 act of the heart, which in the scripture compriseth 
 all the faculties of the soul as one entire principle 
 of moral and spiritual duties. JVith the heart man 
 helicveth unto righteousness. Rom. x. 10; and it 
 is frequently described by an act of the will, though 
 it be not so alone. But without an act of the will, 
 no man can believe as he ought. See John v. 40. 
 i. 12. vi. 35. We come to Christ as an act of the 
 will ; and let whosoever will, come : and to be wil- 
 ling is taken for believing. Ps. ex. 3. And unbe- 
 lief is disobedience. Heb. iii. 18, 19." Chaj). I, 
 J). 108. 
 
 Nay, Mr. M. himself acknowledges nearly as 
 much as this. He says, " The scriptures always re- 
 present the regenerating and sanctifying influences 
 of the Spirit as exerted upon the heart, which in- 
 cludes not only the understanding, but the will and 
 affections, or the prevalent inclinations and dispo- 
 sitions of the soul." Works, vol. II. p. 91. 
 
 That disposition in rational beings presupposes 
 perception, 1 never doubted ; but that it is produced 
 by it, is much easier asserted than proved. Know- 
 ledge is a concomitant in many cases where it is 
 not a cause. If all holy disposition be produced 
 by just perceptions, all evil disposition is produced 
 by unjust or erroneous ones. Indeed this is no 
 
 1.2 
 
112 Connectitm of 
 
 more tl>an Mr. McLean, on some occasions at least, 
 is prepared to admit. He tells us, that " the word of 
 God represents the daikness, hllndness, and ignorance 
 of the mind with regard to spiritual things, as the 
 som'ce of men's alienation from the life of God, 
 and of their re])elling against him." y;. 77- Does 
 he really think then, that the passages of scripture 
 to which he refers,* mean simple ignorance ? If not, 
 they make nothing for his argument. Does he se- 
 riously consider the blindness, or hardness of heart, 
 in Eph. iv. IS. as refering to ignorance in distinction 
 from aversio7iy or as including it ? f Can he imagine 
 that the darkness in which Satan holds mankind, 
 is any other th.an a chosen and heloved darkness, 
 •xlescribed in tlie following passages. " They loved 
 darkness rather than light, hecause their deeds were 
 ^.yil. — ^The heart of this people is waxed gross, and 
 their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have 
 they closed." John iii. 19. Acts xxviii. 27. 
 
 That voluntary blindness renders sinners estrang- 
 ed from God, 1 can easily understand, nor am I at 
 any loss to conceive of its being " that by which 
 Satan reigns, and maintains his power over the 
 
 * Eph. iv. 18, 19. — Acts, xxvi. 18. — Eph. vi. 12. — Col. i. 13. 
 
 f 'sru^ucnSi Park HURST observes, is from vru^cuy and sig- 
 nifies, hardness^ callousness, or hlindntss. ** It is not mere 
 ipiioriiuce, (says Dr. Owen,) but a stubborn resistance of 
 Ijp-ht and conviction ; an obdurate hardness, whence it rejects 
 the impressions of divine truth." Disc, on the Holy Spirit, 
 Book iii. Chap. 3. 
 
Knoivledge and Disjiosition, 113 
 
 minds of men:*' but I do not perceive, in any of 
 these facts, the proof of disposition having its origin 
 in ignorance. Two friends, whom 1 will call Mat- 
 thew and Mark^ were one evening conversing on 
 this subject, when the following bcntiments were 
 exchanged. All sin, said Matthew, arises from ig- 
 norance — Do you think then, said Mark, that God 
 will condemn men for what is owing to a want of 
 natural capacity ? O, no, said Matthew, it is a vo- 
 luntary ignorance to which I refer; a not liking to. 
 retain God in their knowledge. Then, said Mark, 
 you reason in a circle. Your argument amounts 
 to this; All sin arises from ignorance, and this igno- 
 rance arises from sin ; or, which is the same thing, 
 from aversion to the light ! 
 
 If Mr. M'Lean, or others, will maintain that sin 
 is the effect of simple ignorance, (and this they must 
 maintain, or what they hold is nothing different 
 from that v.hich they oppose,) let them seriously 
 consider a few of its consequences, as drawn by some 
 of our modern infidels. It is on this principle that 
 Mr, GoDV/iN, in his treatise on Political Justicey 
 denies the original depravity of human nature ; ex- 
 plains away all ideas of guilt, crime, desert, and ac- 
 countableness ; and represents the devil himself as a 
 being of considerable virtue ! Thus he reasons — 
 
 " The moral characters of men originate in their 
 perceptions. As there are no innate perceptions or 
 ideas, there are no innate principles — ^The moral 
 
 qualities of men are the produce of the impressions 
 
 L 3 
 
114 Connection of 
 
 made upon tliem, and there is no such thing as 
 
 AN ORIGINAL PROPENSITY TO EVIL." Book L 
 
 chap, 3. 
 
 Again, " Vice Is nothing more than error and 
 mistake, reduced to practice — Acting from an ill 
 motive is acting from a mistaken motive — Under 
 the system of necessity, (i. e. as held by him,) the 
 ideas of guilt, crime, desert, and .^.ccountable- 
 NEss, have NO PLACE." Book IF'. Chap, IF. — 
 ri.pp. 254, 3 H. 
 
 Again, " Virtue is the offspring of the understand- 
 ing. — It is only another name for a clear and distinct 
 perception of the value of the object. — Virtue 
 therefore is ordinarily connected with great talents. 
 — Cesar and Alexander had their virtues — They 
 imagined their conduct conducive to the general 
 good. — The Devil, as described by Milton, also 
 WAS A being of considerable virtue ! ! ! Why 
 did he rebel against his Maker? Because he saw 
 no sufficient reason for that extreme inequality of 
 rank and power which the Creator assumed — After 
 his fall, why did he still cherish the spirit of oppo- 
 sition ? From a persuasion that he was hardly and 
 injuriously treated — He was not discouraged by tlie 
 inequality of the contest !" Book IV, Chap, IV, 
 jip. No. \,p, 2(j 1 . 
 
 Allowing this writer his premises, I confess my- 
 self unable to refute his consequences. If all sin 
 be the effect of ignorance, so far from its being 
 exceeding sinful, I am unable to perceive any sin- 
 
Knoivledge and Disposition, 115 
 
 fulness in it. It is one of the clearest dictates in 
 nature, and that which is suggested by every man's 
 conscience, that whatever he does wrong, if he 
 know no better, and his ignorance be purely intel- 
 lectual, or, as Mr. McLean calls it, simple^ that 
 is, if it be not owing to any neglect of means, 
 but to the want of means, or of powers to use 
 them, it is not his fault. 
 
 The intellectual powers of the soul, such as 
 perception, judgment, and conscience, are not 
 that to moral action which the first wheel of a 
 machine is to those that follow; but that which 
 light and plain directions are to a traveller, leav- 
 ing him inexcusable if he walk not in the right 
 way. 
 
 But I shall be told that it is not for natural, but 
 for spiritual knowledge, that Mr. M'Lean pleads, 
 as the cause of holy disposition. True : but he 
 pleads for it upon the general principle of its being 
 the established order of the human mind, that dis- 
 position should be produced by knowledge. More- 
 over, if spiritual knowledge should be found to 
 include approbation, it cannot \\ith propriety be 
 so distinguished from it, as to be a cause of which 
 the otlier is the effect : for to say that all disposi- 
 tion arises from knowledge, and that that know- 
 ledge includes approbation, is to reason in a circle, 
 exactly as Matthew reasoned on all sin arising from 
 ignorance, which ignorance included aversion* 
 
IIG Connection of 
 
 That spiritual knowledge incliules approbation in 
 its veiy nature, and not merely in its eiFect, ap- 
 pears evident to me from two considerations. — • 
 First, It is the opposite of spiritual blindness, 
 2 Cor. iv. 4 — 6. — Eph. v. 8. But spiritual blind- 
 ness includes in its very nature, and not merely 
 in its effect, an aversion to the truth. Mr. Ecking 
 (whose Essai/s on Grace, Faith, and ILxperience, 
 have been reprinted by the friends of this system, 
 as containing what they account, no doubt, an 
 able defence of their principles,) allows " the ina- 
 bility of the sinner to consist in his loving dark- 
 ness rather than light, and his disinclination to de- 
 pend upon a holy sovereign God, and not in the 
 want of rational faculties. '' Describing this inabi- 
 lity in other words, he considers it as composed of 
 '' error, ignorance, and unbelief,'* In which he 
 places the " disease'^ of the sinner, " the very 
 
 ESSENCE OF THE NATURAL MAN's DARKNESS;" 
 
 and the opposites of them, he makes to be " truth, 
 knowledge, and faith, which being implanted, (he 
 says,) the soul must be renewed.'' jjp. 66, 67. * 
 If Mr. E. understood what he wrote, he must 
 mean to represent spiritual light as the proper op- 
 posite of spiritual darkness; and as he allows the 
 latter, " in the very essence of it, to include aver- 
 
 * I Lave only the first Edition of Mr. E.'s Essays, and there- 
 fore an) obliged to quote from it. 
 
Knowledge and Disposition* 117 
 
 sion," he must allow the former, in the very essence 
 of it, to include approbation. Secondly, The 
 objects perceived are of such a nature, as to 
 be known only by a sense of their divine ex- 
 cellency, which contains in it more than a sim- 
 ple knowledge, even an approbation of the heart. 
 Those who have wTitten upon the powers of the 
 soul, have represented " that whereby we receive 
 ideas of beauty and harmony, as having all the 
 characters of a sense, an internal sense."' * And 
 Mr. EcKiNG, after all that he says against a 
 principle of grace in the heart antecedent to be- 
 lieving, allows that " we must have a spiritual 
 principle before we can discern divine beauties/' f 
 But the very essence of spiritual knowledge con- 
 sists in the discernment of divine beauties, or the 
 ** glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ.'* To 
 speak of faith in Christ, antecedent to this, is on- 
 ly to speak at random. The reason given why 
 the gospel report was not believed is, that in the 
 esteem of men, the Messiah had " no form nor 
 comeliness in him, nor beauty that they should de- 
 sire him." t To say we must have a spiritual prin- 
 ciple before we can discern divine beauties, is 
 therefore the same thing in effect, as to say, we 
 must hav'e a spiritual principle before we can be- 
 lieve the gospel. 
 
 * Chambers's Diet. Art. SExNSE. f Essays, p. 67. 
 
 t loa. liii. 1, 2. 
 
118 Connection of 
 
 I will close this letter by an extract from Presi- 
 dent Edwards's Treatise on the Affections, n'bt 
 merely as showing his judgment, but as containing 
 what I consider a clear, scriptural, and satisfactory 
 statement of the nature of spiritual knowledge. 
 
 " If the scriptures are of any use to teach us any 
 thing, there is such a thing as a spiritual^ supernatu- 
 ral imder standing of divine things, that is peculiar 
 to the saints, and which those who are not saints 
 have nothing of. It is certainly a kind of under- 
 standing, apprehending, or discerning of divine 
 things, that natural men have nothing of, which the 
 Apostle speaks of, 1 Cor. ii. 14. — Bat the natural 
 man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ; 
 for they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he 
 know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 
 It is certainly a kind of seeing or discerning spi- 
 ritual things peculiar to the saints, which is spoken 
 of, I John iii. 6. Whosoever sinnethhathnot seenhim^ 
 neither known him. 3 John ii. He that doth evil 
 hath not seen God. And Jolm vi. 40. This is the ivill 
 of him that sent me, that every one that seeth the 
 Son, and helieveth on him, may have everlasting life. 
 Chap xiv. ly. The ivorld seeth me 7io more, hut 
 ye see nie. Chap. xvii. 3. This is eternal life, 
 that they might know thee, the only true God, and 
 Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Matt. xi. 27. 
 JVo man knoweth the Son, hut the Father ; neither 
 knoweth any man the Father, hut the Son, and he to 
 \vhomsoever the Son will reveal him, Jolm xii, 45. 
 
Knoivledge and Dls2)os{tion, \\^ 
 
 He that seeth me, seeth /ihn that sent me. Vs. Ix. 
 10. Thei/ that know thy name iviilput their ti^ust in 
 thee. Phil. Hi. 8. I count all things loss for the 
 excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my 
 Lord. Verse 10. That I may know him. And innu- 
 merable other places there are all over the Bible, 
 which show the same. And that there is such a 
 thing as an understanding of divine things, which 
 in its nature and kind is wholly different from all 
 knowledge that natural men have, is evident from this, 
 that there is an understanding of divine things which 
 the scripture calls spiritual understanding: Col. i. 
 9. — We do not cease to pray for you, and to desire 
 that you inay he filled ivith the knowledge of his 
 will, rn all ivisdom, and spiritual understanding. It 
 has already been shown, that that which is spiritual, 
 in the ordinary use of the word in the new testament, 
 is intirely different, in nature and kind, from all which 
 natural men are, or can be the subjects of. 
 
 ^' From hence it may be surely inferred, wherein 
 spiritual understanding consists. For if there be in 
 the saints a kind of apprehension or perception, which 
 is, in its nature, perfectly diverse from all that na- 
 tural men have, or that it is possible they should 
 have, till they have a new nature ; it must consist 
 in tlieir having a certain kind of ideas or sensations 
 of mind, which are simply diverse from all that is, 
 or can be, in the minds of natural men. And that 
 is the same thing as to say, that it consists in .the 
 sensations of a new sjnritual seiise^ which the souls 
 
120 Connection of 
 
 of natural men have not ; as is evident by what has 
 been before, once and again observed. But I have 
 ah'eady shown, what that new spiritual sense is, 
 which the saints have given them in regeneration ; 
 and what is the object of it. I have shown, that the 
 immediate object of it is, the supreme beauty and 
 excellency of the nature of divine things as they are 
 in themselves. And this is agreeable to the scripture : 
 the apostle very plainly teaches, that the great thing 
 discovered by spiritual light, and understood by spi- 
 ritual knowledge, is the glory of divine things, 
 2 Cor. iv. 3, 4. But if our gospel he hid, it is hid to 
 them that are lost ; in whom the god of this ivorld 
 hath blinded the ininds of them that believe not, lest 
 the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the 
 image of God, should shine unto them ; together with 
 verse 6. For God, who commanded the light to shine 
 out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the 
 light of the knoivledge of the glory of God in the 
 face of Jesus Christ: and chap. iii. 18. But we all 
 ivith open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of 
 the Lord, are changed into the same image, from 
 glory to glorify even as by the Spirit of the Lord. And 
 it must needs be so, for, as has been before observed, 
 tiie scripture often teaches that all true religion 
 summarily consists in the love of divine things. 
 And therefore that kind of understanding or know- 
 ledge, which is the proper foundation of true religion, 
 must be the knowledge of the loveliness of divine 
 things. For doubtless, that knowledge which is the- 
 
Knoivledge and Disposition, \H 
 
 proper foundation of love^ is the knowledge of love- 
 liness. What that beauty or loveliness of divine 
 things is, whieh is the proper and immediate object 
 of a spiritual sense of mind, was showed under 
 the last head insisted on, viz. that it is the beauty ot* 
 their moral perfection. Tlierefoie it is in the view 
 or sense of this, that 'spiritual understanding does 
 more immediately and primarily consist. And, in- 
 deed, it is plain it can be nothing else ; for (as has 
 been shown) there is nothing pertaining to divine 
 things, besides the beauty of their moral excellency, 
 and those properties and qualities of divine things 
 •which this beauty is the foundation of, but what na- 
 tural men and devils can see and know, and will 
 know fully and clearly to all eternity. 
 
 '^ From what has been said, therefore, we come ne- 
 cessarily to this conclusion, concerning that where- 
 in spiritual understanding consists ; viz. That it 
 consists in a sense of the heart, of the supreme 
 beauty and sweetness of the holiness or moral 
 2ierfection of divine thijigs, together with all that 
 discerning and knowledge of things of religion^ 
 that depends upon, and flows from such a sense, 
 
 " Spiritual understanding consists primarily in a 
 sense of heart of that spiritual beauty. I say, a sense 
 of heart ; for it is not speculation merely that is con- 
 cerned in this kind of unc'erstanding ; nor can there 
 be a clear distinction made between the two facul- 
 ties of understanding and will, as acting distinctly 
 and separately, in this matter. When the mind is 
 
 M 
 
122 Connection of 
 
 sensible of the sweet beauty and amiableness of a 
 tiling, tliat implies a sensibleness of sweetness and 
 delight in the presence of the idea of it : and this 
 sensibleness of the amiableness, or delightfulness 
 of beauty, carries, in the very nature of it, the sense 
 of the heart ; or an effect and impression the soul 
 is the subject of, as a substance possessed of taste, 
 inclination, and will. 
 
 " There is a distinction to be made between a 
 mere notional understanding, wherein the mind only 
 beholds things in the exercise of a speculative fa- 
 culty; and the sense of the heart, wherein the 
 mind does not only speculate and behold, but re- 
 lishes and feels. That sort of knowledge, by which 
 a n .ai has a sensible perception of amiableness and 
 loathsomeness, or of sweetness and nauseousness, is 
 not just the same sort of knowledge with that, by 
 which he knows what a triangle is, and what a 
 square is. The one is mere speculative knowledge ; 
 the other sensible knowledge ; in which more than 
 the mere intellect is concerned ; the heart is the 
 proper subject of it, or the soul, as a being that not 
 only beholds, but has inclination, and is pleased or 
 displeased. And yet there is the nature of instruc- 
 tion in it ; as he that has perceived the sweet taste 
 of honey, knows much more about it, than he who 
 has only looked upon, and felt of it. 
 
 " The apostle seems to make a distinction be- 
 tween mere speculative knowledge of the things of 
 religion, and spiritual knowledge, in calling that 
 
Knowledge and T)is],os{fwn. li?3 
 
 f he form of knowlcdgey and of the truth ; Rom. il. 
 I'O. JVJikh hast the form of knowledge, and of the 
 truth in the laiv." The latter is often represented 
 by relishing, smelling, or tasting; 2 Cor. ii. 14. jVotv 
 than/is be to God, ivho aiwai/s causeth us to triumph 
 in Christ Jesus, andmaketh manifest the savour of 
 his knowledge^ in every j)lace. jNLitt. xvi. 23. Thou 
 savourest not the things that he of God, hut those 
 that he of men, 1 Pet. ii. 2, 3. As new horn hahes 
 desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may 
 grow thereby, if so he ye have tasted that the Lord 
 is gracious. Cant. i. 3. Because of the savour of 
 thy good ointments, thy name is as ointment }>oured 
 forth; therefore do the virgins love thee ; compared 
 with 1 John ii. 20. But ye have an vscno'S from 
 the holy One, and ye know all things. 
 
 " Spiritual understanding ;;r«.7i«r//// consists in this 
 sense, or taste of the moral beauty of divine things ; 
 so that no knowledge can bo called spiritual, any 
 further than it arises from this, and has this in it. 
 But secondarily, it includes all that discerning and 
 knowledge of things of religion, tvhich depends upon, 
 and flows from such a sense. When the true beauty 
 and amiableness of the holiness, or true moral good, 
 that is in divine things, is discovered to the soul, it, as 
 it were, opens a new world to its view. This shows 
 the glory of all the perfections of God, and of every 
 thing appertaining to the divine Being : for, as was 
 observed before, the beauty of all arises from God's 
 moral -perfection. This shows the glory of all 
 
 >l 2 
 
124 tojuiection of 
 
 ' God's works, both of creation and providence; lor 
 it is the special glory of them, that God's holiness, 
 
 \ jighteousncss, faithfulness, and goodness, are so 
 manifested in them ; and without these moral per- 
 fections, there would be no glory in that power and 
 skill with which they are wrought. The glorifying 
 of God's moral perfections, is the special end of all 
 the works of God's hand^. By this sense of the 
 moral beauty of divine things, is understood the 
 sufficiency of Christ as a Mediator : for it is only 
 by the discovery of the beauty of the moral perfec- 
 tion of Christ, that the believer is let into the know- 
 ledge of the excellency of his person, so as to know 
 any thing more of it than the devils do : and it is 
 only by the knowledge of the excellency of Christ's 
 person, that any know his sufficiency as a Medi- 
 ator; for the latter depends upon, and arises from 
 the former. It is by seeing the excellency of 
 Christ's person, that the saints are made sensible of 
 the preciousness of his blood, and its sufficiency 
 to atone for sin : for therein consists the precious- 
 ness of Christ's blood, that it is the blood of so ex- 
 cellent and amiable a person. And on this depends 
 the mcritoriousness of his obedience, and sufficiency 
 and prevalence of his intercession. By this sight 
 of the moral beauty of divine things, is seen tlic 
 
 \ beauty of the way of salvation by Christ : for that 
 consists in the beauty of the moral perfections of 
 God, which wonderfully shines forth in every step 
 of this method of salvation, from beginning to end* 
 
Knoicledi^e and Disposition, 1 25 
 
 By this is seen the fitness and suitableness of this ;' 
 way : for this wholly consists in its tendency to de- 
 liver us from sin and hell, and to brinii; us to the 
 ha})piness which consists in the possession and en- 
 joyment of moral good, in a way sweetly agreeing 
 with God's moral perfections. And in the way's 
 being contrived so as to attain these ends, consists 
 the excellent wisdom of that way. By this is seen 
 the excellency of the word of God : take away all , 
 the moral beauty and sweetness in the word, and * 
 the Bible is left wholly a dead letter, a dry, ; 
 lifeless, tasteless thing. By this is seen the i' 
 true foundation of our duty; the worthiness ofi 
 God to be so esteemed, honoured, loved, submitted 
 to, and served, as he requires of us, and the 
 amiableness of the duties themselves that arc 
 required of us. And by this is seen the true 
 evil of sin : for he who sees the beauty of holiness, 
 must necessarily see the hatefulness of sin, its / 
 contrary. By this, men understand tlie true . 
 glory of heaven, which 'consists in the beauty ^ 
 and happiness that is in holiness. By this is 
 seen the amiableness and happiness of botli saints 
 and angels. He that sees tlie beauty of holiness, 
 or true moral good, sees the greatest and 
 most important thing in the world; which is the j 
 fulness of all things, without which all the world is 
 empty, no better than nothing, yea worse than no- 
 thing. Unless this is seen, nothing is seen, that is r 
 
 worth the seeing : for there is no other tru€ excel- - 
 
 u 3 
 
126 Connection of 
 
 lency or beauty. Unless this be understood, n(v 
 thing is understood, that is v/ortliy of the exercise of 
 the noble faculty of undcr.^tanding. This is the 
 beauty of the Godhead, and the divinity of divinity, 
 (if I may so speak,) the good of the infinite foun- 
 tain of good ; nithout v.hich God himself (if that 
 were possible to be) would be an infinite evil; 
 nithout which we ourselves had better never have 
 been, and without which there had better have been 
 no being. He therefore in effect knows nothing, 
 that knows not this : His knowledge is but the 
 shadow of knowledge, or as the apostle calls it, the 
 form of knowledge. Well therefore may the scripture 
 represent those who are destitute of that spiritual 
 sense, by which is perceived the beauty of holiness, 
 as totally blind, deaf, and senseless; yea, dead. 
 And well may regeneration, in which this divine 
 sense is given to the soul by its Creator, be repre- 
 sented as opening the blind eyes, and raising the 
 dead, and bringing a person into a new world. For 
 if what has been said be considered, it will be mani- 
 fest, that when a person has this sense and knowledge 
 given him, he will view nothing as he did before : 
 though before he knew all things after the fiesh^ 
 yet henveforth he will know tlicni so no more ; and 
 he is become a new creature, old things are passed 
 away, behold all things are become new ; agreeable 
 to 2 Cor. v. \G, 17. 
 
 *' And besides the things that have been already 
 mentioned^ there arises from this sense of spiritual 
 
Knowledge and Disposition* 127 
 
 beauty, all true ex],>erimental knowledge of religion ; 
 ■which is of itself, as it were, a new world of know- 
 ledge. • He that sees not the beauty of holiness, 
 knows not what one of the graces of God's Spirit 
 is ; he is destitute of any idea or conception of all 
 gracious exercises of soul, and all holy comforts 
 and delights, and all effects of the saving influences 
 of the Spirit of God on the heart : and so is 
 ignorant of the greatest works of God, the most 
 important and glorious effects of his power upon 
 the creature : and also is wholly ignorant of the 
 saints as saints ; he knows not what they are : and 
 in effect is ignorant of the whole spiritual world. 
 
 '• Things being thus, it plainly appears, that 
 God's implanting that spiritual supernatural sense 
 which has been spoken of, makes a great change in 
 a man. And were it not for the veiy imperfect de- 
 gree, in which this sense is commonly given at first, 
 or the small degree of this glorious light that first 
 dawns upon the soul ; the change made by this spi- 
 ritual opening of the eyes in conversion, would be 
 much greater, and more remarkable, every way, 
 than if a man, who had been born blind, and with 
 only the other four senses, should continue so a long 
 time, and then at once should have the sense of 
 seeing imparted to him, in the midst of the clear 
 light of the sun, discovering a world of visible ob- 
 jects. For though sight be more noble than any of 
 the other external senses ; yet this spiritual sense 
 >vhich has been spoken of, is infinitely more noble 
 
128 Connection of, &;c, 
 
 than that, or any other principle of discerning that 
 a man naturally has, and the object of this sense 
 infinitely great and more important. 
 
 " This sort of understanding, or knowledge, 
 is that knowledge of divine things from whence 
 all truly gracious affections do proceed : by which 
 therefore all affections are to be tried. Those 
 affections that arise wholly from any other kind 
 of knowledge, or do result from any other kind 
 of apprehensions of mind, are vain ^ pp* 225 — 232. 
 Yours, &;c. 
 
129 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 A?J INQUIRY WHETHER, IF BELIEVING BE A SPI- 
 RITUAL ACT OF TUB MIND, IT DOES NOT PRE- 
 SUPPOSE THE SUBJECT OF IT TO BE SPIRITUAL. 
 
 My dear Friend, 
 
 Mr. SandemaNj and many of his ad- 
 mirers, if I understand them, consider the mind 
 as passive in believing, and charge those who con- 
 sider faith as an act of the mind, with making it a 
 work, and so of introducing the doctrine of justifi- 
 cation by a work of our own. 
 
 Mr. EcKiNG sometimes writes as if he adopted 
 this principle, for he speaks of a person being 
 ^^ passive in receiving the truth." {Essays, p. 73.) 
 In another place, however, he is very explicit to the 
 contrary. " Their notion is absurd, (he says) \\ho, 
 in order to appear more than ordinarily accurate, 
 censure and solemnly condemn the idea of believ- 
 ing being an act of the mind. It is acknowledged 
 indeed, that very unscriptural sentiments have pre- 
 vailed about acts of faith, when they are supposed 
 
130 liegcneralion 
 
 to arise from some previous principle, well dispos- 
 ing the minds of unbelievers toward the gospel. 
 Yet if it be admitted possible for the soul of man 
 to act, (and who will deny that it does ?) there is no- 
 thing more properly an act of the mind, than be- 
 lieving a truth ; in which first the mind perceives it j 
 then considers the evidence offered to support it; 
 and finally, gives assent to it. And can this com- 
 port with inactivity ? We must either say then, 
 that the soul acts in believing the gospel, or that 
 the soul is an inactive spirit, which is absurd/' 
 {Essays^ p, 1)8.) As Mr, E. in tliis passage not 
 only states his opinion, but gives his reasons for it, 
 we must consider this as his fixed principle ; and 
 that which he says of the truth being " passively 
 received," as expressive not of faith, but of spi- 
 ritual illumination previous to it. But if so, wh^t 
 does he mean by opposing a previous principle as 
 necessary to believing? His acts of faith arise from 
 spiritual illumination, v>hich he also must consider as 
 *' well disposing the minds of unbelievers toward the 
 gospel." 
 
 If there be any difference between him and 
 them whom he opposes, it would seem to consist 
 not in the 'necessity, but in the nature of a previous 
 change of mind ; as whether it be proper to call it 
 a principle, and to suppose it to include life as well 
 as light ? He no more considers the mind as dis- 
 cerning and believing the gospel, without a previous 
 change wrought in it by the Spirit of God, thau 
 
necessary to Believing, 131 
 
 Ills opponents. Nay, as we have seen, he ex- 
 pressly, and, as he says, " readily acknowledges 
 that we must liave a spiritual lyrinciple before we 
 can discern divine beauties." {p. 67.) But if a 
 spiritual principle be necessary .to discern divine 
 beauties, it is necessary to discern and believe the 
 glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, for they 
 are one and the same thing. 
 
 But the previous change which Mr. E. acknow- 
 ledges, it will be said, is hi/ means of the word. 
 Be it so, yet it cannot be by the word as spirituaUi/ 
 decerned and believed, for spiritual discernment 
 ^and belief are supposed to be the effect of it. 
 
 Mr. E. says indeed, that " the hinge upon which 
 the inquiry turns is, what is that principle, and 
 hoiv is it implanted?'* But this is mere evasion; 
 for let the principle be ivhat it may, and let it be 
 implanted how it may, since it is allowed to be 
 necessary '' before we can discern divine beauties,** 
 and of course before we can actively believe ia 
 Christ, the argument is given up. 
 
 The principle itself he makes to be " the word 
 passively received :*' but as this Is supposed to be 
 previous to " the discernment of divine beauties,** 
 and to the soul's actively believing in Christ, it 
 cannot of course have been produced by cither : 
 and to speak of the word becoming a spiritual prin- 
 ciple in us, before it is either understood or believ- 
 ed, is going a step beyond his opponents, I have 
 no doubt of the word of God^ wlien it is once un- 
 
132 Ilec^eneration 
 
 a 
 
 derstood and believed, becoming a living principle 
 of evangelical obedience. This I conceive to be 
 the meaning of our Lord, when he told the woman 
 of Samaria, that '' whosoever should drink of the 
 water that he should give him, (that is, of the 
 gospel,) it should be in him a well of water spring- 
 ing up to everlasting life.** But for the word to 
 become a principle before it is actively received, 
 or, to use the language of Peter, before we have 
 " purified our souls by obeying it,** * is that of 
 which I can form no idea, and I suppose neither did 
 
 Mr. ECKING. 4k 
 
 As to the second part of what he calls the hinge 
 of the inquiry, viz. hoiv this principle is implant- 
 ed ? he endeavours to illustrate it by a number of 
 examples taken from the miracles of Christ, in 
 which the word of Christ certainly did not operate 
 on the mind in a way of motive presented to its 
 consideration ; but in a way similar to that of the 
 Creator, when he said, " Let there be light, and 
 there was light." Such is manifestly the idea 
 conveyed by the words in John v. 25. " The dead 
 shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they 
 that hear shall live.** To such an application of the 
 word I have no objection. That for which I con- 
 tend is, that there is a change effected in the soul 
 of Ji sinner, caHed in scripture *' giving him eyes to 
 see^ ears to hear, and a heart to ujiderstand" — '^ a 
 
 * 1 Pet. i. 22. 
 
necessary to Believing. 133 
 
 new heart, and a right spirit" — " a new creation," 
 &c. &c. — ; that this change is antecedent to his ac- 
 lively believing in Christ for salvation ; and that 
 it is not ejffected hy motives addressed to the mind 
 in a way of moral suasion, but by the mighty power 
 of God. 
 
 Mr. M'Lean allows faith to be a dutt/^ or an act 
 of obedience. But if so, this obedience must be 
 yielded either in a spiritual, or in a carnal state. If 
 the former, it is all that on this subject is pleaded 
 for. If the latter, that is the same thing as suppos- 
 ing that the carnal mind, while such, is enabled to 
 act spiritually, and that it thereby becomes spiritual. 
 
 To this purpose I wrote in my Appendix, pp. 204, 
 205 ) and what has Mr. M'Lean said in reply > 
 Let him answer for himself. *' This is a very unfair 
 state of the question so far as it relates to the opi* 
 nion of his opponents, for he represents them as 
 maintaining, that the Holy Spirit causes the mind, 
 udiile earned, or before It is spiritually illuminated, 
 to discern and believe spiritual things ; and then he 
 sets himself to argue against this contradiction of 
 his own framing, as a thing impossible in its own na» 
 ture, and as declared by the Holy Spirit to be so. 
 1 Cor. ii. 14. Were I to state Mr. F.'s sentiment 
 thus, ' The Holy Spirit imparts to the mind, while 
 carnal, a holy susceptibility and relish for the truth, 
 would he not justly complain that I had misrepre- 
 sented his view, and that he did not mean that the 
 mind could possess any holy susceptibility wliiJc it 
 
 N 
 
134 Regeneration 
 
 was in a carnal state ; but only that the Holy Spirit, 
 by the very act of imparting this holy susceptibili- 
 ty and relish for the truth, removed the carnality 
 of the mind. But then this explanation applies 
 equally to the other side of the question ; and sure- 
 ly it appears at least as consistent with the nature 
 of thi[»gs, and as easy to conceive, that the Holy 
 Spirit should in the first instance communicate the 
 light of truth to a dark carnal mind, and there- 
 by render it spiritual, as that he should prior to that 
 impart to it a holy susceptibility and relish for the 
 truth." * 
 
 Now, my dear friend, T intreat your close atten- 
 tion, and that of the reader, to this part of the sub- 
 ject, for here is the hinge of the present question. 
 
 I am accused of framing a contradiction which 
 my opponents do not hold. They do not hold 
 then, it seems, that the Holy Spirit causes the 
 mind, tv/nle carnal, to discern and believe spiritual 
 things. Spiritual illumination precedes believing; 
 such an illumination too as removes carnality from 
 the mind, renders the soul spiritual, and so enables 
 it to discern and believe spiritual things. Where 
 then is the diiference between us ? Surely it does 
 not consist in my holding with a previous principle 
 as necessary to believing, for they profess to hold 
 what amounts to the same thing. If there be any 
 diflcrence, however, it must lie in the nature of that 
 
 * Ripply, p- T. 
 
nccessari/ to Belieibig. 135 
 
 Nvhicli is communicated, or in the order in wl/ich it 
 operates. And as to the lirs^t, seeing it is allowed 
 to remove carnality and to render the soul spiritual, 
 there can be no material difference on this head. 
 With respect to the second, namely, tlie order of 
 its operations, Mr. M. thinks that the communica- 
 tion of the light of truth to a dark carnal mind, 
 whereby it is rendered spiritual, furnishes an easy 
 and consistent view of things. — To uhich I answer, 
 If the carnality of the mind were owing to its dark- 
 ness, it would be so. But Mr. M. has himself told us 
 a different tale, and that from unquestionable au- 
 thority. " Our Lord, he says, asks the Jews, ivhf/ 
 do ye not understand my speech, and gives this reason 
 for it, even hecause ye cannot hear my word — tliat 
 is, cannot endure my doctrine." ^Vorks^ Vol. II, 
 p, 110. 
 
 Now if this be just, (and who can controvert it ?) it 
 is not easy to conceive, bow light introduced into the 
 mind, should be capable of removing carnality. It 
 is easy to conceive of the removal of an effect by 
 the removal of the cause, but not of a cause by a 
 removal of the effect. 
 
 But whatever difference may remain as to the 
 orden^ of operation, the idea of a previous principle 
 is held by Mr. M. as much as by his opponent* 
 Only call it " divine illumination, by which the 
 dark and carnal mind is rendered spiritual," and 
 he believes it. 
 
 N 2 
 
136 Re gen era i ion 
 
 In endeavouring to show the unfairness of the 
 contradiction wliich I alleged against him, Mr. M. 
 loses himself and his reader, by representing it as 
 made to the act of tfie Holy Spirit, in imparting spi- 
 ritual light to the soul while carnal; whereas that 
 which 1 alleged against him respected the act of the 
 Creature in discerning and believing spiritual things, 
 while such. If God's communicating either light 
 or holiness to a dark and carnal mind be a contra- 
 diction, it is of Mr. M.'s framing, and not mine : but 
 I see no contradiction in it, so that it be in the na- 
 tural order of things, any more than in his " quick- 
 ening us when we were dead in trespasses and sins;'* 
 which phraseology certainly does not denote that 
 we are dead and ali\c at the same time ! The con-' 
 tradiction alleged consisted in the carnal mind's 
 being supposed to act spiritualty, and not to its being" 
 acted upon by divine influence, let that influence be 
 what it might. It would be no contradiction to say 
 of Tabitha, that life was imparted to her ivhile dead : 
 but it would be contradiction to affirm, that while 
 she was dead God caused her to open her eyes, 
 and to look upon Peter ! 
 
 Mr. M'Lean has, I allow, cleared himself of this 
 contradiction, by admitting the sinner to be made 
 spiritual through divine illumination, previous to 
 his believing in Christ ; but then it is at the expence 
 of the grand article in dispute, which he has there- 
 by given up; maintaining the idea of a previous 
 
necessary to Believing, 137 
 
 principle, or of the soul's being rendered spiritual, 
 antecedent to its believing in Christ, as much as 
 his opponent. 
 
 The principal ground on which Mr. M., Mr. E., 
 and all the writers on that side the question, rest 
 their cause is, the use of such language as the fol- 
 lowing. — " Being born again, not of corruptible 
 seed, but of incorruptible, bi/ the word of God, which 
 liveth and abideth for ever." — " Of his own will be- 
 gat he us 2vit/i the word of truth." — " I have begot- 
 ten you through the gospel.'^ * 
 
 On this phraseology, I shall submit to you and the 
 reader two or three observations : — 
 
 First, a being begotten, or bo?m again by the 
 word, does not necessarily signify a being regenerat- 
 ed by faith in the word. Faith Itself is ascribed to 
 the word as well as regeneration : for " faith cometh 
 by hearing, and licaring by the word of God:" but 
 if we say faith cometh by the word believed, that is 
 the same as saying that it cometh by itself. Mr. M. 
 has no idea of the word having any influence, but 
 as it is believed : f yet he tells us, that faith is ^' the 
 effect of the regenerating influence of the Spirit and 
 word of God." % But if faith be the effect of the 
 word believed, it must be the effect of itself. The 
 truth is, the word may operate as an inducement to 
 
 * 1 Pet. i. 23.— Jam. i. 18.— 1 Cor. ir. 1.5. 
 
 t Reply, pp. 16—34. + Ibid. p. 113. 
 N 3 
 
138 Regeneration 
 
 believe, as well as a stimulus to a new life when h Is 
 believed. 
 
 Secondly, the terms regeneration, begotten, hoim 
 again, Sfc. are not always used in the same extent 
 of meaning. They sometimes denote the whole of 
 that change which denominates us christians, and 
 %vhich of course includes repentance toward God, 
 and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ ; and in this 
 sense the foregoing passages are easily understood. 
 But the question is, wliether regeneration, or those 
 terms by which it is expressed in the scriptures, 
 Such as being begotten, born again, quickened, &c. 
 be not sometimes used in a stricter sense. Mr. M, 
 confining what I had said on the subject of regene- 
 ration, as expressed by being begotten, born again, 
 i^T. to the term itself, is *^ confident it bears no such 
 meaning in the sacred writings." p, 17. But if a 
 being born again, which is expressive of regenera- 
 tion, be sometimes used to account for faith, as a 
 cause accounts for its effect, that Is all which the ar- 
 giunent requires to be estabhshed. If it be necessary 
 to be born again in order to believing, we cannot in 
 this sense, unless the effect could be the means of 
 producing the cause, be born again by believing. 
 Whetlier this be the case, let the following passages 
 determine. 
 
 John i. 11 — 13. " He came unto his own, and 
 his own received him not. But as many as received 
 him, to them gave lie power to become the sons of 
 God, evoL to them that believe on his name ; who 
 
necessary to Believing, 159 
 
 ivere born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, 
 nor of the will of man, but of God/* I can conceive 
 of no reason why the new birth is here introduced, 
 but to account for some receiving Christ, or believ- 
 ing on his name, while others received him not.— 
 Calvin appears to have ordinarily considered rege- 
 neration in the large sense as stated above, and 
 therefore speaks of it as an effect of faith. Yet when 
 commenting on this passage, perceiving that it is 
 l^re introduced to account for faith, he writes thus 
 *— **' Hereupon it follovveth, first, that faith prcceed- 
 eth not from us, but that it is a fruit of spiritual re- 
 generation, for the Evangelist saith (in effect) that no 
 man can believe unless he be begotten of God ; 
 therefore faith is an heavenly gift. Secondly, That 
 faith is not a cold and bare knov\ ledge : seeing 
 none can believe but he that is fashioned again by 
 the Spirit of God. Notwithstanding it secmeth that 
 the Evangelist dealeth disorderly in putting rege- 
 neration before faith, seeing that it is rather an effect 
 of faith, and therefore to be set after it.** To this 
 objection he answers, that " both may very well 
 agree ;" and goes on to expound the subject of re- 
 generation as sometimes denoting the producing of 
 faith itself, and sometimes of a new life by faith. 
 
 John iii. 3. " Except a man be born again he can- 
 not see the kingdom of God.*' On this passage Dr. 
 Campbell, in his notes, is very particular, prov- 
 ing tliat by the kingdom or reign of God, is meant 
 that of Messiah in this worlds and that »y IviaTtot 
 
140 Regeneration 
 
 {cayinot) denotes the incapacity of the unrej^enerate 
 to discern and believe the gospel. The import of 
 this passage is, in his appreliension, this — '' The 
 man who is not regenerated, or i)orn again of water 
 and Spirit, is not in a capacity of perceiving the 
 reign of God, thougii it were commenced. Though 
 the kingdom of the saints on the earth were already 
 established, the unregenerate would not discern 
 it, because it is a spiritual, not a worldly kingdom, 
 and capable of being no otherwise than spiritually 
 discerned. And as the kingdom itself would re- 
 main unknown to him, he could not share in the 
 blessings enjoyed by the subjects of it. — The same 
 sentiment occurs in 1 Cor. ii. 14." 
 
 1 Cor. ii. 14. " The natural man receivcth not 
 the things of the Spirit of God : for they are fool- 
 ishness unto him ; neither can he know them, be- 
 cause they are spiritually discerned.'* Mr. M. in 
 his Discourses on the Parable of the Sower, says, 
 '' It is a doctrine clearly taught in the scriptures, 
 that none have a true understanding of the gospel, 
 but such as arc taught of God by the special illu- 
 minating influences of the Holy Spirit. We are 
 expressly told, that " The natural man receiveth 
 not the things of the Spirit of God : for they are 
 foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, 
 because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. ii. 
 14. And in answering an objector who asks, " What 
 particular truth or sentiment is communicated to 
 the mind by the enlightening influence of the Ho- 
 
necessary to Believing, 141 
 
 ly Spirit, and which unenlightened men can have 
 no idea of/' Mr. M. says, " It is not pleaded tliat 
 any truth or sentiment is communicated to the 
 mind by the Spirit, besides tvhat is alreadi/ ctearh/ 
 revealed in the word; and the ilhimination of tiie 
 
 Spirit IS TO MAKE MliN PKRCEIVfi AND UNDER- 
 STAND THAT llEVELATION WHICH IS ALREADY 
 GIVEN, IN ITS TRUE LIGHT."* 
 
 Mr. M.'s object througli this whole paragraph 
 seems to be, to prove that the illuminating influ- 
 ence of the Holy Spirit is Jiecessart/ in order to our 
 understanding the scriptures ; but if so, it cannot 
 be by the scriptures as understood that we are 
 thus illuminated, for this were a contradiction. It 
 cannot be by any particular truth or sentiment, re- 
 vealed any more than unrevealed, that we possess 
 •' eyes to see, ears to hear, or a heart to under- 
 stand" it. If the illuminating influence of the 
 Holy Spirit consisted in imparting any particular 
 truth or sentiment to the mind, even that which is 
 revealed in the scriptures, where would be the 
 mystery of the operation ? Instead of being com- 
 pared to the operations of the wind, of which we 
 know nothing but by its effects, f it might have 
 been ranked among the operations of motives as 
 suggested by man to man, or at least, as put into 
 
 * Sermons, p. 78, 80, 81. 
 
 f Such is the meaning of John iii. 8. according to Campbell, 
 ftnd all other expositors that I have seen. 
 
142 Itef^eneration 
 
 h' 
 
 the mind by the providence of God so ordering It, 
 that such tlioii gilts shoukl strike and influence the 
 mind at the time. * J3ut this would not answer to 
 the scriptnral accounts of our being quickened who 
 were dead in sins, by the jwwer of God ; even by 
 *' the escceeding greatness of his power, accordhig 
 to that which he irrought in Christ , ivlien he raised 
 him from the dead.'^ 
 
 JMr. M. has taken great pains to shov/ the absur- 
 dity of my reasoning on this subject ; yet the sum 
 of it is this, That which is necessary in order to iin^ 
 derstanding and belieimig the word, cannot he by 
 means of understanding and believing it. 
 
 All true knowledge of divine things is, no doubt, 
 to be ascribed to the word as the objective causey 
 the same way as corporeal perception is ascribed to 
 light. We cannot see wittjout light; neither catr 
 we understand or believe spiritual things but by 
 the word of God. But the question does not re- 
 late to what is objective, but su])jective ; or, if I 
 might speak in reference to what is corporeal, not 
 to light, but discernment. Mr. Ecking speaks of 
 light shining into a dark room, and of tlie absur- 
 dity of supposing there must be some principles of 
 liglit in this room, which disposed it to receive that 
 which shone into it. f But if by the liglit he mean 
 the gosjjel, he should rather have compared it to 
 
 * Ezra vii, 27. 
 
necessary to Believing. 145 
 
 liglit shining upon a blind man, and have shown 
 the absurdity, if he could, of supposing it necessary 
 for his eyes to be opened ere he could discern or 
 enjoy it. There is nothing in a dark room to resist 
 the light, but that is not the case with the dark 
 soul of a sinner. " The light shineth in darkness, 
 but the darkness comprehendcth (or, as Campbell 
 renders it, admitteth) it not." 
 
 Though I cannot think with Mr. E. that the word 
 of God becomes a spiritual principle in us till it is 
 actively received, yet I allow that it is productive 
 of great effects. The understanding and con- 
 science being enlightened by it, many open sins 
 are forsaken, and many things done in a way of 
 what is called religious duty. And though I have 
 no notion of directing sinners to a course of pre- 
 vious humiliation, nor opinion of the efforts of man 
 toward preparing himself for the reception of divine 
 grace 3 yet I believe God ordinarily so deals with 
 men, as gradually to beat down their false con- 
 fidences, and reduce them to extremity, ere tliey 
 are brought to embrace the gospel. Such things 
 are not necessarily connected with faith or salvation. 
 In many instances they have their issue in mere 
 self-righteous hope ; and where it is otherwise, tliey 
 are to faith and salvation, as I have said before, but 
 as the noise and the shaking of the dry bones, to 
 the breath of life, 
 
 '!Moreover, the word of God produces still greater 
 and better effects wheii it is believed. In them that 
 
H4 Regeneration 
 
 believe ^^ it worketh effectually/' When the com- 
 mandment comes to a soul in its spirituality', it 
 gives him to perceive the exceeding sinfulness of 
 sin ; and when the gospel comes not in word only^ 
 but in power, it produces mighty effects. It is the 
 power of God unto salvation to every one that be" 
 lievefh. It operated before to the " pulling down 
 of strong holds,'* and the casting down of many a 
 vain " imagination ;'' but now it " bringeth every 
 thought into subjection to the obedience of Christ/' 
 It is thus that we '* know the truth, and the truth 
 (as known) makes us free." If once [we are ena- 
 bled to behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus 
 Christ, it changes us into the same image, begets 
 and excites holy affections, and produces every 
 kind of gracious exercise. 
 
 The gospel is the mould into which the mind of 
 the believer is cast, and by which it is formed. The 
 statement of Dr. Owen, as quoted by Mr. EcKiyc, 
 is very just and scriptural. " As the word is in the 
 gospel, so is grace in the heart ; yea, they are the 
 same things variously expressed. Rom. vi. 17. As 
 our translation doth not, so I know not how, in so 
 few words, to express that which is so emphatically 
 here insinuated by the Holy Spirit. The meaning 
 is, that the doctrine of the gospel begets the form, 
 Jii^ure^ ima;i^e, or likeness of itself in the hearts of 
 them that believe : so they are cast into the mould 
 of it. As is the one, so is the other. The princi- 
 ple of grace in the heart, and that in the word, are 
 
necessanj to Believini^. H5 
 
 as children of the same parent, completely resem- 
 bling and representing one another. Grace is a 
 living word, and the word is figured, limned grace. 
 As we have heard, so have we seen and found it ; 
 such a soul can produce the duplicate of the word, 
 and so adjust all things thereby," &c. * 
 
 All this describes the effect of the word on those 
 wJiO believe it : but the question is, how we come to 
 believe it? Dr. Owen has elsewhere attempted 
 to solve this difficulty, by proving that a principle 
 of spiritual life is communicated to the sinner in re- 
 generation, antecedent to believing. Disc, on the 
 Holy Spirit, Book HI. Chaj). 1. He doubtless 
 considered these things as consistent with each 
 other; and though Mr. Ecking, in making the quo- 
 tation, appears to consider them as contradictory, 
 yet while he admits that " we must have a spiritual 
 principle before we can discern divine beauties," 
 the same contradiction, if such it be, attaches to 
 himself. 
 
 I allow, with Dr. Owen, that the Spirit of God 
 makes use of " the reasons, motives, and persuasive 
 arguments which the word affords, to affect the 
 mind ; and that converted persons are able to give 
 som.e account* of the considerations whereby they 
 were prevailed upon." But I also think, with him^ 
 that <^ the whole work of the Spirit in our conver- 
 sion does not consist herein ; but that there is a real 
 
 »Om the I30th Psaho, pp. iGS— ITO, in £cking's Essays, 
 pp. 77—70. ' 
 
14G He generation 
 
 physical work, whereby he imparts spiritual life t« 
 the souls of all who are truly regenerated." On 
 the Spirit, Book III. Chap, 5. Sec, 18. 
 
 Mr. M'Lean rejects the idea of phi/sical infiu'-* 
 ence, and seems to confound it with something cor- 
 poreal or mechanical. * If I understand the term 
 2)hysiccd with respect to influence, it is opposed to 
 moral. That influence is denominated moral, that 
 works upon the mind by motives, or considerations 
 which induce it to this or that ; and all beyond this 
 is physical and supernatural. When God cre- 
 ated the soul of man, originally, in righteousness 
 and true holiness, I suppose it must be allowed to 
 have been a physical work. Man certainly was 
 not induced by motives to be righteous any more 
 ihan to be rational ; yet there was nothing coi*poreal 
 or mechanical in It. It is thus that I understand Dr. 
 Owen in the passage just quoted, in which, while 
 he admits of the use of moral suasion, he denies 
 that the ivhole work of conversion consists in it ; and 
 I should think Mr. M. could not, even upon his 
 own principles, maintain the contrary. For what- 
 ever motives or considerations the word of God may 
 furnish in a way of moral suftsion, yet he holds with 
 the necessity of a divine supernatural influence 
 being superadded to it, by which tlie mind is illu- 
 minated, and rendered spiritual. But if divine in- 
 fluence consist in any thing distinct from the 
 
 * Works, p. 84. 
 
necessanj to Believing » 147 
 
 influence of the word, it must l;>c supernatural and 
 physical. The party is also equally unconscious 
 of it on his principles as on mine : he is conscious 
 of nothing but its effects. He finds hitns^;lf the 
 subject of new views and sensations ; but as to 
 knowing whence they came, it is likely he thinks 
 nothing of It at the time, and is ready to imagine 
 that any person, if he would but look into the Bible, 
 must see what he sees so plainly taught in it. He 
 may be conscious of ideas suggested to him by the 
 word, and of their effect upon his mind ; but as to 
 any divine influence accompanying them^ he knows 
 nothing of it. 
 
 Mr. EcKiNG represents ^' the inability or spiritual 
 death of sinners as consistufg in diainclmation., or 
 loving darkness rather than ligiit." And this dis- 
 inclination he ascribes to ignorance and unbelief ; 
 from whence he argues, ^' If the removal of the ef- 
 fect is by removing the cause, it is reasonable to 
 suppose, that this is the way in which God works 
 upon the human mind." jt>. 6*6. That the removal 
 of the effect is by the removal of the cause, I al- 
 low ; but what authority had Mr. E. for making ig- 
 norance and unbelief the cause of spiritual death ? 
 Spiritual death consists in ignorance and unbelief, 
 no less than in disinclination. It consists in si}ij* 
 and if ignorance and unbelief are sins, they are of 
 the essence of spiritual death. It is true they are 
 
 • Epli. ii. I, 
 02 
 
1 IS llegcneration 
 
 productive of other sins, and may be considered as 
 growing near to the root of moral evil : hut unless 
 a thing can be the cause of itself, they are not the 
 cause of all evil. — Before we ascribe spiritual death 
 to ignorance, it is necessary to inquire whether this 
 ignorance be voluntary, or involuntary ? If invo" 
 luntmy, it is in itself sinless, and to represent this 
 as the cause of depravity, is to join with GoDVViX 
 in explaining away all innate principles of evil, and 
 indeed all moral evil and accountableness from 
 among men. If voluntary^ the solution does not 
 reacli the bottom of the subject; for the question - 
 still returns, what is the cause of the voluntariness 
 of ignorance, or of the sinner's loving darkness ra- 
 ther than light ? Is this also to be ascribed to igno- 
 rance ? If so, the same consequence follows as 
 before, that there is no such thing as moral evil 
 or accountableness among men. 
 
 Mr. M'Lean has stated this subject much clear- 
 er than Mr. Ecking. He may elsewhere have 
 written in a difTcrent strain, but in the last edition 
 of his Dissertation on the influences of the Holy 
 Spirit, he attributes ignorance and unbelief to ha- 
 tred, and not hatred to ignorance and unbelief. 
 " Our Loid (he says) asks the Jews, ichy do ye not 
 understand my speech '^ And gives this reason for 
 it, even hecanse ye cannot hear my word — that is, 
 cannot endure my doctrine. Their love of world- 
 ly honour, aud the applause of men, is given as a 
 reason why they could not believe in him. John 
 
necessary to Believing, 149 
 
 V. 44. He traces their unbelief into their hatred 
 both of him and his father." John xv. 22, 24. * 
 
 Nothing is more evident, than that the cause of 
 spiritual blindness is in the scriptures ascribed to 
 disposition. " Light is come into the world ; but 
 men love darkness rather than light, because their 
 deeds are evil. — They say unto God, depart from 
 us, for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways. — 
 Being alienated from the life of God, through 
 the ignorance that is in them, because of thk 
 BLINDNESS, {hardfiess or callousness,) of their 
 HEART. — Why do ye not understand my speech ? 
 even because ye cannot hear my word." f But 
 if, as Mr. M'Lean acknowledges, the cause of 
 both ignorance and unbelief is to be traced to ha- 
 tred ; and if, as Mr. Eckinc says, " effects are 
 removed by the removal of the cause," I scarcely 
 need to draw the consequence — that though in 
 a general sense it be true that we are regenerated 
 bi/ believing the gospel, yet in a more particular 
 sense it is equally tme, that we are regenerated lA 
 (n'der to it. 
 
 It is somewhat extraordinary that Mr. McLean, 
 after allowing pride and aversion to be the great ob- 
 structions to faith, should yet deny the removal of 
 them to be necessary to it. He will allow some sort 
 of conviction of sin to be necessary to believing in 
 
 ♦Works, Vol. II. p. 110. 
 
 ■f John iii. 19. — Job xxi, 14. — Eph. iv, 18. — Jobn viii. 43. 
 
 o3 
 
150 Regeneration^ S^c, 
 
 Christ; but nothing that includes the removal of 
 enmity or pride, for this were equal to allowing re- 
 pentance to be necessary to it : but if enmity and 
 pride be not removed, how can the sinner, ac" 
 cording to our Lord's reasoning in John viii. 43, v. 
 44, understand or believe the gospel ? If there be 
 any meaning in words, it is supposed by this lan- 
 guage, that in order to understand and believe the 
 gospel, it is necessary to " endure" the doctrine, 
 and to feel a regard to " the honour that cometh 
 from God." To account for the removal of pride 
 and enmity as bars to believing by means of believ- 
 ing, is, I say, very extraordinary, and as inconsistent 
 with his own concessions as it is with scripture and 
 reason : for when writing on spiritual illumination, he 
 allows the dark and carnal mind to be thereby ren- 
 dered spiritual, and so enabled to discern and be- 
 lieve spiritual things. * 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 * Reply, p. 7. 
 
151 
 
 LETTER VIIT. 
 
 AN INQUIRY, WHETHER THE PRINCIPLES HERS 
 DEFENDED AFFECT THB DOCTRINE OF FREE 
 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH IN THE RIGHTEOUS- 
 NESS OF CHRIST. 
 
 My dear Friend^ 
 
 You are aware that this subject has fre- 
 quently occurred in the foregoing letters; but be- 
 ing of the first importance, I wish to appropriate 
 one letter wholly to it. If any thing I have ad- 
 vanced be inconsistent with justification by faith 
 alone, in opposition to justification by the works of 
 the law, 1 am not aware of it; and on conviction 
 that it is so, should feel it my duty to retract it. I 
 know Mr. M'Lean has laboured hard to substanti- 
 ate this charge against me ; but I know also, that it 
 belongs to the adherents of the system * to claim 
 
 * I do not mean to suggest that Mr. M*Lean's system is precise- 
 ly that of Mr. Sandeman. The former, in his '* Thoughts on the 
 Calls of the Gospel," has certainly departed from it in many things, 
 particularly in respect of the sinner's being justified antecedent to 
 any " act, exercise, or advance" of his mind toward Christy and oa 
 
152 0)1 Justification, 
 
 the exclusive possession of this doctrine, and to 
 charge others with error concerning it on very in- 
 sufficient grounds. You may remember, perhaps, 
 that Dr. Gill was accused of self-righteousness 
 by Mr, Sandeman, on the ground of his being an 
 anti-paedobaptist ! 
 
 A large part of that which Mr. McLean has 
 written on this subject, is what I never meant to 
 oppose ; much of what he imputes to me is without 
 foundation ; and even w here my sentiments are 
 introduced, they are generally in caricature. 
 
 I have no doubt of the character which a sinner 
 sustains antecedent to his justification, both in the 
 account of the Lawgiver of the world, and in his 
 own account, being that of ungodly, I have na 
 objection to Mr. M.'s own statement, that God 
 may as properly be said to justify the ungodly, as 
 to pardon the guilty. If the sinner at the instant 
 of justification be allowed not to be at enmity ivith 
 God, that is all I contend for ; and that is in effect 
 allowed by Mr. M. He acknowledges, that the 
 apostle " does not use the word ungodly to describe 
 the existing character of an actual believer.^' f But 
 if so, as no man is justified till he is an actual 
 
 tvhjch account Mr. S. would have set him down amonj^ the popular 
 preachers.* But he has so much of the system of Mr. S. still 
 in his mind, as often to reason upon the ground of it, and to 
 involve himself in numerous inconsistencies. 
 
 * See Letters on Ther, and Asp. vol. II. p. 481, Note. 
 
 t Reply; P« 123. 
 
On Jiistifimtion . 155 
 
 believer, no man Is justified in enmity to God. 
 He also considers faith, justification, and sancti- 
 fication as coeval, and allows tliat no believer is 
 in a state of enmity to God.* It follows, that as 
 no man is justified till he believes in Jesus, no 
 man is justified till he ceases to be God's enemy. 
 If this be granted, all is granted for which I 
 contend. 
 
 If there be any meaning in words, Mr. Sande- 
 MAN considered the term ungodly as denoting the 
 €,risfmg state of mind in a believer, at the time of 
 his justification : for he professes to have been at 
 enmity with God, or, which is the same thing, not 
 to have " begim to love liim," till he was justified, 
 and even perceived that he was so.f It was this 
 notion that I wished to oppose, and not any thing 
 relative to the character under which the sinner is 
 justified. Mr. M.'s third question, namely, " Whe- 
 ther justifying faith respects God as the justifier 
 of the ungodly?" was never any question with me. 
 Yet he will have It, that I " make the apostle by 
 the term ungodly to mean godly." He might as 
 well say, that when I allow pardon to respect men 
 as guilty, and yet plead for repentance as neces- 
 sary to it. I make repentance and guilt to be the 
 saiBp tiling. 
 
 I am not aware of any difference with Mr. M. 
 as to what constitutes a godly character. Though 
 
 * Reply, p. 43. f Epis. Cor. p. 12. 
 
154 On Justification, 
 
 faith is necessary to justification^ and tlicrefore, ift 
 the order of nature, previous to it, yet I have no 
 objection to what he says, that it does not consti- 
 tute a godly character or 5^ff/e previous to justifica- 
 tion.* And whatever I have written of repentance 
 as preceding faith in Christ, or of a holy faith as 
 necessary to justification, I do not consider any 
 person as a penitent or holy character, till he be- 
 lieves in Christ, and is justified. The holiness for 
 which I plead antecedent to this, is merely incipi- 
 ent 5 the rising beam of the sanctification of tlie 
 Spirit. It is no more than the spirituality which 
 Mr. M. considers as produced by divine illumina- 
 tion, previous, or in order to believing ;t and all 
 the consequences that he has charged on the one^ 
 might with equal justice be charged on the other. 
 
 Nor am I aware of any difference in our views 
 respecting the duties of unbelievers : if there be any 
 however, it is not on the side that Mr. M. ima- 
 gines, but the contraiy. Having described the 
 awakened sinner as " convinced of guilt, distressed 
 in his mind on account of it, really concerned 
 about the salvation of his soul, and not only ear- 
 nestly desiring relief, but diligently labouring to 
 obtain it, according to the directions given him, 
 by the exercise of holy affections and (iispositions,** 
 he adds, " All this I admit may be previous to faith 
 la Christ, and forgiveness through him. And will 
 
 • Reply, p. 145. f I^i^l* P- 7. 
 
On Justification, 15$ 
 
 lilr. Fuller de^iy this is the repentance he pleads 
 for in order to forgiveness f" * Most certainly 
 HE will. Had this been what he pleaded for, 
 he had been justly chargeable with the conse- 
 quences which Mr. M'Lean has attempted to load 
 him with. But it is not. I cannot but consider this 
 question as a proof that Mr. M. utterly mistook 
 my sentiments on this part of the subject, as much 
 as I did his in another, in consequence of having 
 considered him as the author of a piece called Sim^ 
 pie Tndh. I have no more idea of there being 
 any holiness in the exercises which he has described, 
 than he himself has. I might add, nor quite so 
 much : for notwithstanding what he has here ad- 
 vanced, in hL Thoughts on the Calls of the Gos- 
 pel he does not keep clear of unregenerate works 
 being somewhat good, or at least that they are not 
 all and altogether sinful, f If this be compared 
 with what I have written on total depravity in 
 Essays, p, 54-81, it will be seen who holds, and 
 w^ho holds not, with the holiness of the doings of 
 the imregenerate. 
 
 But whether I deny this to be the repentance 
 which I plead for as necessary to forgiveness, or 
 not, Mr. M. plainly intimates that it is all the re- 
 pentance which he allows to he so, U\ all that he 
 lias written therefore, acknowledging repentance to be 
 
 * Reply, p. 148. f See vol. II. of his Works, p. 63, 64. 
 
156 On Justification* 
 
 necessary to forgiveness^ * he only means to allo\f 
 that a few graceless convictions are so : and in con- 
 tradiction to the whole current of scripture^ even 
 to those scriptures which he has produced and rea- 
 soned from, in his Thoughts on the Calls of the 
 Gospel, still helieves that sinners are forgiven prior 
 to any repentance but that which needs to be repent- 
 ed of. 
 
 The difference between us, as to the subject of 
 this letter, seems chiefly to respect the nature of 
 faith, whether it include any exercise of the willj 
 and if it do, whether it affect the doctrine of free 
 justification. 
 
 Mr. M. acknowledges faith as a principle of sanc- 
 tification to be holy : it is only as jtMifying that 
 he is for excluding all holy affection from it. f But 
 if it be holy in relation to sanctification, it must 
 be holy in itself ; and that which is holy in itself, 
 must be so in every relation which it sustains. It 
 is not one kind of faith that sanctifies, and ano- 
 ther that justifies; but the same thing in different 
 respects. To represent faith sanctifying as being 
 holy, and faith justifying as having no holiness in 
 it, is not viewing the same, but a different thing in 
 different respects. 
 
 For a specimen of Mr. M.'s manner of writing 
 on this subject, you will excuse my copying as 
 
 * Reply, pp. 36—42. f Ibid. p. 97. 
 
On J'ustification, 157 
 
 Ibllows ; — ^^ An awakened sinner asks, what nmst I 
 do to be saved ? An apostle answers, believe hi the 
 Lord Jesus CJirist, and thou shalt be saved. But 
 a prcaclier of the doctrine I am opposing, would 
 have taught him another lesson. He might indeed, 
 in compliance with scripture language, use the word 
 believe; but he would tell him, that in this case it 
 did not bear its usual sense ; that it was not the assent 
 of his understanding, in giving credit to the testi- 
 mony of the gospel, but a grace arising from a ^/r^* 
 vious spiritual principle, and including in it a num- 
 ber of holy affections and dispositions of heart, all 
 which he must exercise and set a working, in order 
 to his being justified; and many directions will be 
 given him how he is to perform this. But this is to 
 destroy the freedom of the gospel, and to make the 
 hope of a sinner turn upon his finding some virtuous 
 exercises and dispositions in his own heart, instead of 
 placing it directly in the work finished by the Son of 
 God upon the cross. In opposition to this, I main- 
 tain that whatever virtue or holiness may be supposed 
 in the nature of faith itself, as it is not the ground 
 of a sinner's justification in the sight of God, sp 
 neither does it enter into the consideration of the 
 person who is really believing unto righteousness. 
 He views himself not as exercising virtue, but only 
 as a mere sinner, while he believes on him that 
 justifietli the ungodly, through the atonement." 
 •pp. 98, 99. 
 
15S On Justification, 
 
 You will not expect me to answer this. It is a 
 proof how far a writer may misunderstand, and so 
 misrepresent his opponent; and even in those 
 things wherein he understands him, descrihe him 
 in caricature. I will only apply a few of the lead- 
 ing traits in this picture, to Mr. M.'s own principles. 
 — " A preacher of this doctrine, Instead of directing 
 a sinner to believe in Christ, and there leaving It, 
 would tell him, that faith was an assent of his tinder- 
 standijig, a grace arising from a previous divine illu- 
 mination, by which he becomes spiritual^ and which 
 he must therefore first be possessed of, and thus 
 set him a working in order to get it, that he may be 
 justified. But this is to deny the freeness of the 
 gospel, and to make the hope of a sinner turn upon 
 his finding some light ivithin him, instead of placing 
 it upon the finlslied work of the Son of God upon 
 the cross. In opposition to this, I maintain that 
 whatever illumination may be supposed necessary 
 to believing, and whatever spiritual perception is 
 contained In the nature of it, as it is not the ground 
 of a sinner's justification in the sight of God, so nei- 
 ther does It enter into the consideration of the per- 
 son who is really believing unto righteousness. He 
 views himself not as divinely illuminated, but mere- 
 ly as a sinner, helleving In him who justlfieth the 
 ungodly, through the righteousness of his Son.'* 
 
 Mr. M., when writing in this strain, knew that I 
 ^lad said nearly the same things; and therefore 
 
On Justlficatmi, 159 
 
 that if he were opposing me, I had first opposed 
 myself. He even quotes ahnost a page of my ae- 
 knowledgnnents on the subject. * But these are 
 tilings, it seems, which I only " sometimes seem to 
 hold.'* Well, if Mr. M. can prove, that I have anif 
 where, either in the piece he was answering, or in 
 any other, directed the sinner's attention to the w^ork- 
 ings of his own mind, instead of Christ, or have 
 set him a ivorking, (unless he please to give that 
 name to an exhortation to forsake his way, and re- 
 turn to God, through Jesus Christ,) or have given 
 him any directions how to work himself into a be- 
 lieving frame; then let all that he has said stand 
 against me. Cut if not, let me be believed v/hen 
 I declare my utter disapprobation of every thing of 
 the kind. 
 
 But Mr. M. has another charge, or rather sicspi- 
 cion against me. " Mr. Fuller admits (he says) 
 that faith does not justify, either as an infernal or 
 external work, or holy ejccrcise, or as being any 
 part of that which is imputed unto us for righteous- 
 ness ; and did not other parts of his writings appear 
 to clash with this, — I should rest satisfied. But 1 own 
 that I am not without a suspicion, that Mr. F. here 
 only means, that faith does not justify as the procur- 
 ing cause or meritorious ground of a sinner's justi- 
 fication ; and that while we hold this point, we may 
 include as much virtue and holy exercise of the will 
 
 * Reply, p. 100. 
 
 r 2 
 
1 GO - On Justificatiofu 
 
 and affections as we please, without affecting the 
 point of justification^ as that stands entirely upon 
 another ground, viz. the righteousness of Christ.-^ 
 But it must be carefully observed, that the differ- 
 ence between us does not rrsj^ect the meritorious 
 procuring cause of justification, but the ivay in 
 which we receive it." * — 
 
 Be it according to this statement, (and I have no 
 objection to say that such is the whole of my mean- 
 ing,) yet what is there in this that clashes with the 
 above acknowledgments, or with free justification? 
 There may be a ^^ difference between us,'* which 
 yet may not affect this doctrine. But let us hear 
 him through, — 
 
 '* The scriptures abundantly testify that we are 
 justified hy faith^ which shows that faith has some 
 concern in this matter." True.-—" And Mr. Ful- 
 ler admits, that justification is ascribed to faith, 
 merely as that which unites to Christ, for the sake 
 of whose righteousness alone, we are accepted." 
 Very good. " Therefore, the only question be- 
 tween us is this : Does faith unite us to Christ, and 
 so receive justification through his righteousness, 
 merely in crediting the divine testimony respecting 
 the sufficiency of that righteousness alone to jus- 
 tify us ; or does it unite us to Christ, and obtain 
 justification through his righteousness, by virtue of 
 its being a inoi'al excellency, and as including the 
 
On Justification, 161 
 
 JioJp exercise of the will and affections ? The for- 
 mer is my view of this matter ; the latter, if I am 
 not greatly mistaken, is Mr. Fuller's." ^a 101. 
 
 It is some satisfaction to find our differences on 
 the important doctrine of Justification reduced 
 to a single point. Allowing my sentiments to he 
 fairly stated, and though 1 should not express them 
 just in these words, yet I certainly do consider a 
 holy faith as necessary to unite us to a holy Saviour, 
 the question is, whether this sentiment clashes with 
 the foregoing acknowledgments, or with the doc- 
 trine of free justification ? It lies on Mr. M. to 
 prove that it does so. Let us hear him. — " I hold 
 that sinners are justified through Christ's rigliteous- 
 ness, hy faith cdo7ie, or purely in believing that the 
 righteousness of Christ, which he finished on the 
 cross, and which was declared to be accepted by his 
 resurrection from the dead, is alone sufficient for 
 their pardon and acceptance with God, however 
 guilty and unworthy they arc. But in opposition 
 to this, the whole strain of Mr. Fuller's reasoning 
 tends to show, that sinners are not justified by faith 
 alone, but by faith working by love, or including in 
 it the holy exercise of the will and affections ; and 
 this addition to faith he makes to be that qualifica- 
 tion in it, on which the fitness or congruity of an 
 interest in Christ's righteousness depends, (^y;. /.'. 
 183, 184.) Without this addition, he considers 
 faith itself, whatever be its grounds or object, to he 
 an empty unholy, speculation, which requires no in- 
 
 p3 
 
162 On Justification, 
 
 fluence of the Spirit to produce it. {p. 128.) So 
 that if what is properly termed faith, has^ in his 
 opinion, any place at all in justification, it must be 
 merely on account of the holy exercises and af- 
 fections which attend It." pp. 101, 102. 
 
 Such is Mr. M/s proof oi my inconsistency with 
 my own acknowledgments, and with the freeness 
 of justification. 
 
 Let it be remembered. In the first place, that the 
 difference between us, by Mr. M.'s own acknow- 
 ledgment, does not respect the 7neritorious or pro- 
 curing cause of justification. All he says, therefore, 
 of '*^ the righteousness of Christ as finished, and de- 
 clared to be accepted by his resurrection from tlie 
 dead, being alone suiBcient for our pardon and ac- 
 ceptance with God, however guilty and unworthy 
 we are," belongs equally to my views, as to his 
 own : yet immediately after these words, he says, 
 " but in opposition to this, Mr. F. &c." as if these 
 •sentiments were exclusively his own. The differ- 
 ence between us, belongs to the nature of justify- 
 ing faith. He considers the sinner as united to 
 Christ, and so as justifies!, by the mere assent of 
 Ills understanding to the doctrine of the cross, ex- 
 clusive of all approbation of it : whereas 1 consider 
 every thing pertaining to the understanding (when 
 the term is used exclusive of approbation,) to be 
 either merely natural, or a ^' seeing and hating of 
 Christ, and the Father." Nor is approbation a 
 mere effect of faith, but enters into its essence : 
 
On Justification, 163 
 
 it IS believing, ])ut it is believing with the heart ; 
 which all the labours of Mr. Sandeman and his 
 disciples have not been able to prove means only 
 the understanding. We may believe many things 
 without approving them : but the nature of the ob- 
 jects believed, in this case, renders cordiality essen- 
 tial to it. It is impossible, in the nature of things, to 
 believe the gospel without a sense of the exceed- 
 ing sinfulness of sin, and of the suitableness and 
 glory of the Saviour, which does not merely producey 
 but includes approbation of him. To '^ see no form 
 nor comeliness in him," is the same thing as to be 
 an unbeliever; and the contrary is to be a believer. 
 
 But I shall notice these remarks of Mr. M. a 
 little more particularly. — 
 
 First, By the manner in which he has introduced 
 them, it must appear to the reader, that I had not 
 fully declared my mind on this subject, and that 
 Mr. M. in detecting my errors, was obliged to pro- 
 ceed on the uncertain ground of " suspicion :" yet 
 he could not have read the very pages on which he 
 Was animadverting, * without having repeatedly 
 met with the most express avowals of the senti- 
 ment; such as the following — '^ Whatever is plead- 
 ed in behalf of the holy nature of faith, it is not 
 supposed to justify us as a ivork^ or holy exercise, 
 or as being ani/ part of that which is accounted 
 unto us for righteousness ; but merely as that 
 which UNITES TO CHRIST, for the sake of whose 
 
 * Appendix, pp. 182 — 184. 
 
164 On Justification, 
 
 rigliteousness alone we are accepted." — Again, 
 *' Living faith, or faith that vvorketh hy love, is 
 necessary to justification, not as being the ground 
 of our acceptance with God; not as a virtue of 
 which justification is the reward ; but as that with- 
 out which lue could not he united to a living 
 REDEEMER." Yet witli thcsc passages before his 
 eyes, Mr. M. affects to be at a loss to know my sen- 
 timents ; he " suspects" I maintain holy affection 
 in fjiith as necessary to union with Christ ! 
 
 Secondly, If the difference between us has no 
 respect to the meritorious or procuriiig cause of 
 justification, as Mr. M. allows it has not, then wliy 
 does he elsewhere tell his reader, that " he thinks 
 Mr. F. means to plead for such a moral fitness for 
 justification, as that wherein the virtue of the party 
 commends him to it ; or in which he is put into a 
 good state, as a fit or suitable testimony of regard 
 to the moral excellency of his qualifications or 
 acts.^' p, lOA, I know not what Mr. M. may think, 
 but I should consider this as making faith the pro- 
 curing cause or meritorious ground of justification : 
 for what is the meritorious groimd of a blessing, but 
 that in consideration of which it is bestowed I 
 
 Thirdly, If it is not sufficient that we ascribe 
 the meritorious or procuring cause of justification 
 to the work of Christ, unless we also exclude all 
 holy affection from the nature of faith, as uniting 
 \is to him, how is it that Mr. M. has written as he 
 has on the Calls of the Gospel ? He seems to have 
 
On Justification, 165 
 
 thought it quite enough for hhn to disavow repent- 
 ance or faith as making any part of our justifying 
 righteousness, though the same disavowal on wy 
 part gives him no satisfaction. " Did Peter (he 
 asks) overturn the doctrine of free justification by 
 faith, when he exhorted the unbelieving Jews to re- 
 pent and be converted, that tlieir sins might be 
 blotted out? Does he there direct them to anjf 
 ^art of that work ivhich Christ had Jinished for 
 the justification of the ungodly^ or lead them to 
 think that their faith, repentance, or conversion were 
 to make an atonement for their sins T' Again, 
 " Cannot the wicked be exhorted to believe, re- 
 pent, and seek the Lord, and be encouraged to 
 tliis by a promise of success, without making the 
 success to depend on human merit f Are such 
 exhortations and promises always to be suspected 
 of having a dangerous and self-righteous tenden- 
 cy ? Instead of taking them in their plain and 
 simple sense, must our main care always be to 
 guard against some supposed self-righteous use of 
 them, till we have explained away their whole force 
 and spirit, and so distinguished and refined upon 
 them, as to make men more afraid to comply with 
 than to reject them, lest tliey should be gui'ti/ of 
 some cxei^tion of mind or hodi/, some good disposU 
 tion or motion toward Christ, which is supposed to 
 be the highest wickedness, and a desjiising of the 
 ivork of Christ V * 
 
 * See Works, Vol 11. pp. 38. 55, 56. 
 
165 071 Justification, 
 
 If there be any meaning hi words, M. M. her* 
 most decidedly contends for repentance, faith, and 
 conversion, which must be allowed to include holy 
 affection, being necessary, in the established order 
 of things, to mercy, pardon, &c. which must also be 
 allowed to include justification. 
 
 Fourthly, With respect to fitness, I thinlf, with 
 Mr. M. that there is a '' peculiar suitableness ia 
 faith to receive justification, and every other spi- 
 ritual blessing, purely of grace.'' p, lOG. It is of 
 faith that it inight he of grace. And this peculiar 
 suitableness consists in its being of the nature of 
 faith, to receive the blessings of grace as God's free 
 gifts through the atonement, instead of perform- 
 ing any thing in the way of being rewarded for it. 
 Thus it is properly opposed to the works of the 
 law. But it does not follow, that in order to this 
 there must be no " good disposition or motion 
 toward Christ," in our believing in him. On the 
 contrary, if faith were mere knowledge, exclusive 
 of approbation, it would not be adapted to receive 
 the doctrine of the gospel ; it would be either un- 
 holy, or at best merely natural. If the former, 
 instead of receiving, it would be certain to reject 
 the heavenly doctrine ; and if the latter, there 
 would be no more suitableness to receive it, than 
 there is in the wisdom of this world to receive the 
 true knowledge of God. A holy faith is necessary 
 to receive a holy docttine^j and so to unite us to a 
 holy Saviour. 
 
On Justification. 16/ 
 
 The fitness tliat I plead for in God's justifying 
 those, who cordially acquiesce in the gospel way 
 of salvation, rather than others, and which Mr. M. 
 considers as inconsistent with free justification, 
 {Reptf/, p. 103.) is no other than the fitness of 
 wisdom, which, while it preserves the honours of 
 grace, is not inattentive to those of righteousness. 
 Had it been said, Though the wicked forsake 7iot 
 his way, nor the unrighteous man his thoughts ; 
 and though he return not to the Lord, yet will he 
 have mercy upon him, nor to our God, yet will he 
 abundantly pardon — we should feel a want of fit- 
 ness, and instantly perceive, that grace was here 
 exalted at the expcnce of righteousness. He that 
 can discern no fitness in such connections but that 
 of ivorks and rewards, must have yet to learn some 
 of the first principles of the oracles of God. 
 
 Fifthly, With respect to justification hi/ faith 
 alone, Mr. M. appears to have affixed a new sense 
 to the phrase. I have always understood it to mean 
 justification by a righteousness received, in opposi- 
 tion to justification by a righteousness performed, 
 according to Gal. iii. 11, 12. *' That no man is 
 justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evi- 
 dent : for the just shall live hy faith. And the 
 law is not of faith : but the man that docth them 
 shall live in them." In this sense, justification by 
 faith alone applies to my views of the subject as well 
 as his : but the sense in which he uses the phrase 
 is very nearly akin to that in which James uses it 
 
168 On Justification.. 
 
 when speaking of faith as " dead, being alone.^ 
 We are indeed justified by faith alone ^ but not 
 by a faith which is alone, 
 
 Mr. M. is in the habit of speaking of that holi« 
 ness which I conceive essential to the nature of 
 faitli, as something " added" to it, or as being 
 something '' more" than faith : but he might as 
 well say that a cordial rejection of the gospel is 
 something " more" than unbelief. In like man* 
 ner, he seems to consider the phrase, faith ivhick 
 worketh hy love, as expressive of what faith pro- 
 duces posterior to its uniting us to Christ : whereas 
 it is of the nature of faith, in its very first existence 
 in the mind, to work, and that in a way of love to 
 the object. It is also remarkable, that Paul speaks 
 of faith which worketh hy love as availing to justifi- 
 cation ; while circumcision or uncircumcision avail- 
 ed nothing. * Faith, hope, and charity have, no 
 doubt, their distinctive characters; but not one of 
 them, nor of any other grace, consists in its be- 
 ing devoid of holy affection. This is a common 
 property belonging to all the graces, is coeval with 
 them, and essential to them. Whatever we may 
 possess, call it knowledge, or faith, or what we 
 may, if it be devoid of this, it is not the effect of 
 special divine influence, and therefore not a fruit 
 of the Spirit. " That which is born of the Spirit 
 is Spirit," 
 
 * Gal. r.e. 
 
Oh Jnstijication, 169 
 
 Lastly, If union with Christ were antecedent 
 Co all holy aftection, it would not be what the 
 scriptures represent it; namely, an union of spirit. 
 ^' He that is joined to the Lord is one sjmitJ'* 
 Union of spirit must include congeniality of dis- 
 position. Our heart must be as Christ's heart, ot 
 we are not one with him. Believing in him with 
 all the heart, we from hence, according to the wise 
 and gracious constitution of the gospel, and not irt 
 reward of any holiness in us, possess a revealed in- 
 terest in him, and in all the benefits arising from 
 his obedience unto death. He that hath the So7t 
 hath life. Such appears to be the order of things 
 as taught us in the scriptures, and such the connec- 
 tion between faith and justification. If union with 
 Christ were acquired by faith, and an interest in 
 him were bestowed in reiuard of it, it would indeed- 
 be inconsistent with free justification : but if the ne» 
 cessity of a holy faith arise merely from the nature 
 of things; that is, its fitness to unite us to a holy 
 Saviour ; and if faith itself be the gift of God, no 
 «uch consequence follows : for the union, though 
 we be active in it, is in reality formed by him who 
 actuates us, and to him belongs the praise. Of 
 II iM are ye in Christ J^esiis, icho of God is made unto 
 us nnsdotn, and righteousness, and sanctification, an4 
 redemption : that, according as it is written. Hi 
 
 THAT GLORIETII, LET HIM GLORY IN THE LOUD.'}- 
 
 «. 1 Cor. Yi. U. t 1 Cor. i. 30, 31. 
 
 a 
 
17^ On Justification. 
 
 Mr. M. has written much about God's justifying' 
 the iingodly ; but while he allows that the term is 
 not descn[)tive of the existing character of a believ- 
 er, I have no dispute with him. He admits that 
 when Christ is said to die for the loiiiodli/, the term 
 includes many who at the time were saints, only he 
 died not for them as saints ; {p. 115.) and this I 
 readily allow. The examples of Abraham and 
 David were not introduced by me to prove them 
 to have been godly characters for many years prior 
 to their justification ; but that the examples of their 
 faith being taken not from their first believing, 
 while yet it respected God as the justifier of the 
 ungodly, the doctrine of free justification could not 
 require that the party should at the time be at en- 
 mity with God. * 
 
 Mr. M. has also written much about the state of 
 (m awakened sinner. As he had disowned his being 
 the subject of any holy affection, I concluded he 
 must be " an hard-hearted enemy of God." This 
 was stated not from a want of feeling toward any 
 poor sinner, but to show whither the principle led. 
 Mr. M. answers : — " I have not the least idea that a 
 hard-hearted enemy of God, while such, can either 
 receive or enjoy forgiveness ; but I distinguish 
 between such a state of mind, and that of an 
 avyakcned self-condemned sinner; and also between 
 
 ♦ On this subject I beg leave to refer the reader to Discourse 
 XXU. of nay work on Genesis. 
 
(hi Just ijicat ion. i7l 
 
 the latter, and a real eonvert who believes tlie gos- 
 pel, has tasted that the Lord is graeious, and is pos- 
 sessed of holy affections." p. 151. Is there a 
 medium then between holy affection and hard- 
 hearted enmity ? If so, it must be something like 
 neutrality. But Christ has left no room for this, 
 having declared, " He that is not with me is against 
 me.^' Let a sinner be alarmed as much as he may, 
 if he have no holy affection toward God, he must 
 be a hard-hearted enemy to him. Such, I believe, 
 are many awakened sinners, notwithstanding all 
 their terrors, and such they will view themselves 
 to have been, if ever they come to see things as 
 they are. There are others, however, who are not 
 so, but whose convictions are spiritual, like those 
 of Paul, who saw " sin, through the commandment, 
 to be exceeding sinful,'* and who " through the 
 law became dead to the law, that he might live unto 
 God." Convictions of this kind lead the sinner 
 to Christ. They may not be distinguishable at 
 the time, either by himself or others, and nothing 
 but the effects may prove the difference : yet an 
 essential difference there is. 
 
 Mr. M. refers to the case of the jailor. I know 
 not what was his conviction of the evil of sin, nor 
 when he became the subject of holy affection. 
 But be it when it might, he was till then an hard- 
 hearted enemy of God. The case to which wri- 
 ters on Mr. M.'s side the question more frequent- 
 ly refer, is, that of the self-condemned publican; 
 
 Q 2 
 
17- -On Juslification. 
 
 but antecedent to liis goin^ down to his house jus-- 
 tified, he " humbled himself," and that in a way 
 oi holy though not oijot/ful afFectlon. 
 
 According to Mr. M. there is a state of mind 
 which is not the eltect of renewing grace, and there- 
 fore contains nothing truly good, but wliich is ne- 
 vertheless necessari/, and sufficient to prepare the 
 sinner for receiving the forgiveness of his sin. A 
 hard-hearted enemy of God cannot receive or en- 
 joy gospel forgiveness; but a sinner under terrors 
 of conscience, though equally destitute of all re- 
 gard for God as the other, can. 
 
 Far be it from me to impeach Mr. M.'s integrity. 
 I doubt not but he thinks, that in writing his Reply 
 he was engaged in refuting error. Yet if his own 
 words are to be believed, he does not know, after 
 all, but that he has been opposing the truth. 
 <* Whether such convictions as issue in conversion 
 differ in kind from others, (he says,) 1 will not 
 
 TAKE UPON ME TO DETERMINE." J3. 151. That is, 
 
 he does not know but that it may be so, and that 
 there is such a thing as spiritual conviction, a con- 
 viction of the evil of sin, antecedent to believing in 
 the Saviour, and subservient to it. But this is the 
 same in effect as saying, he does not know whether 
 that ^^hich he has been opposing throughout his 
 performance, may not, after all, be true ! " But \ 
 am certain of this, (he adds,) that it would be very 
 unsafe to build up any in an opinion of their pos- 
 sessing holiness, merely upon the ground of theU' 
 
On Justification, 1 73 
 
 convictions, while tliey come short of a real change, 
 and do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. That 
 conviction of sin and its desert, which is subservient 
 to faith in Christ, will never lead a person to think 
 that it is any part of his holiness ; for such a 
 thought would be as opposite to the nature of his 
 conviction, as his feeling a disease would be to his 
 thinking himself whole." — Very good ; but against 
 what is it directed ? nothing advanced by his op- 
 ponent. It is however manifestly against the scope 
 of his own performance. The tendency, though 
 not the design, of these remarks is, to show that 
 there is a " difference in kind" between some con- 
 victions and others, and a marked one too. — " That 
 conviction of sin and its desert, which is subservient 
 to faith in Christ, will never lead a person to think 
 that it is any part of his holiness :" but (he might 
 have added) that conviction of sin, which is not sub- 
 servient to faith in Christ, will. Graceless convictions 
 generally, if not always, become objects of self-ad- 
 miration. Here then Mr. M. not only determines 
 that there is a difference between some convictions 
 and others, but specifies wherein that difference 
 consists. It never occurred to the self-condemned 
 publican, that there was any thing good or holy in 
 his " humbling himself" before God. Our Lord, 
 however, held it up as being so, and recommended 
 it as an example to others. 
 
 I shall conclude this letter with a few remarks 
 on qualifications. This is a term on which Mr. 
 
 q3 
 
1 74 On Justification. 
 
 Sandeman and his followers have plentifully de- 
 claimed. It conveys to me the idea of something 
 wliich entitles the party to a good, or fits him to 
 enjoy it. With respect to entitling us, I suppose 
 there is no dispute. The gospel and its invitations 
 are our title to come to Christ for salvation. And 
 with respect to fitting us, there is nothing of this 
 kind that is pleadable, or which furnishes any 
 ground of encouragement to the sinner that he 
 shall be accepted. It is not any thing prior to 
 coming to Christ, but coming itself, that has the 
 promise of acceptance. All that is pleaded for is, 
 the necessity of a state of mind suited, in the nature 
 of things, to believing, and without which no sinner 
 ever did or can believe ; and v.hich state of mind 
 is not self-wrought, but the effect of regenerating 
 grace. 
 
 Mr. Sand EM AN represents sinners as saying to 
 preachers, " If you would preach the gospel to us, 
 you must tell us something fit to give us joy as 
 we presently stand, unconscious of any distin- 
 gxilshing quaiifcatlony Tliat the mind, at the time 
 when it first receives gospel comfort, may be nn- 
 co7iscious not only of every distinguishing qualifica- 
 tion, but of being the subject of any thing truly 
 good, I allow; for I believe that is the first true 
 comfort, which arises from the consideration of 
 ivhat Christ is, rather than of what we are toivard 
 hbun But to be " unconscious" of any thing truly 
 good, and actually destitute of it, are two things: 
 
On Justijication, 175 
 
 and so is its being necessary in the nature of things 
 to our enjoying the consolations of the gospel, and 
 its being so as a qualification entitling, or in some 
 way recommending, us to the divine favour. To 
 conceive of a sinner who is actually hardened in 
 his sins, bloated with self-righteous pride, and full 
 of opposition to the gospel, receiving joy " pre- 
 sently as he stands,'* is not only conceiving of rest 
 for the soul without coming to the Saviour for it, * 
 but is in itself a contradiction. Mr. M'Lean ac- 
 knowledges as much as this. " I have not the 
 least idea (he says) that a hard-hearted enemy of 
 God, while such, can either receive or enjoy for- 
 giveness." t Conviction of sin then, whether it 
 have any thing holy in it or not^ is necessary, not, 
 I presume,, as a qualification recommending the 
 sinner to the divine favour, but as that, without 
 which believing in Jesus were in its own nature 
 impossible. Such are my views as to the necessity 
 af a new heart, ere the sinner can come to Christ. 
 The joy that an unregenerate sinner can receive 
 *' presently as he stands," is any thing but that which 
 is afforded by the good news of salvation to the 
 chief of sinners. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 * Matt. xi. 29. f Reply, p. 150. 
 
176 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 ON CERTAIN NEW TESTAMENT PRACTICES. 
 
 My dear Friend, 
 
 That there are serious christians who 
 have leaned to the Sandemanian system, I have no 
 doubt ; and in people of this description I have seen 
 things worthy of imitation. It has appeared to me, 
 that there is a greater diligence in endeavouring to 
 understand the scriptures, and a stricter regard to 
 what they are supposed to contain, than among 
 many other professors of Christianity. They do not 
 seem to trifle with either principle or practice in 
 the manner that many do. Even in those things 
 wherein they appear to me to misunderstand the 
 scriptures, there is a regard toward them which is 
 worthy of imitation. There is something even in 
 their rigidness, which I prefer before that trifling 
 
On Christian Practices, 177 
 
 with truth, which often passes under the name of li- 
 berality among other professing christians. 
 
 These concessions, however, do not respect those 
 who have gone entirely into the system, so as to 
 have thoroughly imbibed its spirit ; but persons who 
 have manifested a considerable partiality in favour 
 of the doctrine. Take the denomination as a whole, 
 and it is not amongst them you can expect to see 
 the christian practice of the new testament exem- 
 plified. You will find them very punctilious in 
 some things; but very defective in others. Re- 
 ligion, as exhibited by them, resembles a rickety 
 child, whose growth is confined to certain parts: 
 it wants that lovely uniformity or proportion, which 
 constitutes the beauty of holiness. 
 
 Some of the followers of Mr. Sandeman, who 
 formed a Society in his life-time in St. Martin's-le- 
 Grand, London, and published an account of what 
 they call their christian jiractices, acknowledge that 
 the command of washing one another's feet is bind- 
 ing " only when it can be -<m act of kindness to do 
 so ;'* and that though there be neither precept nor 
 precedent for family -yr ay cr^ yet " it seems neces- 
 sary for maintaining the fear of God in a family.'* 
 They proceed however to judge those, v^ho insist on 
 family-prayer and the first day sabbath, wldle they 
 disregard the feasts of charity ^ the holy kiss, &c. 
 as persons " influenced to their religious practices, 
 not by the fear of God, the authority of Christ, or the 
 spirit of truth." It is easy to see from hence, what 
 
179 On Christian Practices, 
 
 kind of christian practice tliat is by which these 
 people are distinguished. * 
 
 A punctiHous adherence to the letter of scripture 
 is in some cases commendable, even though it may 
 extend to the tithing- of mint and cummin ; but in 
 others, it would lead you aside from the maid of 
 Christ; and to pursue any thing to the neglect of 
 judgment^ mercy ^ and the love of God, is danger- 
 ous in the extreme. 
 
 It has long appeared to me, that a great many 
 errors have arisen from applying the principle 
 "which is proper in obedience to positive institiitionsy 
 to moral obligations. By confounding these, and 
 giving to both the name of ordinances, the new tes- 
 tament becomes little more than ritual, and religion 
 is nearly reduced to a round of mechanical exer- 
 cises. 
 
 The distinction of obedience into moral and 
 positive^ has been made by the ablest writers of 
 almost every denomination, and must be made if 
 we would understand the scriptures. AVithout it 
 we should confound the eternal standard of right 
 and wrong, given to Israel at Sinai, the sum of 
 which is the love of God and our neighbour, wdlh 
 the body of " carnal ordinances imposed on them 
 until the time of reformation." We should also 
 confound those precepts of the new testament 
 
 * I have not seen this pamphlet, but have trdcen a few quo- 
 tations from it, contained in Backus'* *' Discourse on FaitU an J 
 its Influence.*" 
 
On Christian Practices, 175 
 
 5vliich arise from the relations we sustain to God 
 and one another, with those that arise merely from 
 the sovereign will of the Legislator, and could never 
 have been known but for his having expressly en- 
 joined them. Concerning the former, an inspired 
 writer does not scruple to refer the primitive chris- 
 tians to that sense of right and wrong, which is im- 
 planted in the minds of men in general ; saying, 
 " Whatsoever things are triie^ whatsoever things 
 are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever 
 things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, what- 
 soever things are of good report ; if there be any 
 virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these 
 things/' * But concerning the latter, he directs 
 their whole attention to the revealed will of Christ : 
 -— ^' Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember 
 me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I de- 
 livered them unto you. — I received of the Lord that 
 which also I delivered unto you, &c."t — The one is 
 commanded because it is right ; the other is rig-ht 
 because it is commanded. The great principles of 
 the first are of pei*petual obligation, and know no 
 other change tlian that which arises from the varying 
 of relations and conditions; but those of the last may 
 be binding at one period of time, and utterly abo- 
 lished at another. 
 
 We can clearly perceive, that it were inconsistent 
 "with the perfections of God not to have required 
 
 * Phil. iv. 8. t 1 Cor. xi. 2, 23, 
 
180 On Christian Practices, 
 
 us to love him and one another, or to have allowedL 
 of the contrary. Children also must needs be re- 
 quired to obey their parents ; " for this is right,** 
 But it is not thus in positive institutions. Wliat- 
 ever wisdom there may be in them, and whatever 
 discernment in us, we could not have known them, 
 had they not been expressly revealed ; nor are 
 they ever enforced as being in themselves rights 
 but merely from the authority of the Lawgiver. Of 
 them we may say, had it pleased God, he might, in 
 various instances, have enjoined the opposites; but 
 of the other we are not allowed to suppose it possi- 
 ble, or consistent with righteousness, for God to 
 have required any thing different from that which 
 he has required. The obligation of man to love 
 and obey his Creator must have been coeval with his 
 existence ; but it was not till he had planted a gar- 
 den in Eden, and there put the man whom he had 
 formed, and expressly prohibited the fruit of one 
 of the trees on pain of death, that he came under a 
 positive law. 
 
 The use to be made of this distinction in the 
 ' present controversy, is, to judge in ivhat cases ive 
 are to look for expresh precept or example^ and in 
 what cases we are not to look for them, Mr. 
 Braidwood very properly observes, " Tliat which is 
 morally good in its own nature, is a bounden dut}', 
 although it should not be particularly commanded 
 nor exemplified in all the word of God.'^* la 
 * Letters, &c. p. 42. 
 
On Christian Practices » 181 
 
 obedience of this description there is not that need 
 of minute rules and examples as in the other; but 
 merely of general principles, which naturally lead to 
 all the particulars comprehended under them. 
 
 To require express precept or example, or to 
 adhere in all cases to the literal sense of those 
 precepts which are given us, in things of a moral 
 nature, would greatly mislead us. We may, by a 
 disregard of that for which there is no express pre- 
 cept or precedent, omit what is manifestly right ; and 
 by an adherence to the letter of scriptural precepts, 
 overlook the spirit of them, and do that which is 
 manifestly wrong. 
 
 If we will do nothing without express precept or 
 precedent, we must build no places for christian 
 worship, form no societies for visiting and relieving 
 the afflicted poor, establish no schools, endow no 
 hospitals, nor contribute any thing toward them, 
 nor any thing toward printing or circulating the 
 holy scriptures. Whether any person who fears 
 God would, on this ground, consider himself excus* 
 ed from these duties, 1 cannot tell : it is on no 
 better ground, however, that duties of equal im- 
 portance have been disregarded; especially those 
 of family-prayer^ and the sanctijication of the 
 Lord's day. 
 
 In Mr. Sandeman's time it was allowed, that 
 *^ though there were neither precept nor precedent 
 for family -prayer, yet it seemed necessary for 
 maintaining the fear of God in a family,'' But 
 
 R 
 
1S2 On Christian Practices* 
 
 <liis concession being at variance with more fa- 
 vourite principles, seems to have meant nothing. It 
 is said, that family-prayer has long been disregarded 
 by many who drink the deepest into the doctrine. 
 With them, therefore, the maintaining of " the fear 
 of God in a family," seems to be given up. This 
 fact has operated much against the denomination, 
 in the esteem of serious christians ; by whom they 
 are considered as little other than a body of worldly 
 incn. Of late the system has been improved. 
 Instead of owning, as formerly, that " the fear of 
 God seemed to require this duty," it is now held to 
 be imlairful, provided any part of the family be 
 imbelievers, seeing it is holding communion with 
 them. On the same principle, unbelievers, it is 
 said, are not allowed to join in public prayer and 
 praise, unless it be in an adjoining room, or with 
 some kind of partition between them and the believ- 
 ers. In short, it is maintained, that ^^ We ought 
 only to join in prayer and praise with those, with 
 whom we partake of the Lord's supper." * Such 
 are the consequences of confounding things moral 
 with things positive or ceremonial. 
 
 We have no account ot any particular injunc- 
 tions given to Abraham respecting the ordering of 
 his family. God had said to him in general, " Walk 
 before me, and be thou perfect," and which, 
 as to things of this nature, was sufficient. " 1 know 
 
 * See Braidwood's Letter*, pp. 31 — 46. 
 
Oh Christian Practices. 1 83 
 
 Abraham, saith tlie Lord, that hp: will command 
 his children, and his household after him, that they 
 shall keep the way of the Lord, and do justice and 
 judgment." Can a child be brought up in the 
 nurture- and admonition of the Lord, when it never 
 hears its parents pray for it ? Paul would not have 
 eaten the Lord's supper with the ship's company ; 
 but he made no scruple of " giving thanks to God 
 in presence of them all,'' at a common meal ; and 
 this, I presume, without any partition between his 
 company and theirs, or so much as a mental reser- 
 vation in respect of the latter. To join with unbe- 
 lievers in what is not their duty, is to become par- 
 takers of other men's sins : but to allow them to 
 join with us in what is their duty, is not so. The 
 believer is not at liberty to join in the prayer of 
 unbelief: but the unbeliever is at liberty, if he can, 
 to join in the prayer of faith. To deny him this, 
 were to deny him the right of becoming a believer, 
 and of doing what every one ought to do. We 
 ought to pray for such things as both believers and 
 unbelievers stand in need of: if the latter unite 
 with us in desire, it is well for them ; if not, the 
 guilt remains with themselves, and not with us. 
 
 The sancti/ication of the Lord's day is said to be 
 very generally disregarded among the admirers of 
 this system. Having met, and kept the ordinariceSy 
 they seem to have done with religion for that day, 
 and feel at liberty to follow any amusement or 
 worldly occuj^ation during the remainder of it. 
 
1S4 On Christian Practices, 
 
 This is christian liberty; and the opposite is pliari- 
 saism ! 
 
 So far as relates to its being the day appointed 
 for christian worship rather than the seventh^ that is 
 to say, so far as it is positive, the keeping -of it is 
 amply supported by scripture precedent ; but as 
 to keeping the day holi/ to the Lord, this, being 
 'moral, is left to be inferred from general principles. 
 This is the case as to the onamicr of attending to all 
 positive institutions. No injunctions were laid on 
 the churches with respect to their keeping the 
 Lord's supper in a holy manner ; yet in the neglect 
 of this lay the sin of the church at Corinth. And 
 the reasoning which the apostle uses to convince 
 them of their sin applies to the case in hand. He 
 argues from the ordinance of breaking bread being 
 THE lord's supper, that turning it into their own 
 supper was rendering it null and void:* and by 
 parity of reasoning it follows, from the first day of 
 the week being the lord's day, that to do our 
 OWN work, find our own pleasure, or speak 
 OUR OWN words on that day, is to make it void. 
 Of the first he declared, J'his is not to eat the 
 Lord's supper ; and of the last he would, on the 
 same principle, have declared. This is not to keep 
 the Lord's day, 
 
 * I am awave that their own supper has been understood as 
 referring to the love feasis ; but the reasoning of the Apostle 
 seems to me to admit of no such meaning. How could he accuse 
 them of making void the Lord's sui)per, if it were uot the Lord's 
 iupper that they v?cre eating ? 
 
On Christian Practices. 185 
 
 If, on the other hand, we do every thing that is 
 commanded in the new testament, according to the 
 letter of the precept, we shall in many cases over- 
 look the true intent of it, and do that which is 
 manifestly wrong. 
 
 The design of our Lord's precepts on prayer 
 and alms-giving (Matt. vi. 1 — 6*.) is to censure a 
 spirit of ostoitation in these duties ; but a strict 
 conformity to the letter of them would excuse us from 
 all social prayer, and public contributions. 
 
 The design of the precept, " Resist not evil ; 
 but if a man smite thee on the one cheek, turn to 
 him the other also," is to prohibit all private or 
 selfish resentment, and to teach us that we ought 
 rather to suffer wrong, than go about to revenge an 
 injury. Who does not admire the conduct of the 
 noble Athenian, who, in a council of war held for 
 the common safety of the country, when the Spar- 
 tan chief menaced him with his cane, cried^ 
 "Strike; but hear me!" Such, in effect, has 
 been the language of the martyrs of Jesus in all 
 ages; and such is the spirit of the precept. But 
 to contend for a literal compliance with it, were Xo 
 reflect on the conduct of Christ himself, who when- 
 smitten before the high priest, did not so exemplify 
 it, but remonstrated against the injury. 
 
 If the design of our Lord, in forbidding us tO' 
 *' lay up treasures upon eaith,"* were absolutely, 
 
 * Matt. vi. 19. 
 
 R 3 
 
186 0?i Christum Practices^ 
 
 and in all cases, to prohibit the increase of proper 
 ty, it was his design to overthrow what the scrip- 
 tures acknowledge as a dictate of nature, namely, 
 the duty of parents to provide for their children. * 
 True it is, that men may hoard wealtli in order to 
 enrich and aggrandize their families, to the neglect 
 of present duty toward the poor and toward the 
 cause of God : but this is the abuse of the princi- 
 ple, and ought to be corrected, and not the 
 principle itself destroyed. Only let our own 
 interest, and that of our children, be pursued 
 in subordination to God, and in consistency with 
 other duties, and all will be right. The contrary 
 practice would load the industrious poor, and pre- 
 vent their ever rising above their present con- 
 dition, while it screened the indolent rich, who 
 miglit expend the whole of their income in self- 
 gratification, provided they did not increase their 
 capital. 
 
 Nor can any good reason be given, that I know 
 of, why we should understand this precept as pro- 
 hibiting in all cases the increase of property, any 
 more than that of " selling what we have, and 
 giving alms," as absolutely forbidding us to retain 
 it. To be consistent, the advocates of this inter- 
 pretation should dispose of all their property, and 
 distribute it among the poor. In other words, they 
 should abolish all distinctions of rich and poor, so 
 
 * 3 Cor. xi. 14. 
 
On Christian Practices^ 157 
 
 far as concerns themselves; not only of tlie veri/^ 
 rich and veri/ poor, but all distinction whatever, and 
 be perfectly on an equality. When they shall do 
 this, they will at least prove themselves to be sin- 
 cere, and impart a weight to their censures against 
 others, which at present they do not possess. 
 
 It was not our Lord*s design in this partial man- 
 ner to lop oflf the branches of a worldly spirit ; but 
 to strike at the root of it. To '^ lay up treasures 
 on earth,'* denotes the desire of amassing wealth,, 
 that we may be great, and shine, or in some way 
 consume it upon our lusts ; and herein consists the 
 evil. There is as great a difference between a cha- 
 racter who acts on this principle, and one whom 
 God prospereth in the path of duty, and in the 
 full exercise of benevolence toward all about him, 
 as between one who engages in the chase of 
 worldly applause, and another, who, seeking the 
 good of those around him, must needs be respected 
 and loved. 
 
 The evil which arises from such interpretations, 
 whatever may be their tendency, does not consist 
 in throwing civil society into a state of disorder; 
 for though men may admit them in theory, yet 
 they will contrive some method of practically 
 evading them, and reconcile their consciences to it. 
 The mischief lies in the hj'pocrisy, self-deception, 
 and unchristian censures upon others, to which they 
 give occasion. 
 
188 On Christian Practices, 
 
 Much has been spoken and written on ^^ observ- 
 ing all t/tings wliich Christ hath commanded us/' 
 and on the authority of apostolic example. Both 
 are literally binding on christians in matters of 
 positive institution, and in things moral the spirit 
 or design of them is indiypensible : but to enforce 
 a literal conformity in many cases, would be to de- 
 feat the end^ and reduce obedience to unmeaning 
 ceremony. 
 
 In eastern countries, the tvashing of the feet 
 after the toils of a journey was a common and neces- 
 sary refreshment ; and our Lord, to teach his disci- 
 ples " in love to serve one another," took upon him- 
 self the humble office of a servant, and washed their 
 feet; enjoining upon them to do that to one ano- 
 ther, which he had done to them. But to conforjn 
 to this custom where it is not practised, nor consi- 
 dered as necessary to be done by any one, is to de- 
 feat the end of the precept, by substituting a form 
 in the place of a humble and affectionate service. 
 We may wash the saints* feet, and neglect to dry 
 their clothes, or to administer necessary comfort to 
 them when cold and weary. If in commands of 
 this nature no regard is to be had to times, places, 
 and circumstances, why do Sandemanians allow^ it 
 to be binding, " o?^/y when it can be an act of kind- 
 ness to do so ?" 
 
 It was customary in the East, and is still so in 
 many countries, for jnen to express affection to- 
 
On Christimi Practices, 1 Sf> 
 
 cacli other by a kiss; and the apostles directed 
 that this common mode of sahitation should be 
 used religiously. But in a country where the 
 practice is principally confined to the expression 
 of love between the sexes, or at most among rela- 
 tions, it is much more liable to misconstruction and 
 abuse; and being originally a human custom, 
 where that custom ceases, tliougb the spirit of the 
 precept is binding, yet the form of it, I conceive, 
 is not so. 
 
 For a man to have his head uncovered was once 
 the commonly received sign of his authority, and 
 as such was enjoined : * but with us it is a sign of 
 subjection. If therefore we be obliged to wear 
 any sign of the one or of the other in our religious 
 assemblies, it requires to be reversed. 
 
 The apostle taught that it was a shame for a man 
 to wear lotig hair like a woman ; not that he would 
 have concerned himself about the length of the 
 hair, but this being a distinctive mark of the sexes, 
 he appealed to nature itself against their being 
 confounded; that is, against a maifs appearing ia 
 the garb of a woman, f 
 
 In the primitive times, christians had their love 
 feasts : they do not appear, however, to have been 
 a divine appointment, but the mere spontaneous 
 expressions of mutual affection ; as when '^ breaking 
 bread from house to house, tliey did eat their meat 
 
 * 1 Cor. xi.7. t I Cor. xi. 13—16* 
 
IDO On Christian Practices. 
 
 with gladness and singleness of lieavt.'^ While 
 these feasts were conducted with propriety, all was 
 well ; but in time they were abused, and then 
 they were mentioned in language not very re- 
 jjpectful ; " These are spots in j/our feasts of chari- 
 ty/' * Had they been of divine institution, it was 
 not their being abused that w^ould have drawn forth 
 such language. The Lord's supper was abused as 
 well as they : but the abuse in that case was cor- 
 rected, and the ordinance itself reinculcated. 
 
 These brief remarks are intended to prove, that 
 in the above particulars Mr. Sandeman and his 
 followers have mistaken the true intent of Christ 
 and his apostles. But whether it be so or not, the 
 proportion of zeal which is expended upon thena 
 is far beyond what their importance requires. If, 
 as a friend to believers* baptism, I cherish an over- 
 weening conceit of myself, and of my denomina- 
 tion, confining the kingdom of heaven to it, and 
 shutting my eyes against the excellencies of others, 
 am I not carnal ? The Jews, in the time of Jere- 
 miah, thought %liemselves very secure on account 
 of their forms and privileges. Pointing to the 
 sacred edifice, and its divinely instituted worship, 
 they exclaimed, " The temple of tlie I^ord, tlie 
 temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord ai*e 
 these :" f hut were tliey not carnal ? In how many 
 ways, alas, are poor blind mortals addicted to err 1 
 
 ♦ Jude 12. f Jer. vii, 4, 
 
On Christian Practices. 191 
 
 When tlie reflecting christian considers what 
 contentions have been kept up about things of this 
 nature, what divisions have been produced, and 
 what accusations have been preferred against those 
 who stand aloof from such strifes, as though they 
 did not so much as profess to observe all things 
 which Christ hath commatided, he will drop a tear 
 of pity over human weakness. But when he sees 
 men so scrupulous in such matters, that they cannot 
 conscientiously be present at any worship but their 
 own, yet making no scruple of joining in theatrical 
 and other vain amusements, he will be shocked, 
 and must needs suspect something worse than 
 weakness ; something which " strains at a gnat, 
 but can swallow a camel ;" something, in short, 
 which, however good men may have been carried 
 away by it, can hardly be conceived to have had 
 its origin in a good man's mind. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
192 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 AN INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH 
 THE APOSTLES PROCEEDED, IN FORMING AND 
 ORGANIZING CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 
 
 Jfy dear Friend, 
 
 You need not be told of the fierce dis- 
 putes which were first agitated by the leaders of 
 this denomination, and which have since extended 
 to others as well as those who chuse to be called 
 after their names, concerning the order, govern- 
 ment, and discipline of gospel churches. To write 
 upon every minute practice found in the new tes- 
 tament, would be to bewilder ourselves and perplex 
 the subject. If we can ascertain the priticiples on 
 which the apostles proceeded in all tliey did, it will 
 answer a much better purpose. 
 
 Far be it from me to contend for an Erastian lati- 
 tude in matters of church government and disci- 
 pline, or to imagine that no divine directions are 
 left us on the subject, but that the church must be 
 modelled and governed according to circumstances. 
 
On Church Government and Discipline. 193 
 
 Tins were to open a door to every corruption that 
 human ingenuity and depravity might devise. But 
 on the other liand, it is no less wide of the truth 
 to consider tlie whole which is left us as a system 
 of ordinances, or ^jositii^e institutions, requiring in 
 all cases the most literal and punctilious observance. 
 Such a view of the subject, among other evil conse- 
 quences, must introduce perpetual discord; seeing 
 it aims to establish things from the new testament 
 which are not in it. • 
 
 It may be thought that in reasoning thus I adopt the 
 principles of the episcopalians against the puritans^ 
 who denied the necessity of express precept or pre- 
 cedent fiom the scriptures, which the others plead- 
 ed for. Had episcopalians only denied this in 
 respect of moral duties, I should have thought them 
 in the right. It certainly is not necessary that we 
 should have express precept or precedent for every 
 duty we owe to our neighbours, but merely tliat 
 we keep within the general principle, of doing unto 
 others as we Avould that they should do unto us. 
 And the same may be said of various duties toward 
 God. If in our thoughts, affections, prayers, or 
 praises, we be influenced hy love to his name, though 
 his precepts will be our guide as to the general 
 modes in which love shall be expressed, yet we 
 shall not need them for every thing pertaining to 
 particular duties. \Mien Josiah, on hearing the 
 book of the law read to him, " rent his clothes and 
 wept," it was not in conformity with any particular 
 
194 On Church Government 
 
 precept or precedent, but the spontaneous effusion 
 of love. Tiie question between the episcopalians 
 and the puritans did not relate to moral obligations, 
 but to " rites and ceremonies" in divine worship, 
 \^'hich the church claimed a ^^ power to decree." 
 Hence it was common for them to urge it upon the 
 puritans, that if their principles were fully acted upon, 
 tiicy must become antipa?dobaptists, or, as they called 
 them, Anabaptists : * a proof this, not only that in 
 their judgment there was neither precept nor prece- 
 cedent in the scriptures in favour of psedobaptism, 
 but that it was in matters oi positive institution that 
 they claimed to act without either. 
 
 The question is. On what principles did the apos- 
 tles proceed in forming and organizing christian 
 churches, positive, or moral? If the former, they 
 must have been furnished with an exact model or 
 pattern, like that which was given to Moses in tlie 
 mount, and have done ail things according to it : 
 but if the latter, they would only be furnished with 
 general princij/Ies, comprehending, but not specify- 
 ing, a great variety of particulars. 
 
 That the framirig of the tabernacle was positive 
 there can be no doubt ; and that a part of the re- 
 ligion of the new testament is so, is equally evident. 
 Concern iif^ this the injunctions of the apostle are 
 mimite and very express. ** Be ye followers (imi- 
 tators) of me, as I also am of Christ. — In this I 
 
 * Preface to Bishop Sanderson's Sermons, Sec, 23. 
 
and Discipline, - 195 
 
 prulse yoii^ bretliren, that ye rememl^er mc in all 
 tilings, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them 
 unto you. — For I have reeeived of the Lord that 
 vvhicii also I delivered unto you." * But were we 
 to attempt to draw up a formula of chureh govern- 
 ment, worship, and discipline, which sliouki include 
 any thing more than general outlines, and to csta- 
 bliiih it upon express new testament authorities, we 
 should attempt what is impracticable. 
 
 Doubtless the apostles acted under divine direc- 
 tion : but in things of a moral nature, thai direction 
 consisted not in providing them with a model or 
 pattern, in the manner of that given to Moses, but 
 in furnishing them with general principles, and 
 enduing them with holy wisdom to apply them as 
 occasions required. 
 
 We learn from the Acts and the Epistles, that the 
 first churches were congregations of faithful men, 
 voluntarily united together for the stated ministra- 
 tion of the word, the administration of christian or- 
 dinances, and the mutually assisting of each other in 
 promoting the cause of Christ; that they were go- 
 verned by bishops and deacons of their own choos- 
 ing ; that a bishop was an overseer, not of other 
 ministers, but of the flock of God ; that the govern- 
 ment and discipline of each church was within it- 
 self; that the gifts of the difll^rent members were 
 so employed, as to conduce to the welfare of the 
 
 * 1 Cor. xi. 1, 2, C:^, 
 b 2 
 
I9G On Cf lurch Government 
 
 lx)dy; and that in cases of disorder, every proper 
 mean was used to vindicate the honour of Christ, 
 and reclaim the party. — ^I'hese, and others which 
 might be named, are what I mean by general prin- 
 ciplea. They are sometimes ilhistrated by the in- 
 cidental occurrence of examples (and which in all 
 similar cases {xxehm^ymg'.) but it is not always so. 
 That a variety of cases occur in our time, in which we 
 have nothing more than general principles to direct 
 us, is manifest to every person of experience and re- 
 flection. We know that churches were formed, 
 officers chosen and ordained, and prayer and praise 
 conducted with " tlie understanding,'' or so as to 
 be understood by others : but in what particular 
 manner they proceeded in each, we are not told. 
 We have no account of the formation of a single 
 church, no ordination service, nor any such thing 
 as a formula of worship. We are taught to sing 
 praises to God in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, 
 but have no inspired tunes. We have, accounts of 
 the election of church-officers; but no mention of 
 the mode of proceeding, or how tliey ascertained 
 the mind of the church. If we look for express pre» 
 cept or example for the removal of a pastor from 
 one situation to another, we shall find none. We 
 are taught however, that for the church to grow 
 unto an holy temple in the Lord, it requires to be 
 ** fitly framed together." The want oi Jitness in a 
 connection therefore, especially if it impede the 
 growth of the spiritual temple, may justify a removal. 
 
a7id jyiscipUne. 197 
 
 Or if there be no want of fitness, yet if tlic mate- 
 rial be adapted to occupy a more important station, 
 a removal of it may be very proper. Such a princi- 
 ple may be misapplied to ambitious and interested 
 purposes ; but if the increase of the temple be kept 
 in view, it is lawful, and in some cases attended with 
 great and good effects. 
 
 This instance may suffice instead of a hundred, 
 and serves to show, that the forms and orders of the 
 new testament church, much more than of the old, 
 are founded on the reason of things. They ap- 
 pear to be no more than what men possessed of the 
 wisdom from above, v.ould, as it were instinctively, 
 or of their own accord, fall into, even though no spe- 
 cific directions should "be given them. 
 
 That such were the principles on which the 
 apostles proceeded, is manifest from their own p?'o-' 
 fe.ssions, or from the general yrecepts which they 
 addressed to the churches. These ^;^•cre as follows : 
 — " Let all things be done to edifying. — Let all 
 things be done decent 1 1/, and in order. — Follow after 
 the things that make for j^eace, and things where- 
 with one inay edify another.^' Whatever measures 
 had a 'tendency to build up tlie church of God, and 
 individuals in their most holy faith, these they pur- 
 sued. W'Uatcver measures approved themselves to 
 minds endued v,ith holy wisdom as fit and lovely, and 
 as tending, like good discipline in an army, to the en 
 largement of Christ's kingdom, these they followed, 
 and inculcated on tlie churches. And however 
 
198 On Church Government 
 
 worldly minds may have abused the principle, by 
 introducing vain customs under the pretence of de- 
 cency, it is that which, understood in its simple 
 and original sense, must still be the test of good or- 
 der and christian discipline. 
 
 The discipline of the primitive churches occupies 
 no prominent place in their character. It is not 
 that ostentatious thing, which, under the name of 
 an " ordinance,'' has become of late a mere bone of 
 contention. It was simply the carrying into effect 
 the great principle of brotherly love, and the spirit 
 with which it was exercised was that of long-suf- 
 fering, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and 
 meekness. 
 
 The way in w^hich the apostles actually proceeded 
 in the forming and organizing of churches, corre- 
 sponds with these statements. When a number of 
 christians were assembled together in the days of 
 Pentecost, they w^ere the first christian church. But 
 at first they had no deacons, and probably no pas- 
 tors, except the apostles : and if the reason of 
 things had not required it, they might have conti- 
 nued to have none. But in the course of things 
 new service rose upon their hands, therefore they 
 must have new servants '-^ to perform it 5 for, said 
 the apostles, " It is not reason that we should leave 
 the word of God, and serve tables : wherefore, 
 brethren, look ye out among you seven men of 
 
 * A DEACON, as well as a nunistcr^ means a servant. 
 
and DiscipUiie, 19J> 
 
 honest report, full of the Holy Ghost, and of wis- 
 dom, whom we may appouit over this business." 
 In this proceeding we perceive nothing of the air 
 of a ceremony, nothing like that of punctilious at- 
 tention to forms, which marks obedience to a posi- 
 tive institute ; but merely the conduct of men en- 
 dued with the wisdom from above ; servants 
 appointed when service required it, and the number 
 of the one proportioned to the quantity of the other. 
 All things are done *^ decently and in order 3" all 
 things are done " to edifying." 
 
 In the course of things, the apostles, who had 
 supplied the place of bishops or pastors, would be 
 called to travel into other parts of the world, and 
 then it is likely the church at Jerusalem would 
 have a bishop or bishops of their own. As the 
 number of deacons was regulated by the work to 
 be done, so would it be by bishops, both in this 
 and in other churches. A large church, where much 
 service was to be done, required seven deacons; 
 and where they abounded in numbers and spiritual 
 gifts, there might be a plurality of pastors. With 
 respect to us, where the reason of the thing exists, 
 that is, where there are churches whose numbers 
 require it, and whose ability admits of it,* it is still 
 
 * I say, whose ahillty admits of it : for there is equal proof from 
 the new testament that they who " preach the gosjjel should live 
 of the gospel," as there is of a plurality of elders. But the zeal 
 for the latter has not always heen accompanied by a zeal for the 
 former. If the term elder must be understood to be not only a 
 term of office, but of the pastoral offic(; exclusively, and a plura- 
 
SOO On Church Governmctit 
 
 proper : but for a small church to have more pas- 
 tors than one, is as unnecessary as to have seven 
 deacons. Such a rule must favour idleness, and 
 confine useful ministers from ext- nding their la- 
 bours. To place two or three in a post which 
 might be filled by one, must leave many other 
 places unoccupied. Such a system is more adapted 
 for show, than for promoting the kingdom of 
 Christ. 
 
 It may serve ta illustrate and sim})lify the sub- 
 ject, if we compare the conduct of the apostles with 
 that of a company of mi ssio}i allies in our own times. 
 What indeed was an apostle but an inspired mis- 
 sionary? Allowing only for ordinary christiaa 
 missionaries being uninspired, we shall see in their 
 history all the leading characteristics of apostolic 
 
 practice. 
 
 Conceive of a church, or of a society of chris- 
 tians out of a number of churches, or of " any two 
 agreeing together,^' t ^s undertaking a mission 
 among the heathen. One of the first things they 
 would attend to would be, the selection of suitable 
 
 lity of them be required, why is not a plurality of them supported? 
 The office of elder in those churches which are ]iartial to this 
 s^'stem, is little more than nominal : for while an older is employ- 
 ed lilvc other men in the necessary cares of lii'e, he cannot ordina- 
 rily fulfil the duties of his office. *' No man that warreth in this 
 warfare, (unless it he in aid of a poor church) uug;ht to entan^^le 
 himscU' with the affairs of this life j that he may please him who 
 hath chosen hiiu to be a soldiei*." 
 
 f Matt, xviii. 19. 
 
a7id Discipline, 201 
 
 missionaries ; next they would instruct tliem In the 
 things necessary to their undertaking; and after 
 this, send them forth to preach the gospel. — Such 
 exactly was the process of our Lord toward his 
 apostles. He first selected them ; then, during his 
 personal ministry, instructed them ; and after his 
 resurrection gave them their commission, with a 
 rich effusion of the Holy Spirit to fit them for their 
 undertaking. 
 
 The missionaries, on arriving at the place of ac- 
 tion, would first unite in social prayer and fellow- 
 ship ; and this would be the first christian cliurch. 
 -—Thus the apostles and those who adhered to 
 them, first met in an upper room for prayer, pre- 
 paratory to their attack on the kingdom of Satan ; 
 and this little band of " about an hundred and 
 twenty," formed the first christian church : and 
 when others were converted to Christ and joined 
 them, they are said to be " added to the church." 
 
 Again, the first missionaries to a heathen coun- 
 try could not be cliosen by those to whom they 
 were sent, but by him or them who sent them ; nor 
 would their influence be confined to a single con- 
 gregation, but, by a kind of parental authority, 
 would extend to all the societies that might be 
 raised by means of their labours. It would be 
 different with succeeding pastors, who might be 
 raised up from among the converts ; they would of 
 course be chosen by their brethren, and their 
 authority be confined to them who elected them. — 
 
202 On Church Govemment 
 
 Thus the apostles were not constituted such by the 
 churches^ but received their appointment immediate- 
 ly from Christ; nor was their authority limited 
 to any particular church, but extended to all. In 
 this they stand distinguished from ordinary pastors, 
 who are elected by the churches, and whose autho- 
 rity is confined to the churches that elected them. 
 
 Again, The first missionaries to a heathen coun- 
 try would be employed in the planting of churches, 
 wherever proper materials were found for the pur- 
 pose ; and if the work so increased upon their 
 hands as to be too much for them, they would de- 
 pute others, whom God should gift and qualify, 
 like-minded with themselves, to assist them in it. 
 Some one person at least of this description, would 
 be present at the formation and organization of 
 every church, to see to it that all things were done 
 " decently and in order.'' And if there were any 
 other churches in the neighbourhood, their elders 
 and messengers would doubtless be present, and, 
 to express their brotherly concurrence, would join 
 in it. — Thus the apostles planted churches; and 
 when elders were ordained, the people chose them, 
 and they, by the solemn laying on of hands, in- 
 vested them with the office : * and when the work 
 increased upon their hands, they appointed such 
 men as Timothi/ and Titus as evangelists, to " set 
 things in order'* in their stead, f In these ordina- 
 
 » Acts xiv. 23. t 3 Tim. ii. 3.— Tit. i. 5. 
 
and Discipline, 203 
 
 tions a Paul or a Titus would preside, but the 
 other elders who were present would unite in bro- 
 therly concurrence, and in importuning a blessing 
 on the parties — and hence there would be the 
 " laying on of the hands of the presbytery" or 
 elders. 
 
 I may add, though it does not immediately re- 
 spect any question here at issue, If the first mission- 
 aries, and those appointed by them, planted 
 churches, set them in order, and presided at the 
 ordination of elders, it ivas not because the same 
 things would not have been valid if done by others, 
 but because they would not have been done. 
 Let but churches be planted, set in order, and 
 scripturally organized, and whether it be by the 
 missionaries or succeeding native pastors, all is 
 good and acceptable to Christ. — And such, I con- 
 ceive, is tlie state of things with respect to the 
 apostles and succeeding ministers. The same 
 things which were done by tlie apostles, were done 
 by others appointed by them ; and had they been 
 done by elders whom they had not appointed, pro- 
 vided the will of Christ had been properly re- 
 garded, they would not have objected to their 
 validity. This is certainly true in some particu- 
 lars, and I see not why it should not in all. Paul 
 left Timothy at Ephesus, ^^ that he might charge 
 Fome that they taught no other doctrine :" but if 
 the Ephesian teachers had been themselves attach- 
 ed to the truth, neither Paul nor Timothy would 
 
201 On Church Government 
 
 have been offended with them for having super- 
 seded their interference. He also left Titus in 
 Crete, to ^^ set in order the things that were want- 
 ing, and to ordain elders in every city ;" hut 
 if the Cretians themseh'es had had suffi- 
 cient wisdom and virtue to have regulated their 
 own affairs by the word of God, I believe their 
 order would not have been reckoned disorder. 
 Had there been elders already ordained amongst 
 them, competent to assist in the ordination of others, 
 if we. may judge from the general tenor of aposto- 
 lic practice, instead of objecting to the validity of 
 their proceedings, both Paul and Titus would, 
 though absent in the flesh, have been with them in 
 the spirit, " joying and beholding their order, and 
 the steadfastness of their faith in Christ.'* 
 
 The sum is, that church-government and disci- 
 pline are not a body of ceremonies ; but a few ge- 
 neral principles and examples, sufficient for all prac- 
 tical purposes, but not sufficient to satisfy those, who 
 in new testament directions expect to find an old 
 testament ritual. It is not difficult to perceive the 
 wisdom of God in thus varying the two dispensa- 
 tions. The Jewish church was an army of soldiers, 
 who had to go through a variety of forms in learning 
 their discipline : the christian church is an army 
 going forth to battle. The memljcrs of the first 
 were taught punctilious obedience, and led with 
 great formality through a variety of religious evolu- 
 tions : but those of the last, (though they also must 
 
and Disc'qjline^ 20 r? 
 
 keep their ranks, and act in obedience to command 
 whenever it is given, yet) are not required to be so 
 attentive to tlie mechanical as to the mental, not so 
 much to the minute observation of forms, as to the 
 spirit and design of them. The order of the one 
 would almost seem to be appointed for order's sake ; 
 but in that of the other the utility of every thing 
 is apparent. The obedience of the former was 
 that of children ; the latter, of sons arrived at ma- 
 turer age. 
 
 As our Saviour abolished the^ Jewish law of di- 
 vorce, and reduced marriage to its original simpli- 
 city; so, having abolished the form and order of 
 the church as appointed by Moses, he reduced it 
 to what, as to its first principles, it was from the be- 
 ginning, and to what must have Corresponded with 
 the desires of believers in every age. It was na- 
 tural for " the sons of God,'* in the days of Seth, to 
 assemble together, and " call upon the name of the 
 Lord ;" and their unnatural fellowship with unbelie- 
 vers brought on the deluge. And even under the 
 Jewish dispensation, wicked men, though descended 
 from Abraham, were not considered as Israelites 
 iiideed, or true citizens of Zion. The friends of 
 God were then the '^ companions of those that fear- 
 ed him.'* They " spake often one to another,'* 
 and assembled for mutual edification. What then 
 is gospel church-fellowship but godliness ramified, 
 or tl\e principle of holy love reduced to action ? 
 There is scarcely a prcce])t on the subject of church 
 
 T 
 
206 On Church Government 
 
 discipline, but wliat may in substance be found in 
 the proverbs of Solomon. 
 
 It does not follow from hence, that all forms of wor- 
 ship and church government are indifferent, and 
 left to be accommodated to times, places, and cir- 
 cumstances. The principles or general outlines 
 of tilings are marked out, and we are not at liberty 
 to deviate from them ; nor are they to be filled up 
 by worldly policy, but by a pure desire of carrying 
 them into effect according to thf3ir true intent : to 
 which may be added, that so far as they are ex- 
 emplified in the new testament, it is our duty in si- 
 milar cases to follow the example. 
 
 It does follow however, that scripture precedent, 
 important as it is, is not binding on christians in 
 things of a moral nature, unless the reason of the 
 thing be the same in both cases. Of this, proof 
 has been offered in Letter IX. relativ^e to the wash- 
 ing of the feet, the kiss of charity, &c. It also fol- 
 lows, that in attending to positive institutions neither 
 express precept nor precedent is necessary, in what 
 respects the holy manner of performing them, nor 
 binding in regard of mere accidental circumstances , 
 which do not properly belong to them. It required 
 neither express precept nor precedent to make it 
 the duty of the Corinthians, when meeting to cele- 
 brate the Lord's supper, to do it soherly and in the 
 fear of God, nor to render the contrary a sin. There 
 are also circumstances, which may on some occasions 
 accompany a positive institution, and not on others \ 
 
and Discipline, i07 
 
 \\liicli being tlierefore no part of It, are not 
 binding. It is a fact, that tlie Lord's supper was 
 first celebrated with unleavened hreadj for no leaven 
 was to be found at the time in all the Jewish habita- 
 tions : but no mention being made, either in the in- 
 stitution, or in the repetition of it by the apostle, 
 we conclude it was a mere accidental circumstance, 
 no more belonging to the ordinance than its having 
 been in " a large upper room." It is a fact too, 
 that our Lord and his disciples sat ifi a reclining' pos- 
 ture at the supper, after the manner of sitting at 
 their ordinary meals ; yet none imagine this to be 
 binding upon us. It is also a fact with regard to 
 the ti7ne, that our Saviour first sat down with his dis- 
 ciples, on the evening of the ^/{fth day of the week, 
 the ^' night in which he was betrayed ;" but though 
 tliat w^as a memorable niglit, and is mentioned by 
 the apostle in connection with the supper, yet no 
 one supposes it to be binding upon us ; especially 
 as we know it was afterwards celebrated on the first 
 day of the week by the church at Troas. 
 
 Much has been advanced how^ever in favour of 
 the first day of the week, as the time for the cele- 
 bration of the Lord's supper, exclusively, and of 
 its being still binding on christians. A weekly com- 
 munion might, for any thing we know, be the gene- 
 ral practice of the first churches : and certainly 
 there can be no objection to the thing itself; but 
 to render it a term of communion, is laying bonds 
 
 in things wherein Christ hath laid none. That 
 
 T 2 
 
208 On Church Governmertt 
 
 the supper was celebrated on the first day of the 
 week by the church at Troas^ is certain ; that it was 
 so eve7'y first day of the ^yeek, is possible, perhaps 
 probable, but the passage does not prove that it luas 
 so; and still less, as Mr. Braidwood affirms, that 
 *' it can ojili/ be dispensed on that day.''* The 
 words of tlie institution are, " ^Is often as ye eat," &c. 
 without determining how often. Those who would 
 make these terms so indeterminate as not to de- 
 note frequenn/, and consequently to be no rule at 
 all as to time, do not sufficiently consider their 
 force. The term " often," we all know, denotes 
 frequency ; and " as often," denotes the degree of 
 that frequency ; but every comparative supposes 
 the positive. There can be no degree of frequen- 
 cy where frequency itself is not. It might as well 
 be said that the words, " Hoiv much she hath glori- 
 fied herself, so much torment give her," f conveys 
 no idea of Babylon having glorified herself more 
 than others, but merely of her punishment being 
 proportioned to her pride, be it much or little. 
 
 The truth appears to be, that the Lord's supper 
 ought to be frequently celebrated; but the exact 
 time of it is a circumstance which does not belong to 
 the ordinance itself. 
 
 Similiir remarks might be made on female com- 
 numion, a subject on which a great deal has been 
 "written of late years, in the baptismal controversy. 
 
 * Letters, p. 44. f R^v. xviii. 7. 
 
and DiscipUne. 200 
 
 Whether there ])e express precept or precedent 
 for it, or not, is of no consequence : for the distinc- 
 tion of sex is a mere circumstance in no wise affect- 
 ing the qualifications required, and therefore not 
 belonging to the institution. It is of just as much 
 account as whether a believer be a Jew or a Greek, 
 a slave, or a free man ; that is, it is of no account at 
 all : " For there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor 
 free, male nor female ; but all are one in Christ Je- 
 sus." Express precept or precedent might as w^ell 
 be demanded for the parties being tall or low, black 
 or white, sickly or healthy, as for their being male 
 or female. 
 
 To accommodate the spirit of new testament prac- 
 tice to the fluctuating manners and inclinations' of 
 men, is certainly what ought not to be : but neither 
 can it be denied, that many of the apostolic prac- 
 tices were suited to the state of things at the time, 
 and would not have been what they were if cir- 
 cumstances had been ditferent. To instance in 
 their proceedings on the seventh and Jirst days of 
 the week. — It is well known, that in preaching to 
 the Jews and others who attended with them, they 
 generally took the seventh day of the week : * the 
 reason of which doubtless was, its being the day 
 in which they were to be met with at their syna- 
 gogues. Hence it is, that on the first day of the 
 week so little is said of their preaching to unbelicv- 
 
 * Act* xiii. 42. — xviii. 4. — xvi. 13, 
 
 t3 
 
210 On Church Government 
 
 ers, and so much of the celebration of christian or- 
 dinances, which are represented as the specific 
 object of their coming together.* But the same 
 motive that induced the apostles to preach to un- 
 believers chiefly on the seventh day of the week, 
 would, in our circumstances, have induced them to 
 preach to them on the first, that being now the day 
 on which they ordinarily assemble together. In 
 countries where Christianity has so far obtained, as 
 for the legislature to respect the first day of the 
 week as a day of rest, instead of having now and 
 then an individual come into our assemblies, as the 
 primitive churches had, and as churches raised in 
 heathen countries must still have, we have multi- 
 tudes who on that day are willing to hear the word. 
 In such circumstances, the apostles would have 
 preached both to believers and unbelievers, and 
 administered christian ordinances, ail on the same 
 day. To frame our worship in things of this na- 
 ture after apostolic example, without considering 
 the reasons of their conduct, is to stumble in 
 darkness, instead of walking as children of the 
 light. Yet this is the kind of apostolic practice by 
 which the churches have been teazed and divided, 
 the great work of preaching the gospel to the un- 
 godly neglected, and Christianity reduced to litigious 
 trifling. 
 
 If tl\e practice of Christ and his apostles be in all 
 cases binding upon christians, whether the reason of 
 * 1 Cor. xi. 20.— Acts xx. 7. 
 
and Disdpline, 211 
 
 the tiling be the same or not, why do tliey not cat 
 the Lord's supper with unleavened bread, and in a 
 reclining posture ? And why do they not assemble 
 together merely to celebrate this ordinance, and 
 tliat on a Lord's day evening ? From the accounts 
 in 1 Cor. xi. 20. and Acts xx. 7- two things appear 
 to be evident. — First, That the celebration of the 
 Lord's supper was the specific object of the coming 
 together, both of the church at Corinth, and of 
 that at Troas. The former came together (pro- 
 fessedly) " to eat the Lord's supper ;" the latter 
 are said to have " come together to break bread,*' 
 Secondly, That it was on the evening of the day. 
 This is manifest, not only from its being called the 
 Lord's supper, but from the Corinthians making it 
 their oivn supper, and from its being followed at 
 Troas by a sermon from Paul, which required 
 " lights," and continued till " midnight." 
 
 I do not mean to say, that the church at either 
 Corinth or Troas had no other worship during the 
 first day of the week than tliis^ but that this was 
 attended to as a distinct object of assembling, and 
 after the other was over. 
 
 It may be thought, that these were mere acci- 
 dental circumstances, and therefore not binding 
 upon us. It does not appear to me, however, that 
 we are at liberty to turn the Lord's supper into a 
 breakfast. But if we be, and chuse to do so, let 
 us not pretend to a punctilious imitation of the 
 first churches. 
 
212 On Church Govertime/iC 
 
 It is well known to be a peculiarity in Sandema- 
 nian societies, not to determine any question by a 
 inajority. They, like the first churches, must be 
 of one mind ; and if there be any dissentients who 
 cannot be convinced, they are excluded. Perfect 
 unanimity is certainly desirable, not only in the 
 great jDrinciples of the gospel, but in questions of 
 discipline, and even in the choice of officers ; but 
 how if this be unattainable ? The question is, 
 whether it be more consistent with the spirit and 
 practice of the new testament, for the greater part 
 of tlie church to forbear with the less, or, Dlotre- 
 phes-like, to cast them out of the church ; and this 
 for having, according to the best of their judg- 
 iTients, acted up to the scriptural directions? One 
 of these modes of proceeding must of necessity be 
 pursued ; for there is no middle course ; and if we 
 loved one another with genuine christian affection, 
 we could not be at a loss which to prefer. The 
 new testament speaks of an election of seven dea- 
 cons, but says nothing on the mode of its being 
 conducted. Now considering the number of 
 members in the church at Jerusalem, unless they 
 were directed in their choice by inspiration, which 
 there is no reason to think tliey were, it is more 
 than a thousand to one that those seven persons,^ 
 who were chosen, were not the persons vrhom every 
 individual member first proposed. What then can 
 we suppose them to have done ? They might dis- 
 cuss the subject till they became of one mindj or. 
 
and Discipline, 213 
 
 which is much more likely, the lesser nuiubcr, per- 
 ceiving the general wish, and considering that 
 their brethren had understanding as well as they, 
 might peaceably give up their own opinions to the 
 greater, " submitting one to another in the fear of 
 God." But supposing a hundred of the members 
 had said as follows : — ' Without reflecting on any 
 who have been named, we think two or three 
 other bretliren more answerable to the qualifica- 
 tions required by the apostles, than some of them : 
 but, having said this, we are willing to acquiesce 
 in the general voice.' — Should they or would they 
 have been excluded for this ? Assuredly the ex- 
 clusions of the new testament were for very differ- 
 ent causes ! 
 
 The statements of the society in St. Martins-le- 
 Grand on this subject, are sophistical, self-contra- 
 dictory, and blasphemous. " Nothing (say they) 
 is decided by the vote of the majority. In some 
 cases, indeed, there are dissenting voices. The rea- 
 sons of the dissent are thereupon proposed and con- 
 sidered. If they are scriptural, the whole church 
 has cause to change its opinion ; if not, and the per- 
 son persists in his opposition to the word of God, 
 the church is bound to reject him." But who is 
 to judge, whether the reasons of the dissentients be 
 scriptural or not? the majority no doubt, and an 
 opposition to their opinion is an opposition to the 
 ivord of God ! 
 
214 On Church Government, S)C, 
 
 Humility and love will do great things toward 
 unanimity ; but this forced unanimity is the highest 
 refinement of spiritual tyranny. It is a being com- 
 pelled to believe as the church believes, and that 
 not only on subjects clearly revealed, and of great 
 importance ; but in matters of mere opinion, ia 
 which the most upright minds may differ, and to 
 which no standard can apply. What can he, who 
 " exalteth himself above all that is called God,'^ do 
 more, than set up his decisions as the ivord of God, 
 and require men on pain of excommunication to 
 receive them ? 
 
 Yours, &c, 
 
215 
 
 LETTER XI. 
 
 OF THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST. 
 
 My dear Friend, 
 
 You are aware, that the admirers of Messrs. 
 Glass and Sandeman generally value themselves 
 on their '^ clear views of the gospel, and of the na- 
 tm'e of Christ's kingdom;" and I doubt not but 
 they have written things concerning both, which de- 
 serve attention. It appears to me however, that 
 they have done much more in detecting error than 
 in advancing truth; and that their writings on the 
 kingdom of Christ relate more to what it is not, 
 than to what it is. Taking up the sentence of our 
 Lord, " My kingdom is not of this world," they have 
 said much, and much to purpose, against worldly 
 establishments of religion, with their unscriptural 
 appendages ; but, after all, have thoy shown what 
 the kingdom of Christ is ; and does their religion, 
 taken as a whole, exemplify it in its genuine sim- 
 
216 Of I the Kingdom of Christ, 
 
 plicity ? If writing and talking about ^^ simple 
 truth" would do it, they would not be wanting: 
 but it will not. Is there not as much of a worldly 
 spirit in their religion as in that which they explode, 
 only that it is of a different species? Nay, is there 
 not a greater defect in what relates to " righteous- 
 ness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost," amongst 
 them, than will often be found in what they denomi- 
 nate Babylon itself? 
 
 A clear view of the nature of Christ's kingdom, 
 would hardly be supposed to overlook the Apostle's 
 account of it. The kingdom of God, he says, is 
 " not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and 
 joy in the Holy Gliost." * From this statement, we 
 should expect to find the essence of it placed in 
 things moral, rather than in things ceremonial ; ia 
 things clearly revealed, rather than in matters of 
 doubtful disputation ; and in things of prime im- 
 portance, rather than in those of but comparatively 
 small account. We certainly should not expect to 
 see the old error of the Pharisees revived, that of 
 *' tithing mint and rue, to the neglect of judgment, 
 mercy, and the love of God." 
 
 We should also expect the most eminent suh^ 
 jects of this kingdom would be men, who, while 
 they conscientiously attend to tlie positive institu- 
 tions of Christ, abhor the thought of making them 
 a substitute for sobriety, righteousness, and godli-^ 
 
 * Rom. xiv. 17. 
 
Oil the Kingdom of Christ, 217 
 
 ness ; men wlio need not a special precept for every 
 duty: but, drinking deeply into the law of love, 
 are ready, like the father of the faithful, to obey 
 all its dictates. 
 
 And as the kingdom of God consists in peace, we 
 should expect its most eminent subjects to be dis- 
 tinguished by that dove-like spirit, which seeks the 
 things which make for peace. They may indeed 
 be called upon to contend for the faith, and tliat 
 earnestly; but contention will not be their ele- 
 ment; nor will their time be chiefly occupied in 
 conversing on the errors, absurdities, and faults of 
 others. Considering bitter zeal and strife in the 
 heart as belonging to tlie wisdom that descendeth 
 not from above, but which is earthly, sensual, and 
 devilish,* they are concerned to lay aside every 
 thing of the kind, and to cherish the spirit of a 
 new-born babe. 
 
 Finally, Thejoj/s which they possess in having heard 
 and believed the good news of salvation, may be ex- 
 pected to render them dead to those of the world ; so 
 much so at least, that they will have no need to repair 
 to the diversions of the theatre, or other carnal pas- 
 times, in order to be happy; nor will they dream 
 of such methods of asserting their christian liberty, 
 and opposing pharisaism. 
 
 Whether these marks of Christ's sul)jects be 
 eminently conspicuous among the people alluded 
 
 * James iii. H, 13, 
 U 
 
218 On the Kingdom of Christ. 
 
 to, those who are best acquainted with them are 
 able to determine ; but so far as appears from 
 their writings, whatever excellencies distinguish 
 them, they do not consist in things of this nature. 
 
 It is remarkable, that the Apostle, after repre- 
 senting the kingdom of God as being " not meat 
 and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the 
 Holy Ghost," adds, " for he that in these things 
 serveth Christ, is acceptable to God, and approved 
 of men. Let us therefore follow after the things 
 which make for peace, and things wherewith one 
 may edify another."* This not only shows what 
 the prominent features of Christ's kingdom are, 
 but affords a striking contrast to the kingdom con- 
 tended for by Sandemanians ; which, instead of re- 
 commending itself to both God and man, would 
 seem rather to have been copied from the religion 
 of that people, who " pleased not God, and were 
 contrary to all men." 
 
 The substitution of forms and ceremonies for the 
 love of God and man. Is one of the many ways in 
 which depravity has been wont to operate. What 
 else is paganism, apostate Judaism, popery, and 
 many other things which pass for religion ? And 
 whether the same principle does not pervade the 
 system in question, and even constitute one of its 
 leading features, let the impartial observer judge. 
 If it does not place the kingdom of God in meat 
 
 * Rom. xiv. 18, I[). 
 
On the Kingdom of Christ. 2lf> 
 
 and drink, it places it in things analogous to them, 
 rather than in righteousness, peace, and joy in the 
 lit;]y Ghost. 
 
 It is true, the forms contended for in this case 
 are not the same as in many others, being such 
 only as are thought to be enjoined in tlie scrip- 
 tures. That many of them arise from a misunder- 
 standing of the scriptures, I have endeavoured to 
 show in a former letter; but, whether it be so, or 
 not, if ail improper stress be laid upon them, tliey 
 may be as injurious as though they were not 
 scriptural. When tlie brazen serpent became an 
 idol, it was as pernicious as other idols. The 
 tithing of herbs, though in itself right, yet being 
 done to the neglect of " weightier matters," be- 
 came the very characteristic of hypocrisy. 
 
 It has been said, that obedience to the least of 
 God's commands cannot be unfriendly to obedience 
 to the greatest; and if it be genuine, it cannot; but 
 to deny the possibility of the great things of God's 
 law being set aside by a fondness for little 
 things, is to deny the fact just referred to, and dis- 
 covers but a slender acquaintance with the human 
 heart ; which certainly can burn in zeal for a cere- 
 mony, when, as to the love of God and man, it is 
 as cold as death. 
 
 If the nature of Christ's kingdom were placed in 
 those things in which the Apostle places it, the 
 government and discipline of the church would be 
 considered as means and not as eiids. The dcsigi^ 
 
 u 2 
 
220 On the Kingdo^n of Christ, 
 
 of order and discipline in an army is to enable k 
 to encounter the enemy to advantage; and snch 
 was the order and discipline of tlie primitive 
 churches. It was still, peaceal)le, and affectionate ; 
 without parade, and without disputes. It consisted 
 in all things being done to edifying, and in such 
 an arrangement of energies^ as that every gift 
 should be employed to the best advantage in 
 building up the church, and attacking the kingdom 
 of Satfin. But is this the order and discipline of 
 which so much has of late been written ? Surely 
 not ! Fiom the days of Glass and Sandeman 
 tin til now, it does not appear to have been their 
 object to convert men to Christ from amongst the 
 ungodly, but to make proselytes of other chris- 
 tians. And is this to understand the true nature 
 of Christ's kini^dom ? If there were not another 
 fact, this alone is sufficient to prove that their reli- 
 gion, though it may contain a portion of truth, and 
 though godly men may have been misled by it, 
 yet, taken as a whole, is not of God. There is not 
 a surer mark of false religion, than its tendency and 
 aim being to make proselytes to ourselves, rather 
 than converts to Christ.* 
 
 That there is neither tendency in the system, nor 
 Rira in those who enter fully into it, to promote the 
 kingdom of Christ, is manifest, and easily account- 
 ed for. They neither expect, nor, as it would seem^ 
 
 * Acts XX. 30. 
 
On the Kbigdom of Christ. 22\ 
 
 desire its progress; but even look with a jealous 
 eye on all opinions and efforts in favour of its en- 
 largement ; as though, should it be greatly extend- 
 ed, it must needs be a kingdom of this world 1 
 This I am aware is a serious charge : but it does 
 not originate with me. Mr. Braidwood, of Edin- 
 burgh, who must be allowed to have the best op- 
 portunities of knowing the system and its adhe- 
 rents, and who cannot be supposed to write under 
 the influence of prejudice, seeing he acknowledges 
 he has " learned many things from the ancient writ- 
 ings of this class of professing christians, in relation 
 to the simple doctrine of the gospel, and the na- 
 ture of Christ's kingdom:" — Mr. Braidwood, I say, 
 writes as follows: — '^ I feel it incumbent on me to 
 warn the disciples of Jesus against that state of 
 mind, which makes them slow to believe the prophe- 
 cies relating to the extent of the Redeemer's king- 
 dom." — " It is remarkable that some gentile christi- 
 ans now show a disposition toward the Jews, similar 
 to that, which, in the apostolic age, the Jews manifest- 
 ed toward the gentiles, namely, a dislike to their 
 salvation I It is truly mortifying to reflect, that the 
 greater numl)er of those who indulge this state of 
 mind, are persons much instructed in the know- 
 ledge of the gospel, and of the things concerTxing 
 the kingdom of God. They call it a Jewish notiony 
 to expect an extensive influence of the word of 
 God a.iiong all nations. The very opposite is the 
 fact 3 for the apostle Paul, describing his country- 
 
 U 3 
 
222 On the Ktngdo7n of Christ, 
 
 men, says, Thei/ please 9iot God, and are cont7Yny 
 to all men, forbidding ns to sj)eak unto the gen- 
 tiles that they might he saved. And even believing 
 Jews were not very willing to acknowledge the first 
 gentile converts, and were surprised when they heard 
 that God had also granted to the gentiles repentance 
 unto lite. But the Apostle thus describes the spirit 
 by which he regulated his own conduct; I please all 
 men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but 
 the profit of many, that they may he saved, 
 
 " The freeness of divine grace, its sovereignty, its 
 opposition to the most darling inclinations of the 
 human heart, the spiritual and heavenly nature of 
 Christ's kingdom — all these have heen used as ar- 
 guments against the conversion of the Jews, or any 
 signal prosperity of the gospel among the gentiles I 
 And they whose heart's desire and prayer to God 
 for Israel, and for the nations, is, that they may be 
 saved, are accused of ignorance of the gospel, and 
 of wishing to see a corrupt faith prevail, especially 
 if they dare to express a hope that their prayers 
 will be answered !" 
 
 It would seem from hence to be the interest of 
 this class of professing christians, that the world and 
 tlie church should continue what they are. They 
 glory in the latter being few in number : if there- 
 fore any considerable part of mankind were to em- 
 brace even what tliey account the tiuth, they would 
 have nothing left, in compajison, whereof to glory ! 
 
On the Kingdom of Christ, 223 
 
 Mr. Braidwood addresses the party on whom 
 lie animadverts as follows : — " Will the purest and 
 simplest views that can he entertained of tlie truth 
 concerning Jesus, have any tendency to make us 
 less concerned about the salvation of men, and 
 more anxious to darken the things revealed in the 
 scriptures, concerning the success of the gospel 
 among all nations ? No, my friend, let us heware 
 of imputing to the gospel a state of mind which so 
 ill accords with its genuine influence, and which can 
 only arise from prejudice^ mid from mistaken views^ 
 of the 3fessiah's kingdom. That glorious kingdom, 
 instead of dying away, as some have supposed, 
 like an expiring lamp, before the advent of its eter- 
 nal king, shall break in pieces and consume all 
 op]}osing kingdoms, and shall stand for ever, al- 
 though its own subjects, acting consistently, use no 
 carnal weapons/' * 
 
 The writer to v/hom these excellent remarks are 
 addressed, signs himself Palcemon. I know not 
 who he is ; but as the signature is the same as that 
 affixed to Mr. Sandeman's Letters on Theron and 
 Aspasio, I conclude he is, and wishes to be thought, 
 a Sandemanian. Mr. Braipwood calls him his 
 " friend," and speaks of his being " mortified" by 
 these his erroneous sentiments, as though he had a 
 feeling for Palaemon's general creed, or that " in- 
 struction in the knowledge of the gospel, and of 
 
 ♦ Letters on a variety of Subjects, pp. 28, 30. 
 
224 On the Kingdom of Christ, 
 
 the things concerning the kingdom of God," which 
 he and others had received. For my part, witliout 
 deciding upon the state of individuals, I am per- 
 suaded that these people, with all their professions 
 of " clear views," " simple truth," and " simple be- 
 lief," have imbibed a corrupt and dangerous system 
 of doctrine. 
 
 Palfiemon, whoever he is, would do well to ex^ 
 amine himself whether he he in the faith ; and were 
 I in Mr. Braid^vood's place, I should feel it to be 
 my duty to re-examine what I had " learned from 
 the ancient writings of this class of professing chris- 
 tians, relative to the simple doctrine of the gospel, 
 and the nature of Christ's kingdom ;" and to ask 
 myself, what I had asked my friend, Tfhether that 
 €AN he pure and simple truth, ivhich is productive 
 of such effects f 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
225 
 
 LETTER XII. 
 
 THE SPIRIT OP THE SYSTEM COMPARED WITH 
 THAT OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 My dear JTrlend, 
 
 You are aware that doctrines, whetlier 
 true or false, if really believed, become principles 
 of action. They are a mould into which the mind 
 is cast, and from which it receives its impression. 
 An observant eye will easily perceive a spirit which 
 attends different religions, and difl'erent systems 
 of the same religion ; which, over and above the di- 
 versities arising from natural temper, will manifest 
 itself in their respective adherents. Paganism, 
 mahometism, deism, apostate Judaism, and various 
 systems which have appeared under the name of 
 Christianity, have each discovered a spirit of their 
 own ; and so has Christianity itself. Thus it was 
 from the beginning: those who received " another 
 doctrine," received with it '^ another spirit ;" and 
 hence we aie told of " the spirit of truth, and th^ 
 
22G On the spirit of the System, 
 
 spirit of error :" he that had tlie one was said to be 
 " of God," and he that had the other " not of 
 God/' * 
 
 I Iiope it will be undeistood, that in what I write 
 on this subject there is no reference to individuals, 
 nor any wish to judge men indiscriminately by the 
 names under which they pass, nor any desire to 
 charge the evils which may belong to the system^ 
 on all who have discovered a partiality in its favour^ 
 or who have defended particular parts of it. I shall 
 only take a brief review of the spirit which is of 
 God, and compare that of Mr. Sandeman, and the 
 generality of his admirers, with it. 
 
 First, The spirit of primitive Christianity was full 
 of the devout and the affectionate. Of this there 
 needs little to be said in a way of proof, as the 
 thing is evident to any one who is acquainted with 
 the Bible. The psalms of David are full of it ; and 
 so is the new testament. Primitive Christianity 
 was the religion of love. It breathed grace, mercy, 
 and peace, on all that loved the Lord Jesus 
 Christ in sincerity. Among such it would not 
 break a bruised reed, nor quench the smoaking 
 flax. Its faithfulness was tempered with brotherly 
 kindness. It had compassion for the ignorant, and 
 them that were out of the way ; and while siding 
 with God against the wicked, it wept over them^ 
 and was willing to do or suffer any thing, if by any 
 
 ♦ 2 Cor. xi. 4.— 1 John iv. G. 
 
On the spirit of the Si/stem, 227 
 
 weans it mlglit save some of them. But is this 
 Sandemaiiianism ? You will scarcely meet with 
 terms expressive of devotion or alFection, in any of 
 its productions, unless it be to hold them up to 
 ridicule. It appears to be at war with all devotioa 
 and devout men. Its most indignant opposition 
 and bitterest invectives are reserved for them. Its 
 advocates would have you think indeed, that it is 
 blind devotion, like that of the Pharisees, at which 
 they sneer: but where are we to look for that 
 which is not so, and with w hich they are not at war ? 
 Is it to be found out of their own connections r 
 Every thing there which has the appearance of re- 
 ligion, is pharisaism. It must therefore be amongst 
 themselves, if any where. But if the spirit of love, 
 jieace, long- stiff ering, gentleness, goodness, meek- 
 ness, &;c,' prevail in their assemblies, it is singular 
 that the same spirit should not appear in their 
 writings. Who that has read them will say, that 
 their general tendency is to promote the love of 
 either God or man ? Toward worldly men indeed, 
 who make no pretence to religion, the system 
 seems to bear a friendly aspect : but it discovers 
 no concern for tJieir salvation. It would seem to 
 have no tears to shed over a perishing world ; and 
 even looks with a jealous eye on those that have^ 
 gloiying in the paucity of its numbers ! 
 
 Whether the advocates of this system perceive 
 the discordance between their own spirit and that of 
 David, or whatever is the reason, it is common for 
 
228 On the sjnrit of the System, 
 
 them to apply to Christ a great deal of what he ma- 
 nifestly wrote of his own devout feelings. Christ, 
 it seems, might be the subject of devotion, without 
 any danger of self-righteous pride ; but we cannot, 
 and therefore must have little or nothing to do 
 with it. 
 
 It is amongst people of this description that \e\\- 
 giousfeelmgs and affections are ordinarily traduced. 
 There are, no doubt, many enthusiastic feelings, 
 which have no true religion in them. There is such 
 a thing too as to make a saviour of them, as well as 
 of our duties. But we must not on this account ex- 
 clude the one, any more than the other. President 
 EdW' ARDs, in his Treatise on Religions Affections, 
 has proved beyond all reasonable contradiction, that 
 the essence of true religion lies in them. In read- 
 ing that work, and Mr. Sandeman's Letters, we 
 may see many of the same things exposed as enthu- 
 siastic : but the one is an oil that breaketh not the 
 head ; the other an effusion of pride and bitterness. 
 The first, while rejecting what is naught, retains the 
 savour of pure, humble, and holy religion : but the 
 last, is as one who should propose to remove the dis- 
 orders of the head by means of a guillotine. 
 
 It has been observed, that every religion, which, 
 instead of arising from love to the truth, has its 
 origin in dislike or <)])positiony even though it be to 
 error, will come to nothing. You may sometimes 
 see the principal inhabitants of a village fall out 
 with the clergyman, perhaps on account of some 
 
On the spirit of the St/stcm. 229 
 
 diffcicncc on the subject of tytlies, and proceed to 
 build a place for dissenting worship : also dissenting 
 congregations themselves will sometimes divide from 
 mere antipathy to the preacher^ or from offtmce 
 taken at some of the people : but did you ever know 
 sucli undertakings productive of much good ? Wlien 
 we adhere to a system of religion from opposition 
 to something else, we do not so much regard it for 
 what it is, as for what it is 7iot. Whatever good 
 therefore there may be in it, it will do us no good, 
 and we shall go on waxing worse and worse. It is 
 remarkable, that the Sadducees, according to Pri- 
 DEAUXj professed, at their outset, the strictest adhe- 
 rence to the written luord, utterly renouncing the 
 traditions of the elders, which the Pharisees had 
 agreed to hold. In a little time however they rejected 
 a great part of the word itself, and its most important 
 doctrines, such as the resurrection and a future life. 
 This was no more than miglit have been expected; 
 for the origin of tlie system was not attachment to 
 the word, but dislike to the Pharisees. 
 
 How far these remarks apply to the religion in ques- 
 tion, let those who are best acquainted with it judge. 
 It doubtless contains some important truth, as did 
 Sadduceanism at its outset; but the spirit which per- 
 vades it, must render it doubtful whether this be 
 held for its own sake, so much as from opposition to 
 other principles. If truth be loved for its own sake, 
 it will occupy our minds irrespective of the errors 
 which are opposed to it, and whether they cxist^ or 
 
 X 
 
230 On the sjnrit of the System, 
 
 not. But by the strain of writing and conversation 
 which prevail in this connection, it would seem as 
 if the supposed absurdities of others were the life 
 of their religion, and that if they were once to cease, 
 their zeal would expire with them. It is the vul- 
 ture, and not the dove, that is apparent in all their 
 writings. Who will say that Mr. Sandeaian sought 
 the good of his opponents, when all through his 
 publications, he took every opportunity to hold 
 them up to contempt; and with evident marks of 
 pleasure to . describe them and their friends as walk- 
 ing in a devout path to hell f The same is mani- 
 festly the spirit of his followers, though they may 
 not possess his sarcastic talents. But are these 
 the weapons of the christian warfju'e ? Supposing 
 Flavel, Boston, the Erskines, &c. to have been 
 bad men, was tliis the way to deal with them ? Is 
 there no medium between flattery and malignity ? 
 
 Mr. Sandeman would persuade us, that Paul was 
 of his " temper."* Paul was certainly in earnest, 
 and resisted error wherever he found it. He does 
 not treat those however, who build on a right foun- 
 dation, though it be a portion of what will be ulti- 
 mately consumed, as enemies to the truth, f And 
 in his conduct, even to the enemies of Christ, I re- 
 collect no sarcastic sneers, tending to draw upon 
 them the contempt of mankind, but every thing cal- 
 culated to do them good. If however it were not 
 
 » Epis. Cor. p. 9. f 1 <^or. iii. 11—15. 
 
On the spirit of the si/stem, 231 
 
 so, he must have practised dllFereiitly from wliat lie 
 wrote. '' The servant of the Lord," he says in his 
 epistle to Timothy, " must not strive (as for mas- 
 tery) ; but be gentle unto all men ; in meekness in- 
 structing those that oppose themselves : if God 
 peradventure will give them repentance to the ac- 
 knowledging of the truth." Paul would have in- 
 structed and intreated those whom Mr. Sandeaian 
 scorned. 
 
 There is a calmness, I acknowledge, in the advo- 
 cates of this doctrine, which distinguishes their writ- 
 ings from the low and fulsome productions of the 
 Knglisli antinomians. But calmness is not always 
 opposed to bitterness : on the contrary, it may bo 
 studied for the very purpose of concealing it. 
 " The words of Ins mouth were smoother than but- 
 ter, but war was in his heart: his sayings were softer 
 than oil, yet were they drawn swords." 
 
 The only thing that I know of which has the ap- 
 pearance of love, is, that attachment which they 
 have to one another, and which they consider as 
 love for the truth's sake. jBut even here there are 
 things which T am not able to reconcile. — Love for 
 the truth's sake unites the heart to every one in 
 j)roportion as tie appears to embrace it : but the 
 nearer you approach to these people, provided you 
 follow not with them, so much the more bitter are 
 their invectives. — Again, Love for the truth's sake 
 takes into consideration its practical eftects. It 
 was truth embodied in the spirit and life, that excited 
 
 X 2 
 
'JS2 On the spirit of the Sijstem. 
 
 the attacliment of tlie apostle Jolin. " I rejoiced 
 f^reatly tliat I found of tl\y cluldrcri walldng in the 
 truth'* * But that wlilch excites theh" love seems 
 to be the " clear views/' which they conceive their 
 friends to entertain above other professing chris- 
 tians. — Once more, Love, be it for the sake of what 
 it may, will so unite us to one another, as to render 
 separation painful, and lead to the use of all possi- 
 ble means of preventing it. But such is the disci- 
 pline of those \\\\o drink into these principles, that 
 they can separate men from their communion 
 in considerable numbers, for diiferences which others 
 would consider as objects of forbearance, with little 
 or no apparent concern. I can reconcile such things 
 with self-love ; but not with love for the truth's 
 sake. 
 
 Secondly, The spirit of primitive Christianity was 
 a spirit of meekness and humility. Of this Christ 
 himself was the great pattern ; and they that would 
 be his disciples, must " learn of him w ho was meek 
 and lowly of heart." They were unbelievers, and 
 not christians, who trusted in themselves that thei/ 
 tvere righteous, and desjnsed others. He that would 
 be wise, was required to become a fool, that he might 
 be wise. The apostle Paul, notwithstanding his high 
 attainments in the knowledge of Christ, reckoned 
 himself as knowing nothing comparatively, desir- 
 ing above all things that " he might knoiv him, and 
 
 * 2 John iv. 
 
On the sjnrit of the System, 233 
 
 the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship 
 of his sulferings, and be made conformable unto his 
 death." If any man thought that he knew any 
 thing, he declared that he knew nothing yet as he 
 ougiit to know. But is this the spirit of the system 
 in question ? One of the first things that presents 
 itself, is a pretence to something very nearly akin 
 to infallibility ; an imposing air in all its decisions, 
 tending to bear down timid spirits, especially as 
 the sincerity, and consequently the Christianity, of 
 the party is suspended upon his entirely yielding 
 himself up to it. 
 
 If it be necessary to become fools that we may 
 be wise, how are we to account for those " clear 
 views of the gospel," of which these people boast ? 
 They have given abundant proof, that they account 
 others fools who do not see with them ; and tbey may 
 account themselves to have been such, till they im- 
 bibed their present principles : but if any symptoms 
 have appeared of their being fools in their own eyes 
 from that time forward, they have escaped my ob- 
 servation. Instead of a self-diffident spirit, which 
 treats with respect the understanding of others, and 
 implores divine direction, no sooner have these 
 principles taken possession of a man, than they not 
 only render him certain that he is in the right, but 
 instantly qualify him to pronounce on those who fol- 
 low not with him, as destitute of the truth. 
 
 We may be told however, that there is one species 
 
 of pride, at least^ of which the system cannot be sus- 
 
 x3 
 
23 1 On the spirit of the System, 
 
 pectcd, namely, that of self-rigJiteoi'sness; seeing it 
 is that against wliich its abettors arc constantly de- 
 claiming. But he that would know the truth must 
 not take up with mere professions. If a self-righte- 
 ous spirit consist in trusting in themselves that theij 
 are righteous^ and des^iising others ; T see not how 
 they are to be acquitted of it. A self-righteous spi- 
 rit, and its opposite, will he allowed to be drawn with 
 sufficient prominency in the parable of the phari- 
 see and the publican. The question is, which of 
 these characters is exemplified, by those who enter 
 fully into the Sandemanian system ? Is it the publi- 
 can ? Look at it : 1 am aware that he is the favourite 
 of the party, and so he is of other parties } for you 
 never heard of any who were the professed advocates 
 of the pharisee ; but are they of the spirit of the pub- 
 lican ? Rather, are they not manifestly of the spirit 
 of the pharisee, who looked down with scorn upon 
 his fellow worshipper r 
 
 Mr. BiiAiDw^ooD, referring to a late publication 
 by one of this class of professing christians, who 
 calls himself Simplex, writes as follows : — " The 
 work referred to seems intended chiefly to show 
 how much Simplea:, and they wlio agree with him, 
 despise others, and how far they alone are from 
 trusting to themselves that they are righteous. 
 This their apparent inconsistency, their confident as- 
 sertions when no proof is given, their unfeeling and 
 indiscriminate censures, which therelbre cannot be 
 always just, and their fearless anathemas against all 
 
On the spirit of the System, 235 
 
 who follow not with them, prevent them from oh- 
 taining u hearing, not only from those whom they 
 might be warranted to consider as false professors, 
 but from disciples of Christ, who need to be taught 
 the way of God more perfectly. And in this alsa 
 they glory ! 
 
 " If they would suffer an exhortation from a fel- 
 low sinner, I would entreat them to recollect, that 
 the pharisee praying in the temple, disdained the 
 publican, while the publican disdained no man, 
 and had nothing to say except what regarded him- 
 self and THE MOST HIGH. — God be merciful to me 
 a sinner. They will never successfully combat self- 
 righteousness, till they themselves become poor and 
 of a co)itrite spirit. The most effectual way to con- 
 demn pride, is to give an example of humility. 
 
 '' Self-abasement corresponds with the humbling 
 doctrine of Christ crucified : while the indulgence 
 of an opposite spirit, in connection with clear views 
 of the freedom and sovereignty of divine grace, 
 presents a most unnatural and unedifying object — 
 the publican turning the chase upon the pharisee, 
 and combating him with his own weapons ! Nay, 
 he who professes to account himself the chief of 
 sinners, having once begun to imitate an example 
 so repugnant to the genuine influence of the doc- 
 trine for which he contends, novv' proceeds to attack 
 all who come in his way — self-condemned publi- 
 cans, not entirely of his own mind, as v/ell as proud 
 pharisees, avowing their impious claims upon the 
 
23G On the spirit of the System, 
 
 Divine Being. May we not ask, Who art thou 
 thatjudgest ?" * 
 
 As to Mr. Braidwood's allowing them to pos- 
 sess " clear views of the freedom and sovereignty 
 of divine grace," I do not understand how such 
 views can accompany, and still less produce, such 
 a spirit as he has described ; but with regard to the 
 spirit itself, it is manifestly drawn from life, and is 
 of greater eifect than if he had written a volume 
 on the subject. — Whether his observations do not 
 equally apply to that marked separation of church- 
 members from others in public worship, said to be 
 practised of late in Ireland, and to which he refers 
 in page 32, let those who have their senses exer- 
 cised to discern both good and evil, judge. 
 
 Lastly, The spirit of primitive Christianity was 
 catholic and pacific. Its language is, " Grace be 
 with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in 
 sincerity. — As many as w^alk by this rule, (that is, 
 the cross of Christ,) peace be on them, and mercy^ 
 and upon the Israel of God. — All that in every 
 place call upon the name of Jesus Christ, our Ix)rd, 
 both their's and our's, Grace be unto them, and 
 peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord 
 Jesus Christ." 
 
 There were cases, in ■which the apostles and first 
 christians were obliged to withdraw even from hre- 
 thren who walked disorderly 5 but tliis would give 
 
 * lictters on various Subjects, &c. Introduction. 
 
On the spirit of the System. 2':)'] 
 
 them pain. And if t!ie disordered state of the 
 christian world at present, render it necessary for 
 some of the friends of Christ to withdraw from 
 others, it must needs, to a truly good man, he a 
 matter of deep regret. It will he his concern too, 
 to diminish the breach rather than widen it ; and to 
 consider the things wherein he agrees with others, 
 and, as far as he conscientiously can, to act with 
 them. If we see a person, or a community, who, 
 instead of such regret, is generally employed in 
 censuring all who follow not with them, as enemies 
 to the truth; and, instead of acting with them in 
 things wherein they are agreed, are studious to 
 render the separation as wide as possible, and glory 
 in it — can we hesitate to say, this is not Christianity ? 
 There is a zeal which may properly be denomi- 
 nated catholic, and one which may as properly be 
 denominated sectarian. It is not supposed that any 
 man, or body of men, can be equally concerned in 
 promoting Christ's interest in all places. As our 
 powers are limited, we must each build the wall, as 
 it were, o\er against our own houses. Nor arc we 
 obliged to be equally concerned for the prosperity 
 of all religious undertakings, in which the parties 
 may be, in the main, on the side of Christ. It is 
 right that we should be most interested in that, 
 which approaches the nearest to truth and true re- 
 ligion. But true catholic zeal will, nevertheless, 
 have the good of the universal Church oi Christ for 
 its grand object, and will rejoice in the prosperity 
 
238 On the sjnrit of the S(/stem» 
 
 of every denomination of christians, in so far as they 
 appear to have the mind of Christ. Those Vvho huikl- 
 ed the wall against their own houses, M'ould not con- 
 sider themselves as the only builders^ but would 
 bear good will to their brethren, and keep in view 
 the rearing of the whole ivafl, which should en- 
 compass the city. As it is not our being of the 
 religion of Rome, nor of any other which happens 
 to be favoured by the state, that determines our 
 zeal to be catholic 5 so, it is not our being of a 
 sect, or party of christians, or endeavouring with 
 christian meelv-ness and frankness to convince others 
 of what we account the mind of Christ, that gives 
 it the character of sectarian. It is a hemg more con- 
 cerned to propagate those things ivherein we differ 
 from other christians^ than to imjjart the common 
 salvation. Where this is the case, we shall so limit 
 the kingdom of heaven to ourselves, as nearly to con- 
 fine our good wishes, prayers, and efforts, to our own 
 denomination, and treat all others as if we had no- 
 thing to do with them in religious matters, but in a 
 way of censure and dispute. Wherein this kind of 
 zeal differs from that of the Pharisees, that compas- 
 sed sea and land to make proselytes, but vvho, when 
 made, were turned to thern rather than to God, I 
 cannot understand. 
 
 It is remarkable, that notwithstanding all which 
 has been written by the advocates of this system 
 about a free gospel to the ungodly, they do not 
 seem to have much to do in labouring for the con- 
 
On the spirit of the Si/stem. 235 
 
 version of men of this description. Their princi- 
 pal attention, like that of the Socinians, seems di- 
 rected toward religious people of otiier denomina- 
 tions, and from them their forces have Ijeen mostly 
 recruited. This may not have been universally 
 the case, but, from every thing that I have seen 
 and heard, it is very generally so : and if this do 
 not betray a zeal more directed to the making of 
 proselytes to themselves, than of converts to Christ, 
 it will be difficult to determine what does. 
 
 The zeal of the apostles was directed to the cor- 
 rection of evils, the healing of differences, and the 
 uniting of the friends of Jesus Christ : but the zeal 
 produced by this system appears to be of a contrary 
 tendency. Wherever it most prevails, we hear of 
 most bitterness, contention, and division. 
 
 It may be said, this is no more tlian was tiiie of 
 the gospel itself, which set a man at variance with 
 his father, his mother, and his nearest friends;* and 
 relates not to what it causes, but what it occasions 
 through the corruptions of men. The words of our 
 Lord, however, do not describe the bitterness of be- 
 lievers against unbelievers, but of unbelievers against 
 believers, who, as Cain hated his brother, hate them 
 for the gospel's sake. 
 
 It has been said, that " the poignancy of Mr. 
 Sandeman's words arises from their being true." 
 The same might be said, and witli equal justice, of 
 
 ♦ Matt. X. 34—36. 
 
2 10 On the spirit of the System, 
 
 any other " bitter words/' for which men of con- 
 temptuous spirits know how to "whet their tongues." 
 If the doctrine which Mr. Sandeman taught were 
 true, it woukl do good to them tliat beHeved it. It 
 certainly produces its own likeness in them 3 but 
 what is it ? Is it not " trusting in themselves that 
 they are righteous, and despising others ?" Is it 
 not descrying the mote in a brother's eye, while 
 blinded to the beam in their own ? 
 
 There is a very interesting description given in 
 the epistle of James, of two opposite kinds of ivis- 
 dom. The first is represented as coming " from 
 above ;" the last as '^ coming not from above," but 
 as being " earthly, sensual, and devilish :" that is 
 first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be in- 
 treated, full of mercy and good fruits, without par- 
 tiality, and without hypocrisy; this works " bitter 
 zeal, and strife in the heart :" " the fruit of righte- 
 ousness is sown in peace, and in making peace,'* 
 by the one : but by the* other is produced " con- 
 fusion, and every evil work." Yet these last are 
 supposed to " glory ;" hut in glorying they " lie 
 against the truth." * Without wishing to ascribe 
 either to bodies of people indiscriminately, there is 
 enough said to enable us to form a judgment of 
 things by the effects which they produce. 
 
 To conclude. — It is no part of my design to vin- 
 dicate or apologize for the errors of other denomi- 
 
 * James iii. 13 — 18. 
 
On the spirit of the Si/stem, 24 1 
 
 nations. The christian church is not what it was at 
 the beginning; and though every body of christians 
 are not equally corrupt, yet none is so pure, but 
 that if its character were reported by the great Head 
 of the church, he would have " somewhat against" 
 it. But whatever errors or evils may be found in 
 any of us, it is not this species of reform, even if it 
 were universally to prevail, that would correct them. 
 On the contrary, if we may judge from its effects 
 during the last fifty years, it would lead the christian 
 world, if not to downright infidelity, yet to son^e- 
 thing that comes but very little short of it. 
 
 1 am 
 
 Your affectionate 
 
 Friend and Brother, 
 
 ANDREW FULLER. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Pajje 32 — line 17. for maintaiiiing read tnaintain. 
 178 ■ ■ 15. for ritual rtail n ritual.