lar doctrines."* 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 strongest representations of it.

"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, especially as I have considered many as preachers thereof who differ remarkably from each other; and particularly as I have ranked among them Mr. Wesley, 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 produced. To remove all doubt concerning my meaning, I shall thus explain myself. Throughout these letters, I consider all those as teachers of the popular 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 concerning 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 something else than the bare truth of the gospel; all who would have us to be conscious of some beginning of a change to the better, or some desire, however faint, toward such change, in order to our acceptance with God; these I call the popular preachers, however much they may differ from each other about faith, grace, special or common, or about any thing else. My resentment is all along chiefly pointed against the capital branch of the 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 undermined 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

*Letters on Theron and Aspasio, p. 448.

HUMAN MINd, undoubtEDLY MAINTAINS, IF HE HAS ANY MEANING TO HIS WORDS, THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY 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 thousands 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 range themselves. It has frequently appeared to me a thing no less amazing than provoking, when the great difference between 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 real difference. This I cannot account for by assigning any other cause than the special agency of the prince of darkness."*

After this, it may be thought 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 uuderstand his meaning; but whether he has fairly represented that of his opponents, I shall take the liberty to inquire."

seems,

The popular preachers "rest our acceptance with God," it "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 contrary. I question if there be one of those whom Mr. S. ordinarily denominates popular preachers, who would not cordially subscribe to the passage in Aspasio, which he so highly applauds, and considers 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

* Letters on Theron and Aspasio, Vol. Il, pp. 480. 483.

of the life; done while we remain unregenerate, or when we become regenerate; they are all and every of them equally set aside in this great affair." If the popular preachers maintain an active advance of the soul to be necessary to our acceptance 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 which, according to the established order of things, there 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 this day. "His main doctrine," says one appears to be this: The bare work of Jesus Christ, which he finished on the cross, is sufficient, 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 of which, or for the sake of which a sinner is justified, it is very true; and Mr. Sandeman's opponents believed it no less than he himself: but if he 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 Christ without thinking of him.

Mr. Pike, who had embraced Mr. Sandeman's views of faith, yet says to him, "I cannot but conceive that you are sometimes mistaken in your representations of what you call the popular doctrine; for instance, Upon the popular plan, say you, we can never have peace in our consciences until we be sensible of some beginning of a good disposition in us towards Christ. Now, setting aside some few unguarded expressions and addresses, you will find that the general drift and purport of their doctrine is just the contrary to this; and they labour this point, both Marshal and Hervey, to convince persons that nothing of this nature does or can recommend them to God, or be any part of their justifying righteous

Theron and Aspasio, Vol. 1. p. 276.

+ Cooper's Letters, p. 33.

ness and their principal view is to beget, or 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 Hervey, in all their views: but justice requires that this misrepresentation should be corrected; especially 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 works done with a view of obtaining life; or of procuring acceptance with God as the reward of them. If repentance, faith, or sincere obedience 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 antiscriptural 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 upon them to believe in the light, that they may be 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 he one, as well as of the other.

Farther: If there be any weight in Mr. Sandeman's argument, it falls equally on his own hypothesis 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. Sandeman, that faith is a notion formed by the human mind, undoubtedly maintains, if he have any meaning to his words, that we are justified by a notion formed by the human mind.

VOL. III.

* Epistolary Correspondence, p. 24,
46

Mr. S. as if aware of his exposedness to this retort, labours, in the foregoing quotation, to make nothing of the belief 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 thing 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 of 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 inherent in the human mind.

You must by this time perceive, that Mr. Sandeman's grand argument, or, as he denominates it, his " easy view," turns out to be a mere sophism. 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 faith 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 duty commanded of God; and all this without affirming that we are justified by any thing inherent, any act of ours, or any duty that we perform? And why must we be supposed to use words without meaning, or to contradict ourselves, when we only maintain that we are justifi

* Epistolary Correspodence, p. 10.