ed by that which is 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 justifies ?*

Assuredly, there is no necessity for reducing faith to a nullity, in order to maintain the doctrine of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ. While we hold that faith justifies, not in respect of the act of believing, but of the righteousness 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 righteousness is excluded.

I have been the more particular on this " easy view" of Mr. Sandeman, because it is manifestly the grand pillar of his doctrine. If this be overturned, 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 to be necessary to reduce justifying faith to a bare "belief," exclusive of every "advance" 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. Observing, on the one hand, that numbers appear to believe the truth, on whom, nevertheless, it has no salutary influence; and, on the other, that believing 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 something presupposed in faith, than faith itself. But there can be no doubt that the belief of the gospel has, in a great number of instances, the promise of salvation; and as to those nominal Christians on whom it has no salutary influence, they believe Christ no more than the Jews believed Moses, which our Lord would not allow that they did.

*See President Edwards' Sermons on Justification, pp. 14. 26.

+ Epistolary Correspondence, p. 34.

If ye believed Moses, says he, ye would believe me, for he wrote of me.

But the belief of the gospel is allowed to have the promise of salvation, and so to be justifying, yet it does not follow that it is so exclusive of receiving Christ, trusting in him, or coming to him. 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 argument drawn from the promises of salvation made to the belief of the gospel: belief, in these connexions, is not to be understood exclusive of receiving 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 believing the gospel, nor that they are its immediate effects; but it is not in this metaphysical sense that faith is used in reference to justification. That belief which the gospel justifies, includes receiving Christ, coming to him, and trusting in him. Whatever shades of difference there be between belief and these "advances of the mind towards Christ," the scriptures represent them, with 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 BELlieved, 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 glory of his grace, who FIRST TRUSTED in Christ. In whom ye also TRUSTED after ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, after ye BELIEVED, ye were sealed, &c.—He that COMETH to me shall never hunger, and he that BELIEVETH in me shall never thirst.-Ye will not COME unto me, that ye may have life.COME unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give

you rest.

In these, and many other passages, it is manifest, that believing, coming, trusting, &c. are used as convertible terms, and that the thing signified by them is necessary to justification. If "receiving" Christ were an effect of faith in persons already justified, why is it used as synonymous with it, and held up as necessary to our being the sons of God? If " coming" to Christ were an exercise 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, if salvation be promised to a mere "notion" of the truth, without any love to it, is it said of apostates that "they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved"? 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 Christ, coming to him, and trusting in him, be the faith that justifies; and whether, if the former were separate from the latter, it would not leave the sinner under condemnation.

It has been said "In defining saving faith, some have included in its essence almost every holy temper; 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 sinner 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, making him merely a minister of their own selfrighteousness: for we may go about to establish our own righteousness under the name of faith, as well as under any other name."

I doubt not but preachers may abound in describing 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 enquiry 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. (See 1 John ii. 3. iii. 14. 18-21.) Now, in answer to such an enquiry, the true nature and genuine effects 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 included in justifying faith: and whether there be not actually as much laboured description, selfadmiration, and contempt of others, (things nearly akin to selfrighteousness,) among the advocates of this system, as among their opponents, let the candid observer judge. If we are to say nothing about the holy nature of faith, lest men should make a righteousness 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, M'Lean writes in his treastise on the Commission: “Now when men include in the very nature of jus tifying faith such good dispositions, holy affections, and pious exercises of heart, as the moral law requires, and so make them necessary (no matter under what consideration) to acceptation 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 represent. No more holy affection is pleaded for in faith, than unholy disaffection is allowed to be in unbelief. 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 include holy affection, it will be considered as favourable to self-righteousness. And as to distinguishing between what is necessary in the established order of things, from what is necessary as a procuring cause, this will not be admitted; for it is "no matter under what consideration:" if

"It

any thing required by the moral law be rendered necessary, it makes justification to be at least "as it were by the works of the law.” Yet Mr. M. allows faith, whatever it is, to be a duty. Is it then a requirement of a new 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 unbelief alleged against the Jews as a proof that they had not the love of God in them? (See John v. 42, 43.) As Mr. M. however, in his piece on the Calls and Invitations of the Gospel, has gone far towards answering himself, I shall transcribe a passage from that performance : is an unscriptural refinement upon divine grace," he there says, "and contrary to the doctrine of the apostles, to class faith and repentance with the works of the law, and to state them as equally opposite to free justification. Indeed, neither faith nor repentance are the meritorious, or procuring 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 reckoned of grace, but of debt; and faith and repentance corresponding exactly with the manifestation of divine grace, as freely justifying the guilty through the atonement, are in their very nature opposite to all self-dependence, and lead men to glory only in the Lord." (p. 26.)

We see here that there is nothing in the nature of repentance that clashes with a free justification, which yet must be allowed to include a portion of holy affection. Why then object to the same thing in faith? Is it because holy affection is "required by the moral law"? Be it so, it is the same in repentance 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 of God and man in its own nature is as opposite to self-righteous pride as faith and repentance are. It is not the law that is against the promises, but those works of the law done by a sinful creature with a view of obtaining life, or of procuring acceptance with God as the reward of them. If holy affection were urged with such a view, then were it opposed to the free grace of the gospel; but while