ly considered as ungodly, or without 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 one that continues such. But the antecedency which I as cribe 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 forgiveness of sin, previously to his falling in the way of salvation. I believe it is not possible for a sinner 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 unbeliever. All that I contend for is, that in the order of cause and effect, whatever may be said as to 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, that 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 priority 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, 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. M'Lean acknowledges, that " none believe who do not repent," and as I also acknowledge, that none repent who, 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, antecedently to any true sorrow for sin, we must "see God to be just in justifying us ungodly as we stand," this is clearly maintain. ing the notion of an impenitent believer. From these introductory remarks, it will appear that I have no objection to faith being considered as temporary 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 include such a clear view of the gospel as necessarily brings peace and rest to the soul, I believe that repentance for sin often precedes it, even in the order of time. Such is the connexion between repentance and faith in the scriptures, that the one commonly supposes the other. Repentance, when followed by the remission of sins, supposes faith in the Saviour; (Luke xxiv. 47.) and faith, when followed with justification, equally supposes repentance for sin. Attempts have been made by criticising on the word μerovoia, to explain away, as it should 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."* But this is confounding repentance and faith objectively considered. The objects of both are so marked 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 Lawgiver, 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; and what is more, that the former is represented as influencing the latter. This is manifest 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. Sandeman, Mr. M'Lean, 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 Jesus Christ, and repentance toward God. They believed not, that they might repent.-If God peradventure may give them faith to repent." * Letters on Theron and Aspasio, p. 408. To this I add, it is impossible, in the nature of things, to believe the gospel but as being made sensible to that which renders it necessary. The guilty and lost state of sinners goes before the revelation of the grace of the gospel: the latter, therefore, 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 wrong; if we have not transgressed without cause, and be not fairly condemned, grace is no more grace, but a just exemption from undeserved punishment. And as faith must needs correspond with truth, it is impossible that we should believe the doctrine of salvation by grace, in an impenitent state of mind, or without feeling that 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 it, perceive the evil of sin, and our just exposedness to divine wrath, 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 neighborhood, 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 friends as a motive to him to consider of his condition, and to put himself under his care. It is thus that the coming of Christ and 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. The times past of this ignorance God winked at ; but now commandeth all men every 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 does it follow in the other that faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ precedes such a sense of the evil of sin as involves the first workings of repentance toward God. To argue as some 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 kingdom is held up as a motive: but to say that this supposes their belief of the gospel, is saying they must believe in order to believing. That a conviction of sin (whether it include the 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 when 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 conceiving that there are none more ripe for hell than he, and as. having no hope but in the great propitiation."* Thus also Mr. Ecking, when describing a "mere sinner," represents him as one who "feels himself in a perishing condition, and is conscious that he deserves no favour."t 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 the sinner by a few hard names, we may describe him in coming to the Saviour as sensible of his utter unworthiness, as divested of self-righteousness, and as ripe for hell in his own eyes! In short, we may depict him as the publican who sought mercy under a humiliating sense of his utter unworthiness to receive it, so that we still call him ungodly. 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 at the time of his justification he 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 described? They teach us elsewhere that "an attachment to selfrighteousness is natural to man as depraved;" how then came these ungodly men to be so divested of it? Why are they not represented as thinking themselves in a fair way for heaven, 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 which they are constrained to represent, as the spirit of the pharisee was to that of the publican. * Letters on Theron and Aspasio, pp. 46, 48. VOL. III. 51 + Essays, p. 41, Mr. M'Lean will tell us that "this is that part of the scheme, whereby persons, previously to their believing in Christ, are taught to extract comfort from their convictions." But, whatever Mr. M. may think or say, I hope others will give me credit when I declare that we have no idea of any well-grounded comfort being taken antecedently 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-exaltation. But it does not follow from hence that there was nothing spiritually good in his self-abasement. But Mr. M. " believes a person may be so convicted in his conscience as to view himself merely as a guilty sinner; that is, as having no righteousness to recommend him to the favour of God; and that under such conviction his sense of the evil of sin will not be confined to its punishment; but his conscience or moral sense will tell him that he deserves punishment at the hands of a righteous God."† Mr. M'Lean admits, then, the necessity of conviction of sin, previously in the order of things, to faith in Christ; only there is no holiness, and consequently no true repentance in it. I have allowed in Letter I. that many convictions are to be resolved into the mere operations of an enlightened conscience, and do not issue in true conversion. I may add, I consider all conviction of sin which does not in its own nature lead to the Saviour, as of this description. It matters not how deep the distress of a sinner may be; so long as it is accompanied by an unwillingness to be saved by mere grace though a mediator, there is no holiness in it, nor any thing that deserves the name of repentance. 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 |