sense of the evil of There was an essen

we are agreed. But if Pharoah had a just sin, it would not have left him where it did. tial 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 divested of self-righteous hope as to consider himself a mere sinner, who yet continued to reject the Saviour 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 establish his own righteousness.

There is, I apprehend, an important difference between the case of a person, who, whatever be his convictions, is still averse from giving up every claim, and falling at the feet of the Saviour; and that of one whose convictions lead him to take refuge in the gospel, as far as he understands it, even though at present he may have but a very imperfect view of it. I can clearly conceive of the convictions of the first as having no repentance or holiness 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, whether there be not such a thing as spiritual conviction, or conviction which proceeds from the special influence of the spirit of God, and which in its own nature invariably leads the soul to Christ? It is not necessary 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 believe 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 sinful; of our being through the law, dead to the law, that we might live unto God; of the law being appointed, as a school-master to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith;-I am persuaded it does exist; and that to say all spiritual conviction of sin is by means of the gospel, is antiscriptural and absurd.

In places where the gospel is preached, and where persons have long heard it, it is not supposed 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 sinfulness 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 the death of Christ himself that we are first led to see the evil of sin; but if it be so, this does not disprove the apostolic doctrine, that by the law is the knowledge of sin. If the death of Christ furnish us with this knowledge, it is as honouring the precept 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 inhabitants 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 bitterness as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. Is this mourning described as following, or as preceding their forgiveness? 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 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 open 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 rather represent things in this order: First, a spirit of grace and supplication is poured 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. Such was doubtless the process under Peter's sermon. Acts ii. 37, 38.

On the connexion of repentance and faith, I am at a loss to ascertain Mr. M'Lean's sentiments. He says indeed, that I know them; and suggests that I must have intentionally misrepresented

them.* 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 repentance, in all cases a fruit of faith in Christ, and yet considers it as necessary to forgiveness. He acknowledges that " none believe who do not repent ;" (p. 39.) and that repenance is "necessary to forgiveness." p. 36.) But forgiveness, though not the same thing as justification, is yet an essential part of it; if therefore, he allows repentance to be, antecedent to forgiveness, that is the same thing in effect as allowing it to be antecedent to justification, or that the 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 immediate effect of faith, (p. 38.) and opposes the idea of any effect of faith being included in it as necessary, 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 things, is making repentance follow upon forgiveness, rather than necessary to it.

Mr. M'Lean adds, "Though repentance ought to be urged upon all who hear the gospel; and though none believe it who 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." (p. 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 they actually repent; or if it were suggested that they should first become penitents, and then 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 with held till the sinner had actually believed, or it were suggested that he should first become a believer, and then think of repeating, this would be as antiscriptural as the other. But why should we not content ourselves with the following examples of the New Testament,-Repent and believe the gospel? As Mr. M'Lean's placing faith before repentance does not require him to avoid tel

ling sinners of the evil nature of sin till they have believed, nor to consider them as believers while they are impenitent, why does he impute such consequences to me, for placing repentance before faith?

Mr. M'Lean refers to a passage in the preface to the first edition of The Gospel worthy of all Acceptation, 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 Philanthropos; 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 my meaning as follows: "There is no dispute concerning who ought to be encouraged to consider themselves as entitled to the blessings of the gospel. Though sinners be freely invited to the participation of spiritual blessings, yet they have no interest in them, according to God's revealed will, while they con. tinue in unbelief." I cannot consider Mr. M'Lean's other references to the first edition, after 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 I allow there is a foundation in the nature of things for this distinction. 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 notwithstanding, and even against it. But it appears to me, to have been too lightly 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, per

haps with more propriety, denominate them natural and spiritual ; by the former, understanding that which the mere principles of unrenewed nature are capable of producing, and by the latter, that which proceeds from the supernatural and renovating influence of the Spirit of God.

Natural repentance, thus defined, is sorrow for sin, chiefly with respect to its consequences, accompanied, however, with the reproaches of conscience on account of the thing itself. It is composed 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 hath 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 having dishonoured him without cause. Such a sense of the evil nature of sin as renders it exceeding sinful, includes the essence of true repentance. yet this, in the Apostle, did not arise from the consideration of the gospel, but of the commandment. It was therefore legal repentance: yet as its tendency was to render him "dead to the law" as a medium of justification, and to bring 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 precede repentance." If the principle that