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 doctrine, and so to unite us to a holy Saviour. The fitness for which I plead, 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, (Reply, p. 183.) 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 not 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 fitness, and instantly perceive that grace was here exalted at the expense of righteousness. He that can discern no fitness in such connexions but that of works and rewards, must have yet to learn some of the first principles of the oracles of God. : Fifthly With respect to justification by 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 opposition 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, is evident: for the just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith but THE MAN THAT DOETH THEM shall live in them. In this sense, justification by faith alone applies to my views of the subject as well as to his; but the sense in which he uses the phrase is very nearly akin to that in which James uses it when speaking of faith as dead, being alone. We are, indeed, justified by faith alone; but not by faith which is alone. Mr. M. is in the habit of speaking of that holiness which I conceive essential to the nature of faith 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" that unbelief. In like manner he seems to consider the phrase faith which worketh by love as expressive of what faith produces posteri or 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 by love as availing to justification; while circumcision or uncircumcision availeth nothing.* Faith, hope, and charity have, no doubt, their distinctive characters; but not one of them, nor of any other grace, consists in its being 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. Lastly: If union with Christ were antecedent to all holy affection, it would not be what the scriptures represent it; namely, an union of spirit: He that is joined to the Lord is ONE SPIRIT. Union of Spirit must include congeniality of disposition. Our heart must be as Christ's heart, or 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 gosspel, and not in reward of any holiness in us, possess a revealed interest in him, and in all the benefits arising from his obedience unto death. He that hath the Son hath life, Such appears to be the order of things as taught us in the scripture, and such the connexion between faith and justification. If union with Christ were acquired by faith, and an interest in him were bestowed in reward of it, it would indeed be inconsistant with free justification: but if the necessity 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 such 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 HIM are ye IN Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption; that according as it is written HE THAT GLORIETH, LET HIM glory in the LORD.‡ Mr. M. has written much about God's justifying the ungodly: but while he allows that the term is not descriptive of the existing character of a believer, I have no dispute with him. He admits that 1 Cor. i. 30, 31. *Gal. v. 6. +1 Cor. vi. 17. when Christ is said to die for the ungodly, 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 enmity with God.* Mr. M. has also written much about the state of an awakened sinner. As he had disowned the subject of any holy affection, I concluded he must be " an hardhearted 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 hardhearted enemy of God, while such, can either receive or enjoy forgiveness; but I distinguish between such a state of mind, and that of an awakened self-condemned sinner, and also between the latter and a real convert who believes the gospel, has tasted that the Lord is gracious, and is possessed of holy affections." (p. 151.) Is there a medium, then, between holy affection and hardhearted 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 hardhearted enemy to him. Such I believe are many awakened sinners notwithstanding all their terrors, and such they will view themselves to have been, if they ever 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. * On this subject I beg leave to refer the reader to Discourse XXII of my work on Genesis. 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 hardhearted enemy of God. The case to which writers on Mr. M.'s side the question more frequently refer is, that of the self-condemned publican; but antecedently to his going down to his house justified, "humbled himself," and that in a way of holy, though not of joyful affection. According to Mr. M. there is a state of mind which is not the effect of renewing grace and therefore contains nothing truly good; but which is nevertheless, necessary and sufficient to prepare the sinner for receiving the forgiveness of his sin. A hardhearted enemy of God cannot receive or enjoy gospel forgiveness; but a sinner under terrors of conscience, though equally destitute of all regard 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. In page 151, he says, "Whether such convictions as issue in conversion differ in kind from others, I WILL NOT TAKE UPON ME TO DETERMINE." That is, he does not know but that it may be so, and that there is such a thing as spiritual conviction, a conviction of the evil of sin antecedently to believing in the Saviour, and subservient to it. But this is the same, in effect, as saying he does not know whether that which he has been opposing throughout his performance may not, after all, be true,! "But I am certain of this," he adds, "that it would be very unsafe to build up any in an opinion of their possessing holiness merely upon the ground of their convictions, while they 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? not any thing advanced by his opponent. 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 convictions 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 is any part of his holiness :" but (he might have added) that conviction of sin which is not subservient to faith in Christ will. Graceless convictions generally, if not always, become objects of self-admiration. 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. Sandeman and his followers have plentifully declaimed. It conveys to me the idea of something which 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 which state of mind is not self-wrought, but the effect of regenerating grace. Mr. Sandeman 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 distinguishing qualification." That the mind, at the time when it first receives gospel comfort, may be unconscious, not only of every distinguishing qualification, 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 what Christ is, rather than of what we are towards him. But to be "unconscious" of any VOL. III. 58 |