fears, joys and sorrows, is with them the favourite theme. The consequence is, as might be expected, a living to themselves rather than to him that died and rose again; and a mind either elated by unscriptural enjoyment, or depressed by miserable despondency. It is not by thinking and talking of the sensations of hunger, but by feeding on the living aliment, that we are filled and strengthened. Whether the above remarks will satisfy Mr. M'LEAN that these are "really my fixed sentiments," and that he has greatly misunderstood the ends for which I wrote the peice on which be animadverted, and of course misrepresented my principles as to their effect on awakened sinners,* I cannot tell. Be this as it may I trust other reader will be under no temptation to do me injustice.

But whatever danger may arise from those principles which are too prevalent amongst us, they are not the only errors, nor does all the danger arise from that quarter. Subjective religion is as necessary in its place as objective. It is as true that "without holiness no man shall see the Lord, as that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission." It is necessary to look into ourselves for the purpose of conviction, though not for the cause of salvation; and though the evidence of the truth of the gospel is without us, and indepen dent of our state of mind towards it, yet this is not the case with respect to evidence of an interest in its blessings. We have no warrant to expect eternal life but as being the subjects of those things to which it is promised.

* See his Reply, pp. 46, 47, 153.

I do not perceive, therefore, how it can be justly affirmed, as it lately has been, that self-examination is not calculated to quiet the couscience, to banish slavish fear, or to remove doubts and apprehensions of our being unbelievers ;" and still less how it can be maintained that "peace of mind founded on any thing in ourselves will always puff us up with pride." If the state of our souls be bad, indeed, self-examination must disquiet the conscience, rather than quiet it: but are there no cases in which through the accusations of others, or a propensity in ourselves to view the dark side of things rather than the bright one, or the afflicting hand of God, our souls may be disquieted within us, and in which self-examination may yield us peace? Did the review which Job took of his past life yield no peace to him; and though he was not clear when examined by the impartial eye of God, yet were all his solemn appeals respecting his integrity the workings of self-righteous pride? Was David puffed up when he said, "Lord, I have hoped in thy salvation, and have done thy commandments ?" Did John encourage a confidence in the flesh when he said, "If our hearts condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God?"or Peter, when he appealed to Christ, Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee?"

Had it been only affirmed that no peace of mind can arise from the recollection of what we have felt or done in times past, while at present we are unconscious of any thing of the kind, this had been true. Past experiences can no otherwise be an

* Chap. xxxi.

evidence of grace to us, than as the remembrance of them rekindles the same sentiments and feelings anew. But to object to all peace of mind arising from a consciousness of having done the will of God, and to denominate it "confidence in the flesh," is repugnant to the whole tenor of scrip

ture.

A system may contain much important truth, and yet be blended with so much error, as to destroy its salutary efficacy. Mr. SANDEMAN has expunged from christianity a great deal of false religion; but whether he has exhibited that of Christ. and his apostles, is another question. It is much easier to point out the defects and errors of other systems, than to substitute one that is even less exceptionable; and to talk of " simple truth" and simple belief," than to exhibit the religion of Jesus in its genuine simplicity.

66

In discussing the points at issue, we shall meet with some things which may be thought of too metaphysical a cast to be of any great importance: and, had not the effects produced convinced me of the contrary, I might have thought so too. though the principles on which the system rests, be many of them so minute as almost to elude detection, yet they are not the less efficacious. The seed is small, but the branch is not so.

But

It has been regretted that any person who drinks thoroughly into these views, is at once separated from all his former religious connexions, whatever they might be; and where the heart has been united, it must needs be a matter of regret: yet, upon the whole, it may be best. Whatever fruits are produced by this species of religion, whether good.

The popular preachers "rest our acceptance with God (it seems) 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 which he so highly applauds in Aspasio, 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 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." Ther. and Asp. vol. I. p. 276. 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, or for the sake of which a sinner is justified, it is very true; and Mr. SANDEMAN's opponents believed it no less than himself: but if it be 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 MARSHALL and HERVEY, to convince persons that nothing of this nature does or can recommend them to God, or be any part of their justifying righteousness: and their principal view is to beget, and to draw forth such thoughts in the mind as lead the soul entirely out of itself to Christ alone for righteousness." It is observable too, †

* COOPER'S Letters, p. 33.

Epis. Cor. p. 241