beauty, all true experimental knowledge of religion; which is of itself, as it were, a new world of knowledge. He that sees not the beauty of holiness, knows not what one of the graces of God's Spirit is; he is destitute of any idea or conception of all gracious exercises of soul, and all holy comforts and delights, and all effects of the saving influences of the Spirit of God on the heart: and so is ignorant of the greatest works of God, the most important and glorious effects of his power upon the creature and also is wholly ignorant of the saints as saints; he knows not what they are: and in effect is ignorant of the whole spiritual world.

66

Things being thus, it plainly appears, that God's implanting that spiritual supernatural sense which has been spoken of, makes a great change in a man. And were it not for the very imperfect degree, in which this sense is commonly given at first, or the small degree of this glorious light that first dawns upon the soul; the change made by this spiritual opening of the eyes in conversion, would be much greater, and more remarkable, every way, than if a man, who had been born blind, and with only the other four senses, should continue so a long time, and then at once should have the sense of seeing imparted to him, in the midst of the clear light of the sun, discovering a world of visible objects. For though sight be more noble than any of the other external senses; yet this spiritual sense which has been spoken of, is infinitely more noble

than that, or any other principle of discerning that a man naturally has, and the object of this sense infinitely great and more important.

"This sort of understanding, or knowledge, is that knowledge of divine things from whence all truly gracious affections do proceed: by which therefore all affections are to be tried. Those affections that arise wholly from any other kind of knowledge, or do result from any other kind of apprehensions of mind, are vain !" pp. 225-232. Yours, &c.

129

LETTER VII.

AN INQUIRY WHETHER, IF BELIEVING BE A SPIRITUAL ACT OF THE MIND, IT DOES NOT PRESUPPOSE THE SUBJECT OF IT TO BE SPIRITUAL.

My dear Friend,

Mr. SANDEMAN, and many of his admirers, if I understand them, consider the mind as passive in believing, and charge those who consider faith as an act of the mind, with making it a work, and so of introducing the doctrine of justification by a work of our own.

.66

Mr. ECKING sometimes writes as if he adopted this principle, for he speaks of a person being passive in receiving the truth." (Essays, p. 73.) In another place, however, he is very explicit to the contrary. "Their notion is absurd, (he says) who, in order to appear more than ordinarily accurate, censure and solemnly condemn the idea of believing being an act of the mind. It is acknowledged indeed, that very unscriptural sentiments have prevailed about acts of faith, when they are supposed

to arise from some previous principle, well disposing the minds of unbelievers toward the gospel. Yet if it be admitted possible for the soul of man to act, (and who will deny that it does?) there is nothing more properly an act of the mind, than believing a truth; in which first the mind perceives it; then considers the evidence offered to support it; and finally, gives assent to it. And can this comport with inactivity? We must either say then, that the soul acts in believing the gospel, or that the soul is an inactive spirit, which is absurd.” (Essays, p. 98.) As Mr. E. in this passage not only states his opinion, but gives his reasons for it, we must consider this as his fixed principle; and that which he says of the truth being "passively received," as expressive not of faith, but of spiritual illumination previous to it. But if so, what does he mean by opposing a previous principle as necessary to believing? His acts of faith arise from spiritual illumination, which he also must consider as "well disposing the minds of unbelievers toward the gospel."

If there be any difference between him and them whom he opposes, it would seem to consist not in the necessity, but in the nature of a previous change of mind; as whether it be proper to call it a principle, and to suppose it to include life as well as light? He no more considers the mind as discerning and believing the gospel, without a previous change wrought in it by the Spirit of God, than

his opponents. Nay, as we have seen, he expressly, and, as he says, "readily acknowledges that we must have a spiritual principle before we can discern divine beauties." (p. 67.) But if a spiritual principle be necessary to discern divine beauties, it is necessary to discern and believe the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, for they are one and the same thing.

But the previous change which Mr. E. acknowledges, it will be said, is by means of the word. Be it so, yet it cannot be by the word as spiritually discerned and believed, for spiritual discernment and belief are supposed to be the effect of it.

Mr. E. says indeed, that "the hinge upon which the inquiry turns is, what is that principle, and how is it implanted?" But this is mere evasion: for let the principle be what it may, and let it be implanted how it may, since it is allowed to be necessary "before we can discern divine beauties," and of course before we can actively believe in Christ, the argument is given up.

The principle itself he makes to be "the word passively received:" but as this is supposed to be previous to "the discernment of divine beauties," and to the soul's actively believing in Christ, it cannot of course have been produced by either: and to speak of the word becoming a spiritual principle in us, before it is either understood or believed, is going a step beyond his opponents. I have no doubt of the word of God, when it is once un