that though Mr. S. answered this letter of Mr. Pike, yet he takes no notice of this passage.

I am not vindicating either MARSHALL OF HER VEY in all their views; but justice requires that this misrepresentation should be corrected, especially as it runs through the whole of Mr. SANDE MAN's writings, and forms the basis of an enor mous mass of invective.

By works opposed to grace and faith, the new testament means works done with a view of obtain ing life, or of procuring acceptance with God as the reward of them. If repentance, faith, or sincere obedience be recommended as being such a condi tion of salvation, as that God may be expected to bestow it in reward of them, this is turning the gospel into a covenant of works, and is as much. opposed to grace and to the true idea of justification by faith as any works of the law can be. But to deny the activity of the soul in believing, lest faith itself should become a work of the law, and so after all we should be justified by a work, is both antiscriptural and nugatory: antiscriptural because the whole tenor of the bible exhorts sinners to forsake their ways, and return to the Lord that he may have mercy upon them-to believe in the light that they may be children of light-and to come to him that they may have life:-nugatory, because we need not go far for proof that men know how to value themselves, and despise others on account of their notions, as well as of their actions, and so are capable of making a righteousness of the one as well as of the other.

Farther: If there be any weight in Mr. SANDEMAN's argument, it falls equally on his own hypo-

D

thesis as on that of his opponents. Thus we might argue, he who maintains that we are justified only by faith, and at the same time affirms, with Mr. SANDEMAN, that faith is a notion formed by the human mind, undoubtedly maintains, if he have any meaning to his words, that we are justified by a notion formed by the human mind.

Mr. S. as if aware of his exposedness to this retort, labours in the foregoing quotation, to make nothing of the belief of the truth, or to keep every idea but that of the truth believed out of sight. So fearful is he of making faith to be any thing which has a real subsistence in the mind, that he plunges into gross absurdity to avoid it. Speaking o that of which the believer is "conscious" he makes it to be truth, instead of the belief of it; as if any thing could be an object of consciousness but what passes or exists in the mind!

It may be thought that the phrase "All who would have us to be conscious of something else than the bare truth of the gospel," is a mere slip of the pen; but it is not; for had Mr. S. spoken of belief instead of the truth believed as an object of consciousness, his statement would have been manifestly liable to the consequence which he charges on his opponents. It might then have been said to him, he who maintains that we are justified only by faith and at the same time affirms that faith is something inherent in the human mind, undoubtedly maintains, if he have any meaning to his words, that we are justified by something inherent in the human mind.

You must by this time perceive that Mr SANDEMAN'S grand argument, or, as he denominates

ft, his "easy view," turns out to be a mere sophism. To detect it you have only to consider the same thing in different views; which is what Mr. SANDEMAN himself does on some occasions, as do all other men. "I agree with you, (says he to Mr. PIKE) in maintaining that faith is the principle and spring of every good disposition, or of every good work: but, at the same time, I maintain that faith does not justify the ungodly as a principle of good dispositions." * Why then may we not maintain that we are justified only by faith, and at the same time affirm that faith is a grace inherent, an act of the human mind, a duty commanded of God; and all this without affirming that we are justified by any thing inherent, any act of ours, or any duty that we perform? And why must we be supposed to use words without a meaning, or to contradict ourselves, when we only maintain that we are jus tified by that which is inherent, is an act of the human mind, and is a duty; while yet it is not as such, but as uniting us to Christ, and deriving righteousness from him, that it justifieth? †

Assuredly there is no necessity for reducing faith to a nullity in order to maintain the doctrine of jus tification by the imputed righteousness of Christ. While we hold that faith justifieth not in respect of the act of believing, but of the righteousness on which it terminates, or that God's pardoning and received us to favour is in reward not of our believing, but of his Son's obedience unto death, every purpose is

† See PRESIDENT EDWARDS's Sermons on Justification, pp. 14, 26.

an wered, and all inherent righteousness is excluded.

66

easy

I have been the more particular on this view" of Mr. SANDEMAN, because it is mansfestly the grand pillar of his doctrine. If this be overturned, there is nothing left standing but what will fall with a few slight touches; and whether it be So, I now leave you and the reader to judge.

To establish the doctrine of free justification, Mr. S. conceives it necessary to reduce justifying faith to a "bare belief" exclusive of every "advance" of the mind towards Christ, or of coming to him, trusting in him, &c. and to maintaining that these terms denote the effects of faith in those who are already in a justified state.

*

In opposing Mr. S, many have denied that the belief of the gospel is justifying faith. Observing, on the one hand, that numbers appear to believe the truth on whom, nevertheless, it has no salutary influence; and on the other, that believing in Christ in the new testament is synonymous with "receiving him," "trusting in him," and "coming to him,' they have concluded that the belief of the gospel is rather to be considered as something presuppo→ sel in faith, than faith itself. But there can be no doubt that the belief of the gospel has in a great number of instances the promise of salvation; and as to those nominal christians on whom it has no salutary influence, they believe Christ no more than the Jews belived Moses, which our Lord would not allow them to have done. "If ye believed Moses (saith he) ye would believe me, for he wrote of me."

* Epis. Cor. p. 34.

But though the belief of the gospel is allowed to have the promise of salvation, and so to be justifying, yet it does not follow that it is so exclusive of receiving Christ, trusting in him, or coming to him. It were easy to prove that repentance has the promise of forgiveness, and that by as great a variety of passages as are brought to prove that the belief of the gospel is saving faith: but were this attempted, we should be told, and justly too, that we are not to consider repentance in these passages as excluding, but including faith in the Saviour. Such then is the answer to the argument drawn from the promises of salvation made to the belief of the gospel: belief in these connexions is not to be understood exclusive of receiving the Saviour, coming to him, or trusting in him, but as supposing and including them.

It is not denied that the ideas conveyed by these terms are metaphysically distinct from that of believing the gospel, nor that they are its immediate effects; but it is not in this metaphysical sense that faith is used in reference to justification. That belief of the gospel which justifieth, includes receiving Christ, coming to him, and trusting in him. Whatever shades of difference there be between belief and these "advances of the mind towards Christ, the scriptures represent them with respect to an interest in justification, and other collateral blessings, as one and the same thing. This is manifest from the following passages.- "As many as received him, to them gave he power (or privilege) to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name- -I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that