searching for evidences of his conversion, the effect must, to say the least, be uncomfortable, and may be fatal; as it may lead him to make a righteousness of his religious feelings, instead of looking out of himself to the Saviour.

Nor is this all: If the attention of Christians be turned to their own feelings, instead of the things which should make them feel, it will reduce their religion to something vastly different from that of the primitive Christians. Such truths as the following were the life of their spirits: Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. -Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the scriptures.-Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel.-We have a great highpriest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, &c. But, by the turn of thought, and strain of conversation, in many religious connexions of the present day, it would seem as if these things had lost their influence. They are become "dry doctrines," and the parties must have something else. The elevation and depression of their hopes and 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 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 piece on which he animadverted, and of course misrepresented my principles as to their ef fect on awakened sinners, I cannot tell. Be this as it may, I trust other readers will be under no temptation to do me injustice.

But, whatever danger may arise from those principles which are too prevalent among 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 * See his Reply, pp. 46, 47. 153.

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 independent of our state of mind towards it, yet this is not the case with respcct 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.

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 consicence, to banish slavish fear, or to remove doubts and apprehensions of our being unbelievers ;" and still less how can it 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 disquited within us, and in which self-examination may yield us peace? Did the review which Job took of his past life (Chap. xxxi.) 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. The past experiences can no otherwise be an 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 scripture.

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 a great deal of false religion; but whether he bas 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.

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. But though the principles on which the system rests are 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.

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 or bad, they are hereby much more easily ascertained. Its societies bear some resemblance to so many farms, taken in different parts of the kingdom, for the purpose of scientific experiment; and it must needs be apparent, in the course of fifty or sixty years experience, whether upon the whole, they have turned to a better account than those of their neighbours.

I will only add, in this place, that though I do not conceive of every one as embracing this doctrine, who in some particulars may agree with Mr. Sandeman, (for in that case, I should be reckoned to embrace it myself,) yet many more must be considered as friendly to it in the main, than those who chose to be called either Sandemanian Glassites. It has been held by people of various denominations; by Presbyterians, Independents and Baptists; and has been observed to give distinctive character to the whole of their religion. In this view of the subject I wish to examine it; paying attention, not so much to persons or names as to things, let them be embraced by whom they may. I am yours, &c.

LETTER II.

CONTAINING A GENERAL VIEW OF THE SYSTEM, WITH ITS LEADING POINTS OF DIFFERENCE FROM THE SYSTEMS WHICH IT OPPOSES.

My Dear Friend,

46

ALTHOUGH the writing of such men as Flavel, Boston, Guthrie, the Erskines, &c. are represented by Mr. Sandeman as furnishing a devout path to hell," and the writers themselves as pharisees, "than whom no sinners were more hardened, and none greater destroyers of mankind," yet he allows them to have set before us 66 many articles of the apostolical doctrine;" yea, and to have "asserted almost all the articles belonging to the sacred truth." Considering this, and that, so far as these writers held with "good duties, good endeavours, and good motions" in unbelievers preparing them for faith, we give them up, it may seem as if there could be no great difference between Mr. Sandeman and us. Yet a difference there is, and of that importance too, as deeply to affect the doctrine, the worship, the spirit, and the practice of Christianity.

The foundation of whatever is distinguished in the system seems to relate to the nature of justifying faith. This Mr. S. constantly represents as the bare belief of the bare truth; by which definition he intends, as it would seem, to exclude from it every thing pertaining to the will and the affections, except as effects produced by it.

When Mr. Pike became his disciple, and wished to think that by a "bare belief" he meant a hearty persuasion, and not a mere notional belief, Mr. S. rejected his construction, and insisted that VOL. III.

45