If ye believed Moses, says he, ye would believe me, for he wrote of me.

But 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 which the gospel justifies, 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 which I have COMMITTED TO HIM against that day.—That we should be to the praise and glory of his grace, who FIRST TRUSTED in Christ. In whom ye also TRUSTED after ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, after ye BELIEVED, ye were sealed, &c.—He that COMETH to me shall never hunger, and he that BELIEVETH in me shall never thirst.-Ye will not cOME unto me, that ye may have life.— COME unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

In these, and many other passages, it is manifest, that believing, coming, trusting, &c. are used as convertible terms, and that the thing signified by them is necessary to justification. If "receiving" Christ were an effect of faith in persons already justified, why is it used as synonymous with it, and held up as necessary to our being the sons of God? If "coming" to Christ were an exercise of mind in one who was already in a state of justification, why is he said to come to him that he may have life? And why, if salvation be promised to a mere "notion" of the truth, without any love to it, is it said of apostates that "they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved"? Let those who have their senses exercised to discern between good and evil, judge from these things, whether a mere notion of the truth, exclusive, or, if you please, antecedent to the consideration of receiving Christ, coming to him, and trusting in him, be the faith that justifies; and whether, if the former were separate from the latter, it would not leave the sinner under condemnation.

It has been said "In defining saving faith, some have included in its essence almost every holy temper; and by insisting so much on this faith, and giving such laboured descriptions of it, have almost inevitably led their followers to look more to their faith than to the great object of faith, to be more occupied in attending to the working of their own minds than with that truth which reconciles the sinner to God. It is in consequence to be feared that not a few who are reckoned orthodox, are in fact trusting to their faith, and not to Christ, making him merely a minister of their own selfrighteousness: for we may go about to establish our own righteousness under the name of faith, as well as under any other name."

I doubt not but preachers may abound in describing one part of divine truth, to the neglect of another, and may go even beyond the truth; people also may make a righteousness of their faith, as well as of other things. If no more were meant than that a sinner whose enquiry is, What must I do to be saved? ought to be directed immediately to Christ, and not to an examination into the nature of faith, I should most cordially acquiesce in it: but it does not follow that nothing should, on any occasion, be said of the true nature of faith. There may be a time when the same person shall

come with another, and very different question; namely, Am I a true believer? Such questions there must have been in the Apos tle's time, or there would not have been answers to them. (See 1 John ii. 3. iii. 14. 18-21.) Now, in answer to such an enquiry, the true nature and genuine effects of faith require to be stated, and distinguished from that which leaves thousands short of salvation. And as to men making a righteousness of their faith, men may make a righteousness of simple belief, as well as of trust, or any other idea supposed to be included in justifying faith: and whether there be not actually as much laboured description, selfadmiration, and contempt of others, (things nearly akin to selfrighteousness,) among the advocates of this system, as among their opponents, let the candid observer judge. If we are to say nothing about the holy nature of faith, lest men should make a righteousness of it, we must say nothing of any thing else that is holy, for the same reason, and so cease to distinguish all true religion in the mind, from that which is counterfeit: but so did not the sacred writers.

To the same purpose Mr, M'Lean writes in his treastise on the Commission: "Now when men include in the very nature of justifying faith such good dispositions, holy affections, and pious exercises of heart, as the moral law requires, and so make them necessary (no matter under what consideration) to acceptation with God, it perverts the Apostle's doctrine upon this important subject, and makes justification to be at least as it were by the works of the law."

I know not of any writer who has given such a definition of faith as these statements would represent. No more holy affection is pleaded for in faith, than unholy disaffection is allowed to be in unbelief. But the design is manifestly to exclude all holy affection from faith as being favourable to self-righteousness.

If, therefore, repentance be considered as necessary to forgiveness, seeing this must be allowed to include holy affection, it will be considered as favourable to self-righteousness. And as to distinguishing between what is necessary in the established order of things, from what is necessary as a procuring cause, this will not be admitted; for it is "no matter under what consideration:" if

any thing required by the moral law be rendered necessary, it makes justification to be at least "as it were by the works of the law." Yet Mr. M. allows faith, whatever it is, to be a duty. Is it then a requirement of a new and remedial law? Would not the love of God, which is required by the old law, lead any sinner to believe in Christ? If not, why is unbelief alleged against the Jews as a proof that they had not the love of God in them? (See John v. 42, 43.) As Mr. M. however, in his piece on the Calls and Invitations of the Gospel, has gone far towards answering himself, I shall transcribe a passage from that performance: "It is an unscriptural refinement upon divine grace," he there says, "and contrary to the doctrine of the apostles, to class faith and repentance with the works of the law, and to state them as equally opposite to free justification. Indeed, neither faith nor repentance are the meritorious, or procuring cause of a sinner's justification, any more than the works of the law are. (And who that really believes and repents will imagine that they are ?) But still the one is opposed to free justification, the other not. To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt; and faith and repentance corresponding exactly with the manifestation. of divine grace, as freely justifying the guilty through the atonement, are in their very nature opposite to all self-dependence, and lead men to glory only in the Lord." (p. 26.)

We see here that there is nothing in the nature of repentance that clashes with a free justification, which yet must be allowed to include a portion of holy affection. Why then object to the same. thing in faith? Is it because holy affection is "required by the moral law"? Be it so, it is the same in repentance as in faith; and if the one may in its very nature agree with a free justification, so may the other. The truth is, the moral law materially considered, is not opposed to free justification. The love of God and man in its own nature is as opposite to self-righteous pride as faith and repentance are. It is not the law that is against the promises, but those works of the law done by a sinful creature with a view of obtaining life, or of procuring acceptance with God as the reward of them. If holy affection were urged with such a view, then were it opposed to the free grace of the gospel; but while

this is not the case, all such reasonings are unscriptural refinements.

If men make a righteousness of their faith, it is not owing to these representations of it, but to their own corruptions; for let faith include what good disposition it may, it is no part of the meritorious cause of justification; and let it be simplified as it may, even till it shall contain no more of the holy nature of God than a glance of the eye, yet it is not on this account more friendly to the doctrine of grace, nor less liable to become the food of a selfrighteous spirit. The way in which this spirit is cut up in the New Testament is, not by reducing faith to an unfeeling speculation, but by denouncing the curse against every one who cometh short of perfect obedience. Gal. iii. 10.

It has been further said, "Faith purifies the heart, worketh by love, and discovereth itself sincere by the performance of good works. Faith, therefore, is not holiness, love, or new obedience, unless the effect is the same with the cause, or the evidence with the thing proved. Faith certainly is not the same thing as holiness, or love, or new obedience. Neither is unbelief the same thing as unholiness, enmity or disobedience: but it is not so distinct from either, as not to partake of the same general nature. It is not only the root of all other sin, but is itself a sin. In like manner, faith is not only the root of all other obedience, but is itself an exercise of obedience. It is called "obeying the truth," and "obeying the gospel." To say that faith includes no holiness, (which this objection certainly does,) and yet produces it, as the seed produces the plant, is to contradict the established laws of nature, according to which, every seed produces its own body. God can produce something out of nothing, but in the ordinary course of traduction every seed produces after its kind. If holiness, therefore, were not included in faith, it would not grow out of it.

Mr. M'Lean does not agree with Mr. Sandeman in considering faith as a passive admission of the truth, but allows it to be an act or exercise of the mind.* A large part of his work, however, is

Reply, pp. 74, 75.