sed of self-righteousness, by M. Sandeman, on the ground of his being an anti-pædobaptist!

A large part of that which Mr. M'Lean has written on this subject, is what I never meant to oppose; much of what he imputes to me is without foundation; and even where my sentiments are introduced, they are generally in caricature.

I have no doubt of the character which a sinner sustains antecedently to his justification, both in the account of the Lawgiver of the world, and in his own account, being that of the ungodly. I have no objection to Mr. M's own statement, that God may as properly be said to justify the ungodly as to pardon the guilty. If the sinner at the instant of justification be allowed not to be at enmity with God, that is all I contend for, and that is in effect allowed by Mr. M. He acknowledges that the Apostle "does not use the word ungodly to describe the existing character of an actual believer."* But if so, as no man is justified till he is an actual believer, no man is justified in enmity to God. He also considers faith, justification, and sanctification as coeval, and allows that no believer is in a state of enmity to God † It follows, that as no man is justified till he believes in Jesus, no man is justified till he ceases to be God's enemy. If this be granted, all is granted for which I contend.

If there be any meaning in words, Mr. Sandeman considered the term ungodly as denoting the existing state of mind in a believer at the time of his justification; for he professes to have been at enmity with God, or, which is the same thing, not to have "begun to love him," till he was justified, and even perceived that he was so. It was this notion that I wished to oppose, and not any thing relative to the character under which the sinner is justified. Mr. M.'s third question, namely, "Whether justifying faith respects God as the justifier of the ungodly?" was never any question with me. Yet he will have it that I "make the Apostle by the term ungodly to mean godly." He might as well say that when I allow pardon to respect men as guilty, and yet plead for repentance as necessary to it, I make repentance and guilt to be the same thing.

* Reply, p. 123. + Ibid. p. 43.

Epistolary Correspondence, p. 12.

I am not aware of any difference with Mr. M. as to what constitutes a godly character. Though faith is necessary to justification, and therefore, in the order of nature, previous to it; yet I have no objection to what he says, that it does not constitute a godly character, or state previously to justification And whatever I have written of repentance as preceding faith in Christ, or of a holy faith as necessary to justification, I do not consider any person as a penitent or holy character till he believes in Christ and is justified. The holiness for which I plead antecedent to this is merely incipient; the rising beam of the sanctification of the Spirit. It is no more than the spirituality which Mr. M. considers as produced by divine illumination, previous, or in order to believing; and all the consequences that he has charged on the one, might with equal justice be charged on the other.

Nor am I aware of any difference in our views respecting the duties of unbelievers; if there be any, however, it is not on the side that Mr. M. imagines, but the contrary. Having described the awakened sinner as "convinced of guilt, distressed in his mind on account of it, really concerned about the salvation of his soul, and not only earnestly desiring relief, but diligently labouring to obtain it, according to the directions given him, by the exercise of holy affections and dispositions," he adds, "All this I admit may be previous to faith in Christ, and forgiveness through him. And will Mr. Fuller deny this is the repentance he pleads for in order to forgiveness?”+ MOST CERTAINLY HE WILL. Had this been what he pleaded for, he had been justly chargeable with the consequences which Mr. M'Lean has attempted to load him with. But it is not. I cannot but consider this question as a proof that Mr. M. utterly mistook my sentiments on this part of the subject as much as I did his in another, in consequence of having considered him as the author of a piece called Simple Truth. I have no more idea of there being any holiness in the exercises which he has described than he himself has. I might add, nor quite so much: for, (notwithstanding what he has here advanced,) in his Thoughts on the Calls of the Gospel, he does not keep clear of

* Reply, p. 145.

+ Ibid. p. 7.

Ibid. p. 143.

unregenerate works being somewhat good, or at least that they are not all and altogether sinful. If this be compared with what I have written on total depravity, in Essays, pp. 53—81, it will be seen who holds, and who holds not, with the holiness of the doings of the unregenerate.

But, whether or not I deny this to be the repentance for which I plead as necessary to forgiveness, Mr. M. plainly intimates that it is all the repentance which he allows to be so. In all that he has written therefore, acknowledging repentance to be necessary to forgiveness, he only means to allow that a few graceless convictions are so and, in contradiction to the whole current of scripture, even to those scriptures which he has produced and reasoned from in his Thoughts on the calls of the Gospel, still believes that sinners are forgiven prior to any repentance but that which needs to be repented of.

The difference between us, as to the subject of this letter, seems chiefly to respect the nature of faith, whether it include any exercise of the will; and if it do, whether it affect the doctrine of free justification.

:

Mr. M. acknowledges faith, as a principle of sanctification, to be holy it is only as justifying that he is for excluding all holy af fection from it. But if it be holy in relation to sanctification, it must be holy in itself; and that which is holy in itself, must be so in every relation which it sustains. It is not one kind of faith that sanctifies, and another that justifies; but the same thing in different respects. To represent faith sanctifying as being holy and faith justifying as having no holiness in it, is not viewing the same, but a different thing in different respects.

For a specimen of Mr. M.'s manner of writing on this subject, you will excuse my copying as follows: "An awakened sinner asks, What must I do to be saved? An Apostle answers, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. But a preacher of the doctrine I am opposing, would have taught him another lesson. He might, indeed, in compliance, with scripture language, use the word believe; but he would tell him that, in this case, it did

* See Vol. II, of his Works, pp. 63, 64. ↑ Reply, pp. 36-42

Ibid. p. 97.

not bear its usual sense, that it was not the assent of his understanding, in giving credit to the testimony of the gospel, by a grace arising from a previous spiritual principle, and including in it a number of holy affections and dispositions of heart, all of which he must exercise and set a working, in order to his being justified; and many directions will be given him how he is to perform this. But this is to destroy the freedom of the gospel, and to make the hope of a sinner turn upon his finding some virtuous exercises and dispositions in his own heart, instead of placing it directly in the work finished by the son of God upon the In opposition to this, I maintain that whatever virtue or holiness may be supposed in the nature of faith itself, as it is not the ground of a sinner's justification in the sight of God, so neither does it enter into the consideration of the person who is really believing unto righteousness. He views himself, not as exercising virtue, but only as a mere sinner, while he believes on him that justifieth the ungodly, through the atonement." pp. 98, 99.

cross.

You will not expect me to answer this. It is a proof how far a writer may misunderstand, and so misrepresent his opponent; and even in those things wherein he understands him, describe him in caricature. I will only apply a few of the leading traits in this picture, to Mr. M.'s own principles. A preacher of this doctrine, instead of directing a sinner to believe in Christ, and there leaving it, would tell him that faith was an assent of his understanding, a grace arising from a previous divine illumination, by which he becomes spiritual, and which he must needs therefore first be possessed of, and thus set him a working in order to get it, that he may be justified. But this is to deny the freeness of the gospel, and to make the hope of a sinner turn upon his finding some light within him, instead of placing it upon the finished work of the Son of God upon the cross. In opposition to this, I maintain that whatever illumination may be supposed necessary to believing, and whatever spiritual perception is contained in the nature of it, as it is not the ground of a sinner's justification in the sight of God, so neither does it enter into the consideration of the person who is really believing unto rightoeusness. He views himself not as di

vinely illuminated, but merely as a sinner, believing in him who justifieth the ungodly through the righteousness of his Son.'

Mr. M. when writing in this strain, knew that I had said nearly the same things; and, therefore, that if he were opposing me, I had first opposed myself. He even quotes almost a page of my acknowledgments on the subject. But these are things, it seems, which I only "sometimes seem to hold." Well, if Mr. M. can prove that I have any where, either in the piece he was answering, or in any other, directed the sinner's attention to the workings of his own mind, instead of Christ, or have set him a working, (unless he please to give that name to an exhortation to forsake his way, and return to God, through Jesus Christ.) or have given him any directions how to work himself into a believing frame; then let all that he has said stand against me. But if not, let me be believed when I declare my utter disapprobation of every thing of the kind.

But Mr. M. has another charge, or rather suspicion against me. "Mr. Fuller admits," he says, "that faith does not justify, either as an internal or external work, or holy exercise, or as being any part of that which is imputed unto us for righteousness; and did not other parts of his writings appear to clash with this,-I should rest satisfied. But I own that I am not without a suspicion that Mr. F. here only means that faith does not justify as the procuring cause or meritorious ground of a sinner's justification; and that while we hold this point, we may include as much virtue and holy exercise of the will and affections as we please, without affecting the point of justification, as that stands entirely upon another ground, viz. the righteousness of Christ. But it must be carefully observed, that the difference between us does not respect the meritorious procuring cause of justification, but the way in which we receive it."*

Be it according to this statement, (and I have no objection to say that such is the whole of my meaning,) yet what is there in this that clashes with the above acknowledgments, or with free justification? There may be a "difference between us" which yet may not affect this doctrine. But let us hear him through.