justification by faith, in opposition to the works of the law. Of him it was supposed, that he worked not, but believed on him that justifieth the ungodly. If Abraham, therefore, at the time when he is said to have believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, had never done any good thing, and was actually the enemy of God, Mr. M'L.'s position is established. But if the contrary be true, it is overturned. To determine this, the reader has only to consult Gen. xv. 6. xii. 1. and Heb. xi. 8. He will there perceive, that it was several years after his departure from Haran, (at which time the apostle bears witness to his being a believer,) that he is said to have believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. From hence, it is manifest, that the character described by the apostle is not that of an enemy, but a friend of God; and that it is not merely applicable to a Christian at the first moment of his believing, but through the whole of life. We have to deal with Christ for pardon and justification more than once; and must always go to him as working not, but believing on him that justifieth the ungodly. Nor is the example of David less decisive than that of Abraham. When the blessedness of which the apostle speaks came upon him, he was not in a state of enmity to God: but had been his friend and servant for a series of years. The thirty-second appears, evidently, to be one of his penitential Psalms, composed after his fall in the case of Uriah. Yet he also is supposed to have worked not, but believed on him that justifieth the ungodly. And it is worthy of notice, that the very principle inculcated through this whole Psalm is, the necessity of repentance in order to forgiveness; a principle which requires to be disowned, before the position maintained by Mr. M'L. can be admitted. It has been said, that the term ungodly is not used, but to describe the party as being under actual enmity to God.at the time. I apprehend this is a mistake. Christ is said to have died for the ungodly. Did he then lay down his life only for those who, at the time, were actually his enemies? If so, he did not die for any of the Old-testament saints; nor for any of the godly who were then alive; not even for his own apostles: All that can in truth be said is, that, whatever were their characters at the time, he died for them as ungodly; and thus it is that he justifieth the ungodly. Gospel-justification stands opposed to that which is in ordinary use: the one acquits the righteous, the worthy, the deserving; the other, the unrighte ous, the unworthy, the ungodly. But let us examine the other branch of Mr. M'L.'s objection; namely, the effect which such a doctrine must have on the mind of an awakened sinner. "This," he says, "is obvious. He who conceives that, in order to his pardon and acceptance with God, he must be first possessed of such good dispositions and holy affections as are commonly included in the nature of faith, will find no immediate relief from the gospel, nor any thing in it which fully reaches his case, while he views himself merely as a guilty sinner. Instead of believing on him that justifieth the ungodly, he believes, on the contrary, that he cannot be justified till he sustains an opposite character. Though Christ died for sinners-for the ungodly; yet he does not believe that Christ's death will be of any benefit to him as a mere sinner, but as possessed of holy dispositions; nor does he expect relief to his conscience purely and directly from the atonement, but through the medium of a better opinion of his own heart or character. This sentiment, if he is really concerned about his soul, must set him upon attempts to reform his heart, and to do something under the notion of acting faith that he may be justified; and all his endeavours, prayers, and religious exercises, will be directed to that end." By the manner in which Mr. M'L. speaks of "pardon and acceptance with God," uniting them together, and denying all holy affection to be necessary to either, it is manifest that he denies the necessity of repentance in order to forgiveness; a doctrine taught not only in the thirty-second Psalm, from which the apostle argued the doctrine of free justification, but also in the whole tenor of scripture.* Secondly By rejecting this doctrine, he finds in the gospel "relief for the mere sinner." This "mere sinner" is Isa. lv. 6-8. Matt. iii. 2. * 1 Kings viii. 29-50. Prov. xviñ. 13. Mark i. 4. Luke iii. 3. Acts v. 31. Luke xxiv. 47. 19. xxvi. 18. described as "awakened," and as " viewing himself merely as a guilty sinner." At the same time, however, he is supposed to be destitute of all "holy affection." It may be questioned whether this account of things be consistent with itself; or, whether 66 any mere sinner" ever ❝ views himself merely as a guilty sinner;" for such views include a just sense of the evil of sin, and of his own utter unworthiness of the divine favour, which no "mere sinner" ever possessed. But, passing this, whatever be his "awakenings," and whatever the load of "guilt” that lies upon his conscience, seeing he is allowed to be destitute of all "holy affection," he must be, in fact, no other than a hard-hearted enemy to true religion. He has not a grain of regard to God's name, nor concern for having offended him; nor the least degree of attachment to the atonement of Christ, on account of its securing his honour; in a word, his whole affection centres in himself. This character wants"relief." And what is it that will relieve him? Pardon and acceptance with God, through the atonement of Jesus ? If so, he needs neither to climb to heaven, nor to descend into the deep: the word is nigh him. But this is not what he wants: for he sees no form nor comeliness in HIM: nor beauty that he should DESIRE HIM. Is it to be saved from his sins? No: It is to be saved in them. It is to obtain ease to his troubled conscience, and exemption from the dread of divine wrath, without relinquishing his self-righteous lusts, and submitting to the righteousness of God. And is it true that such a character stands in need of "relief?" He may think he does, and may labour hard to obtain it: but surely he needs to be wounded, instead of healed, and killed, rather than made alive. Nay, in such a state of mind, is it possible that he should be "relieved" by the gospel as it is in Jesus! Rather, is it not self-evident, that, to relieve him we must assimilate our doctrine to his inclinations? It were as absurd to suppose that a hard-hearted sinner should be relieved by the true gospel, as that the whole should find relief in a physician. Thirdly The hard-hearted sinner is not only to be "relieved" by the assurance of "pardon and acceptance with God;" but this is supposed to be derived "directly from the atonement." If by this were meant merely for the sake of the atonement, it were unobjectionable: but the meaning is, that the mere sinner is pardoned without repentance, or any "holy affection to Christ." There must be no consciousness of any thing of the kind previously to forgiveness: for then it would not be "direct, but through the medium of a good opinion of his own heart or character." And does Mr. ML. really believe in all this? What, then, will he make of the concurrent language of the Old and New Testament? Let the wicked FORSAKE HIS WAY, and the unrighteous man his THOUGHTS: and let him RETURN UNTO THE LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.-Preaching the baptism of REPENTANCE FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.-REPENT ye, therefore, and be coNVERTED, that your SINS MAY BE BLOTTED OUT.-To turn them from the POWER OF SATAN UNTO GOD that they may receive FORGIVENESS OF SINS.' What can be made of this language? Shall we say, It is the voice of the law, directing a sinner what he must do in order to be accepted by his own obedience?† An ingenious mind will seldom be at a loss for something to say; but let us take heed lest we be found perverting the scriptures in support of an hypothesis. If there be any meaning in language, it is manifest, that these exhortations are addressed to sinners, as the means, not of legal, but of evangelical justification, justification of which the forgiveness of sins is an essential branch. * From the foregoing, and many such passages, it is evident, that when we are said to be justified by faith, it is such a faith as involves repentance; equally so as, when we are said to be forgiven on repentance, it is such repentance as involves believing. Nay, more: If Mr. M'L. believe as above, what can be made of his own writings? How are we to understand his note, in page 92, containing a brief but judicious answer to Mr. John Barclay? He there proves, that no man is pardoned or accepted of God till he sustain a different character from that which belongs to him merely as a sinner; that is, till he is a believer; and that "the assurance of a man's own justification is not founded merely upon the direct testimony * Isa. lv. 6-8. Luke iii. 3. Acts iii. 19. xxvi. 18. of God, but also upon the testimony of his own conscience bearing him witness in the Holy Spirit that he believes the gospel testimony." Mr. Barclay might reply to him as he does to others. He might say, concerning the awakened sinner, that, on Mr. M'L.'s principles, Though Christ died for sinners, for the ungodly; yet he does not believe that Christ's death will be of any benefit to him as a mere sinner, but as possessed of faith; nor does he expect any satisfaction as to the salvation of his soul purely and directly from the atonement; but through the medium of a better opinion of himself, a consciousness that he is a believer. This sentiment, if he is really concerned about the salvation of his soul, must set him upon attempts that he may obtain this faith, in order to be justified; and all his endeavours, prayers, and religious exercises will be directed to that end.' If Mr. M'L. can answer this objection, he will answer his own. After all, there is a way of deriving relief as " mere sinners, directly from the atonement:" but this is what a mere sinner, in Mr. M'L.'s sense of the terms, never does. They are believing sinners only; sinners possessed of "holy affection" to Christ, who are thus rendered dead to every thing in themselves, and alive to him. By Mr. M'L.'s reasoning, it should seem as though impenitent and unhumbled sinners not only derived their comfort in this way; but as if they were the only persons that did so! To derive relief as mere sinners directly from the atonement, it is not necessary that we should possess no holy affection towards Christ; but, that whatever we possess, we make nothing of it as a ground of acceptance, counting all things but loss and dung, that we may win and be found in him. And this manner of deriving relief is not peculiar to the time of our first believing; but belongs to a life of faith on the Son of God. Again: It is supposed, that the including of holy affection in the nature of faith, and rendering it necessary to acceptance with God, (no matter under what consideration,) must, of necessity, lead the sinner from Christ, to rely on something good in himself. It is true, that, if any holiness in us were requi red as a ground of acceptance with God, it would be so; and the same would be true of the requirement of a faith without holiness, provided it were required to this end. That faith, |