Page images
PDF
EPUB

From these introductory remarks, it will appear that I have no objection to faith being considered as cotemporary with repentance in the order of time, provided the latter were made to consist in an acquiescence with the gospel way of salvation, so far as it is understood: but if it be made to include such a clear view of the gospel as necessarily brings peace and rest to the soul, I believe that repentance for sin often precedes it even in the order of time.

Such is the connection between repentance and faith in the scriptures, that the one commonly supposes the other. Repentance when followed by the remission of sins, supposes faith in the Saviour;* and faith when followed with justification, equally supposes repentance for sin.

Attempts have been made, by criticising on the word Merovo, to explain away, as it would seem, the proper object of repentance, as if it were a change of mind with regard to the gospel. "Repentance, (says Mr. S.) is the change of a man's mind to love the truth, which always carries in it a sense of shame and regret at his former opposition to it." But this is confounding repentance and faith objectively considered. The objects of both are so marked in the apostolic ministry, that one would think they could not be honestly mistaken. Repentance is toward God, and faith is toward our Lord Jesus Christ: the one has immediate respect to the law-giver, the other to the

saviour.

* Luke xxiv. 47.

† Letters on Ther. and Asp. p. 408.

-

It cannot be denied that the order in which the new testament commonly places repentance and faith, is in direct opposition to what our opponents plead for; and what is more, that the former is represented as influencing the latter. This is manifest in the following passages.-"Repent ye and believe the gospel. Testifying repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. -They repented not, that they might believe him.If God peradventure might give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth."* Mr. SANDEMAN, Mr. M'LEAN, and all the writers on that side of the question, very rarely make use of this language; and when they have occasion to write upon the subject, ordinarily reverse it. To accord with their ideas it should have been said, Believe the gospel and repent.-Testifying faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and repentance toward God. -They believe not, that they might repent.-If God peradventure may give them faith to repent.

To this I add, it is impossible in the nature of things, to believe the gospel, but as being made sensible of that which renders it necessary. The guilty and lost state of sinners, goes before the revelation of the grace of the gospel; the latter therefore cannot be understood or believed, but as we are convinced of the former. There is no grace in the gospel, but upon the supposition of the holiness, justice, and goodness of the law. If God be not in the right, and we in the wrong; if we have not transgressed without cause, and be not

*Mark, i. 15.-Acts, xx. 21-Matt. xxi. 32.-2 Tim. ii. 25.

fairly condemned, grace is no more grace, but a just exemption from undeserved punishment. And as faith must needs correspond with truth, it is impossible that we should believe the doctrine of salvation by grace, in an impenitent state of mind, or without feeling that we have forfeited all claim to the divine favour. We cannot see things but as they are to be seen: to suppose that we first believe in the doctrine of free grace, and then, as the effect of it, perceive the evil of sin, and our just exposedness to divine wrath, is like supposing a man first to appreciate the value of a physician, and by this means to learn that he is sick. It is true the physician may visit the neighbourhood, or the apartments of one who is in imminent danger of death, while he thinks himself mending every day; and this circumstance may be held up by his friends as a motive to him to consider of his condition, and to put himself under his care. It is thus that the coming of Christ and the setting up of his spiritual kingdom in the world were alleg ed as motives to repentance both to Jews and Gentiles. Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.-Repent ye therefore.-The times past of this ignorance God winked at: but now commandeth all men every where to repent.* But as

it would not follow in the one case that the sick man could appreciate the value of the physician till he felt his sickness, neither does it follow in the other that faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ precedes such a sense of the evil of sin as involves the first workings of repentance toward God.

Matt. iii, 2.-iv. 17.-Acts, xvii, 30.

To argue, as some have done, from the motives of repentance being fetched from the gospel that it supposes their believing the gospel ere they could repent, proves too much; for it is not to repentance only, but to faith that the coming of Christ's kingdom is held up as a motive: but to say that this supposes their belief of the gospel, is saying, they must believe in order to believing.

That a conviction of sin (whether it include the first workings of repentance or not) is necessary to faith in Christ, is a matter so evident, that those who have declaimed most against it, have not been able to avoid such a representation of things. It is remarkable, that when Mr. SANDEMAN comes to describe his "ungodly man," he always contrives to make him not only full of distress but divested of all self-righteous pride: he represents him as conceiving that there are none more ripe for hell than he, and as having no hope but in the great propitiation.”* Thus also Mr. ECKING when describing a mere sinner" represents him as one who "feels himself in a perishing condition, and is conscious that he deserves no favour."t

66

We must not say that repentance or any degree of a right spirit, so precedes faith in Christ as to enter into the nature of it: but if we will but call the sinner by a few hard names, we may describe him in coming to the Saviour, as sensible of his utter unworthiness, as divested of self-righteousness, and as ripe for hell in his own eyes! In short, we may depict him as the publican who sought mercy under a humiliating sense of his utter unworthi

Letters on Ther. and Asp. p. 46, 48. † Essays, p. 41.

ness to receive it, so that we still call him ungodly. And to this we have no objection, so that it be understood of the character under which he is justified in the eye of the lawgiver: but if it be made to mean that he at the time of his justification is in heart an enemy of God, we do not believe it. If he be, however, why do not these writers describe him as au enemy ought to be described ?-They teach us elsewhere that "an attachment to selfrighteousness is natural to man as depraved;" how then came these ungodly men to be so divested of it? Why do they not represent them as thinking themselves in a fair way for heaven; and that if God does not pardon them he will do them wrong; Such is the ordinary state of mind of ungodly men or mere sinners, which is just as opposite to that which they are constrained to represent, as the spirit of the pharisee was to that of the publican.

Mr. M'LEAN will tell us that "this is that part of the scheme, whereby, persons previous to their believing in Christ, are taught to extract comfort from their convictions,"* but whatever Mr. M. may think or say, I hope others will give me credit when I declare that we have no idea of any well grounded comfort being taken antecedent to believing in Christ. The publican is described as humbling himself before God exalted him: but he did not derive comfort from this. If instead of looking to the mercy of God, he had done this, it would have been a species of pharisaic self-exaltation. But it does not follow from hence that

* Reply, p. 148.

« PreviousContinue »