//. ^/. oS. 
 
 Stom f 9e feifirat)? of 
 
 (pxofcBBox ^amuef OXtffer 
 
 in (glemor)? of 
 
 3ubse ^amuef (tttiffet QBrecftinribge 
 
 (Jjrefienteb 61? 
 
 ^amuef (gliffer (jSrecfttnribge &ong 
 
 to f ^ feifirari? of 
 
 (J)rtncefon ^^eofogtcaf ^emtnarj 
 
 sec #10,700 
 
 McLean, Archibald, 1732- 
 
 1812. 
 
 Reply to Mr. Fuller's 
 
 appendix to his book. 
 
REPLY 
 
 TO 
 
 MR. FULLER'S APPENDIX 
 
 TO HIS BOOK ON 
 
 THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. 
 
 PARTICULARLY TO HIS DOCTRINE OF 
 
 ANTECEDENT HOUNESS, AND THE NATURE AND OBJECT 
 OF JUSTIFYING FAITH. 
 
 BY ARCHIBALD M'LEAN 
 
 NEW- YORK : 
 
 SCATCHERD AND ADAMS, PRINTERS. 
 1839. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 No apology is deemed necessary for the detached form in 
 which the following essays are presented to the public. Though 
 the controversy in the course of which they were written is 
 now almost forgotten, and the writers themselves have long 
 since passed to their account, the questions here discussed, it 
 will at once be seen, possess an interest of no local or passing 
 character ; they concern the alone ground of a sinner's hope in 
 the presence of God, and in this view can never be destitute 
 of interest while men continue to be burdened with a sense of 
 guilt, and to put the anxious question — how shall a man be just 
 with God? Another reason for the republication of these es- 
 says, is to be found in the circumstance, that a subsequent pub- 
 lication of Mr. Fuller, entitled '* Strictures on Sandemanianism," 
 in which the same corrupt doctrine and specious reasoning, 
 here so ably refuted, is again urged with pertinacity and an air 
 of triumph, has been widely circulated in this country ; and is 
 now confidently appealed to as an unanswerable piece of argu- 
 ment, and as forever settling the points at issue, by many who 
 have never read the writings he attacks, and who have certain- 
 ly never studied their Bibles to any good purpose. The Stric- 
 tures referred to, appeared some eight or nine years after the 
 following essays were v/ritten, and very near the close of Mr. 
 M'Lean's life, which sufficiently accounts for their not having 
 received from him a distinct answer: whether the friends of 
 truth have any reason to regret this circumstance, the readers 
 of this little work are called upon to decide. 
 
 With regard to the importance of the questions here discuss- 
 ed, a few words may be said : the writer is fully persuaded that 
 they involve the whole difference between the truth, as it is in 
 Jesus, and another gospel ; that from the answer which any man 
 is prepared to give to them, may be fairly inferred what is the 
 ground of his hope in the presence of God. Nothing seems to 
 
*V PREFACE. 
 
 him clearer than that a misapprehension in regard to the nature 
 o^ faith must carry with it an entire misconception of that 
 gospel -which assures salvation to him, and to him only, that be- 
 lieveth. If faith be looked upon as something more than a re- 
 cognition of the gospel as true — of the testimony on which it 
 rests as trust-worthy — if it be regarded as something tangible, 
 and possessed of an existence and of qualities apart from its 
 object: how evident is it that the mind must, of necessity, be 
 turned away from the soul-satisfying, saving truth, and turned 
 in upon itself, lo find comfort in its supposed possession of a 
 saving fa ilh. The great facts of the gospel, with their bless- 
 ed meaning, which are designed and fitted to afford instant re- 
 lief to the sinner under his most poignant sense of guilt, the 
 moment he understands and counts them to be true, must, of 
 necessity, be disregarded; while the anxious questions, Have 
 I faith? Have I believed aright? plainly evince the inquirer's 
 solicitude to find a Saviour within himself, and his disbelief of 
 the sufficiency of Him who came into the world to save sin- 
 ners. That man, it has been truly said, must be ignorant of 
 the grace of the gospel, who docs not see, in the blood of Christ, 
 sufllicient to give him hope, though he view himself as the great- 
 est infidel on earth. The consideration of his being a be- 
 liever forms no part of that truth which comforts the self-con- 
 demned, even as his faith forms no part of that righteous- 
 ness on the ground of which he hopes for acceptance with God. 
 Those whom God comforts, ''are begotten again to a live- 
 ly hope by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead :" " they 
 are filled with all peace and joy in believing" this : the 
 sole ground ol their hope, is, that "whereof they have heard in 
 the word of the truth of the gospel :" to this they point Avith 
 confidence as a solid and sufl^cient reason of the hope that is 
 in them ; and the idea that by any possibility their hope may 
 prove delusive, so long as this stands true in their consciences, 
 they are taught to repel with abhorrence, as the suggestion of 
 him who was a liar from the beginning, and abode not in the 
 truth. But if faith be " not the belief of any sentence that 
 can be thought upon, or that can be expressed in words" — if 
 '• many things about truth in the understanding being presup- 
 posed, faith be mainly and principally an exercise of the heart 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 and will,"* it demands for itself a distinctive consideration; 
 an anxious eye must be had to it, and until the sinner find him- 
 self this believing, willing, loving creature, the gospel has no 
 word of peace or hope for him ; it can only work wrath, and 
 give the knowledge of sin. And when the sinner comes to 
 think himself possessed of this holy disposition, when he 
 hopes he has attained an interest in Christ, is it the gospel, 
 think you, the faithful word of Him who was called the friend 
 of publicans and sinners, which is the spring of his comfort, 
 and daily the rejoicing of his heart? or does his peace spring 
 rather from a survey of himself — is it rather the confidence of 
 him who trusts in himself that he is righteous, and despises 
 others ? 
 
 To suit this altered sense of the word faith, the gospel is de- 
 nied to be a divine testimony, making its appeal to the faith of 
 men, and assuring salvation to him that believeth : though the 
 word of the God of truth, declares him a believer, who sets to 
 his seal that God is true, and him only an unbeliever who makes 
 God a liar, by disbelieving the record which God hath given of 
 his Son. Instead of a divine proclamation of forgiveness, as- 
 sured to every one that believeth, " of faith, that it might be by- 
 grace," " unto all and upon all them that believe, because there 
 is no difference," on the score of moral fitness, among men, the 
 gospel is represented as an offer, holding forth the promise of 
 forgiveness to him whose will has been renewed by some ante- 
 cedent grace, and who is thus better disposed than other men : 
 and it is this offer which faith accepts. Men are instructed to 
 enter on a course of pious labor for the attainment of this grace, 
 though it is fair to say, some question the propriety of this, 
 while fully persuaded that this grace is necessary ; yet the word 
 of truth declares that it is " not of him that willeth, nor of him 
 that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy;" and "if it be 
 of works, then is it no more of grace," thus excluding all acts 
 of will, whether renewed or unrenewed, even any the least co- 
 operation of his own, in the business of making a sinner's peace 
 with God. Yet how often is the salvation of the sinner made 
 CO depend on some motion of his will, and faith itself repre- 
 
 ♦ Guthrie's Christian's Great Interest. 
 a2 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 sented as dependant upon choice ? And how often are texts of 
 Scripture perverted to sustain this system of self-dependance; 
 to show that it is not a disbelief of what God has spoken, but 
 an indisposition to make a right improvement of their know- 
 ledge, which excludes the sinner from the blessings of Christ's 
 purchase ? Thus it is said, " Ye will not come to me that ye 
 might have life," John v. 40. That this text is designed to 
 teach that it is not unbelief, but a want of will, which renders 
 men indifferent to the salvation of Christ, seems to be pretty 
 generally admitted, the only difference of sentiment being as 
 to whether or not men possess any ability of will to come to 
 Christ. But if we turn to the Scripture from which this text is 
 taken, we find that the Saviour is charging upon the Jews the 
 guilt of their unbelief, " that whom the Father had sent, him 
 they believed not." After having pointed to the testimony of 
 John — to the works which he himself wrought in attestation 
 of his mission, to the Father's voice from heaven (according to 
 Dr. Campbell's translation,) he adduces yet another source of 
 evidence, " Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have 
 eternal life, and they are they which testify of me, and ye will 
 not come to vie that ye might have life." Thus the w^ords which 
 were designed to make known the Saviour's unutterable kind- 
 ness to the sons of men — to point to him as the Giver of life j 
 believing in whom, the chief of sinners is justified without a 
 motion of his will, in order to peace with God : are made to 
 suggest only the uneasy question, am I willing ? Have I clos- 
 ed with Christ? the proud thought ; I am thus willing, I have 
 performed the appropriating act ; or to stir the angry strife of 
 contending parties. Not as an incidental result, then, but as 
 the necessary and direct effect of this system, men's eyes are 
 turned away from that woik of surpassing grace which Jesus 
 finished in his death, to gather comfort from supposed eviden- 
 ces of a work of grace w^ithin themselves; while those who 
 can discover no such favorable signs ; who are forced to regard 
 themselves only as meet objects of divine wrath, as sinners 
 and enemies, ungodly and without strength; though it is to 
 such that He commends his love, are beaten ofi" from any 
 part, or hope, in the revealed mercy of God. If the amazing 
 facts and truths of the gospel — the love of God to sinners, as 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 such, " the grace of Him, who, when he was rich for our sakes 
 became poor, that we through his poverty might be rich" — the 
 glad tidings of great joy, that " He has made peace by the blood 
 of His cross," that sinners might be blessed in Him, are brought 
 forward : it is only to animate the efforts and stimulate the re- 
 ligious pride of the devout inquirer, or as subservient to that 
 mysterious moral change which is to be inwrought in conver- 
 sion, and to which men's attention is principally directed. 
 
 In the words of one who has ably exposed the corruptions of 
 the system referred to, " It would seem, from the generality of 
 pulpit harangues, that all who have a disposition to attend 
 preaching, believe the gospel, and so need very little instruction 
 on that head. The grand end is, to awaken warm fits of af- 
 fection, under the pretence of cultivating the religion of the 
 heart. The presence of these fancies is called communion 
 with God ; their absence, desertion : a conceit that they pos- 
 sess them, faith ; and a fear about them, unbelief; which they 
 are taught to pray against: and thus, thus it is, that trifles, rath- 
 er delusions, are set up and caressed ; while infinite worth is 
 slighted and despised." 
 
 In conclusion, while the writer is fully persuaded that no 
 force of argument will avail to open the eyes of any to the 
 simplicity ot the truth here vindicated : "that this is part of that 
 knowledge which no man can communicate to his neighbor;" 
 yet, believing that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by 
 the word of God," he would earnestly entreat the reader to ex- 
 amine the doctrine defended in the following pages, by that in- 
 fallible standard ; believing it to be of the last importance to 
 every man to come to a Scriptural conclusion as to the points 
 at issue. Those who are religious teachers especially, he 
 would earnestly exhort to consider well whether they be ob- 
 noxious to that heaviest woe which the word of God pronoun- 
 ces against any human being: that woe which was denounced 
 against the religious teachers, and leaders in devotion, of the 
 most devout nation the world has ever known — " Woe unto you, 
 lawyers, for ye have taken away the key of knowledge, ye en- 
 ter not in yourselves, neither do ye suffer others to enter in;" 
 whether they be engaged in holding forth that truth which 
 stands on the testimony of God, to be believed or disbelieved ; 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 or whether, denying that the salvation of men stands in the 
 persuasion of what God has spoken, they are found fighting 
 against God, and laboring to extinguish the best— the only hope 
 of mankind. H. W, 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 aUESTION I. 
 
 Whether the Existence of a holy Disposition of Heart he necessary to 
 
 believing 7 
 
 What this previous holy disposition is, page 4. — The state of tlie 
 question concluded, 5. — The principle upon which this previous 
 holy disposition is established, 6, 7.— The word heart in Scripture 
 frequently means the intellectual faculty, 8, 9. — Scripture passages 
 adduced which do not prove a previous holy disposition, 9, 10. — A 
 passage from Edwards on the will, considered, 10, 11. — Regeneration 
 is only by means of the word, 12 — 17- — None are godly unbelievers, 
 nor in a state of salvation till they believe,20,21.— Explanation of the 
 honest and good heart in the parable of the sower, 21, 23. — Note on 
 Hopkins' sermon, 24, 25. — Fallen man still possesses intellectual 
 and moral powers, though impaired and disordered by sin, 25, 2G.— 
 Regeneration rectifies this, and gives the lead to the intellectual 
 faculty, 26, 27. — No exercise cf the will can be of a holy nature 
 unless influenced by proper motives existing in the judgment, 27, 
 62. — A spiritual perception of the truth cannot be separated from 
 believing it, 28, 29,— A remarkable concession of Mr. Fuller, 29, 
 30. — Faith implies repentance, 32.— Legal repentance may be with- 
 out faith in Christ, 33. — True evangelical repentance is an imme- 
 diate effect of faith, 33. — Ought not to be preached as prerequisite to 
 faith, 34.— A specimen of such preaching, 34. — Yet ought to be urg- 
 ed on all to whom the gospel is preached, 30, 35, 40. — Mr. Fuller's 
 remarks on Barnard's Simple Truth, 36, 37. — The treatment of a 
 dying sinner, 38. — Tendency of Mr. Fuller's doctrine, 39. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 aUESTION II. 
 
 Whether justifying Faith includes in its Nature any thing more tJian 
 a Belief of the Gospel. 
 
 Mr. Fuller's description of faith in the first edition of his book on the 
 Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation, 43 — 45. — His explanation of 
 the term belief, considered, 46, 47. — His explanation of The Truth 
 considered, 48, 51. — His account of faith in the 2nd edition, 51. — 
 Professes to agree with Mr. M. in considei'ing the belief of the gos- 
 pel saving faith, 52. — Yet differs as to what belief includes, 52, 53. — 
 In which he also differs from his own definition of it, 53, 54. — Ac- 
 cuses Mr. M. of excluding everything holy from the nature of faith, 
 55. — The ground of this accusation considered, 55 — 58. — Wherein 
 the holiness of faith consists, 59 — 60. — Mr. Fuller places the holi- 
 ness of faith entirely in the will, 61. — His main argument for this 
 considered, 62 — 65. — Belief not a mere passive admission of truth in- 
 to the mind, 65, 66. — He denies that faith would be a duty, or un- 
 belief a sin were they merely an exercise of the understanding, &6. 
 — Consequences of such a sentiment, 67. — Affirms that aversion of 
 heart is the only obstruction to faith, and that the removal of this 
 Is the only influence necessary to produce it, 67. — What this senti- 
 ment infers, 68, 70. — His argimients from Scripture to prove that 
 faith is more than belief, answered, 70 — 77. — The improprieties he 
 finds in Scripture language, 77. — His attempt to confound faith, 
 hope, and love, 78, 79. — Shifts the point by misrepresentation, 79, 
 80.— 1 Cor.xiii. 13. explained, 81,82. 
 
 aUESTlON III. 
 
 Whether jus^tify in g Faith respects God as the justifier of the Ungodly ? 
 
 The passage in the Commission which Mr. Fuller opposes on this 
 subject, 84— 86.— Explained, 86—88. — Mr. Fuller at times appears 
 to ao-rec with it, 8S. — The difference is not about tlie procuring 
 cause of justification, but the way in which we receive it, 89. — His 
 inconsistency in both affirming and denying that we are justified 
 by faith working by love, or as a moral virtue, 90. — The fitness of 
 
CONTENTS* XI 
 
 faith to receive justification as a free ^ift, 92, 93.-— Considers the 
 phraseology of Rom. iv. 4, 5, as altogether singular, 95. — Though 
 it clearly agrees with the whole of the apostle's doctrine on that 
 subject, 96. — His misrepresentation of his opponent's sentiment, 
 97.— His explanation of Rom. iv. 4, 5, 98, 99.— Remarks on his 
 explanation, 99— 112.— The examples of Abraham and David do 
 not prove that antecedent holiness is necessary to justification, 112 
 —121. — Another explanation of Rom. iv. 4, 5, 121—138. — The 
 apostle's phraseology the most correct that could be devised, 129 — 
 130. — A conviction of sin and its consequences, though neces- 
 sary to faith in Christ, may yet fail of that issue, 129 — 130. — The 
 effects of the doctrine which Mr. Fuller contends for upon the minds 
 of awakened sinners, 130.— His method of shifting the supposed 
 case, and combating another, 131— 134.— Another case stated, and 
 Mr. Fuller's doctrine applied to it, 135 — 137. 
 
A REPLY 
 
 TO 
 
 MR. FULLER'S APPENDIX 
 
 TO HIS BOOK ON 
 
 THE GOSPEL WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Mr. Andrew Fuller, in an Appendix to a new-mo- 
 delled edition of his book, entitled, " The Gospel Worthy 
 of all Acceptation," has attempted to refute what I have ad- 
 vanced on Faith in my Treatise on the Commission of 
 Christ, and in a pamphlet, entitled, " The Belief of the 
 Gospel, saving Faith." One reason he assigns for offer- 
 ing his sentiments on this subject is, that " Mr. M'Lean 
 in a second edition of the Commission of Christ, has pub- 
 lished several pages of animadversions on what I have ad- 
 vanced on the subject, and has charged me with very seri- 
 ous consequences."* Yet these several pages happen to be 
 only two notes at the bottom of the pages, wherein Mr. 
 Fuller's name is not once mentioned. Nor is there the 
 
 ♦ Page 159. 
 1 
 
2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 least reference in them to any thing which Mr. Fuller had 
 published, that might lead the reader to think I had him in 
 view. 
 
 He seems to think that it was not very proper in mc to 
 animadvert pablicly on what he had written only in two 
 private letters. Had I exposed any of his private opinions, 
 communicated to me in confidence, and mentioned his 
 name, I confess it would have been very indelicate ; but as 
 neither of these is the case, and as it is Mr. Fuller himself 
 who has informed the public that these notes refer to his 
 sentiments, I see not the least cause of complaint. He 
 observes, that " if such conduct were proper, some people 
 may be tempted to think that it is rather dangerous to cor- 
 respond with authors."* What danger he may apprehend 
 from corresponding with me I know not, as I am altogether 
 unconscious of having ever attempted to expose or misre- 
 present him either publicly or privately. Whether Mr. 
 Fuller has been equally cautious on this head with regard 
 to me and my connections, he knows best. 
 
 He complains that his " sentiments are very partially 
 stated, and things introduced so much out of their cojinec- 
 tion, that it is impossible for the reader to form any judg- 
 ment concerning them.t"" I am certain, however, that 
 this complaint is groundless. Every material idea in his 
 letters relating to the subject is, in these two notes, express- 
 ed in his own words, and distinguished by invcr'ed com- 
 mas ; and nothing is so introduced out of its connection 
 as in the least degree to obscure or alter the sense. The 
 publication of his letters would clearly evince this ; but 
 there is no occasion, for if any will take the trouble of com- 
 paring his words, quoted in these two notes, with liis Ap- 
 pendix, he will tiiid the sentiment to be the same in both. 
 
 At my advanced period of life, I could wish to have been 
 
 * Pas:elGO. t Ibid. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 6 
 
 excused from entering the field of controversy, and especi- 
 ally with Mr. Fuller, who is much my superior in polemi- 
 cal talents, which he has exercised of late years to good 
 purpose both against Socinians and Deists. But it some- 
 times happens that men of distinguished abilities do not al- 
 ways know where to stop in their polemical career. Suc- 
 cess in some things has urged them on to attempt others, 
 wherein they have done little service to the cause of truth ; 
 and such, in my humble opinion, is Mr. Fuller's present 
 attempt. 
 
 As he seems to consider the simple belief of the gospel 
 to be nothing more than mere speculation, which has no 
 necessary connection with, nor influence upon true holi- 
 ness of heart, I can easily see how a concern for the inte- 
 rests of vital religion may have led him to make faith the 
 effect of a previous holy disposition, and to include in its 
 nature the exercise of the will and affections ; but I cannot 
 so easily account for his misrepresentations of my senti- 
 ments, and the strange conclusions he draws from them. 
 Those who know nothing of my writings but through the 
 medium of his Appendix, must consider them as striking at 
 the root of all true religion, or at best as a mere jumble of 
 inconsistencies. This lays me under the necessity of mak- 
 ing some reply, not only to wipe off these misrepresenta- 
 tions, but also, if possible, to throw some further light on 
 the point in debate. 
 
 The first thing that presents itself is the question which 
 Mr. Fuller prefixes to his Appendix, and which I shall here 
 make. 
 
QUESTION I. 
 
 WHETHER THE EXISTENCE OF A HOLY DISPOSITION OF 
 HEART FE NECESSARY TO BELIEVING? 
 
 This holy disposition he terms a divine principle — the 
 moral state or disposition of the soul — a change of heart — 
 a change of the hias of the heart towards God.* He main- 
 tains that this principle must exist prior to, or before believ- 
 ing, and in order to it ; and he frequently represents faith 
 as arising out of it, influenced by it, and partaking of it.f 
 I never considered this previous principle to be any part of 
 the diiference betwixt Mr. Fuller and me ; nor did I ob- 
 serve that he held any such sentiment, my attention being 
 entirely confined to what he says on the nature of faith it- 
 self. I might therefore justly excuse myself from entering 
 upon the question which he prefixes to his Appendix, be- 
 cause, althouj^h the affirmative were admitted, it will not 
 prove that faith is any thing else than simple belief; and 
 because the question betwixt us does not respect what is 
 previous to faith, but simply what faith itself is. But as 
 Mr. Fuller has brought forward this previous holy disposi- 
 tion of heart, and laid it as the fundamental principle of his 
 
 * Page 127, 129, 170. t Page 171—176. 
 
OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE, ETC. 6 
 
 scheme, it will be proper to examine it a little. After a 
 deal of reasoning, he conies at last to state the question 
 thus : — 
 
 "That there is a divine influence upon the soul which is 
 necessary to spiritual perception and belief, as being the 
 cause of them, those with whom I am now reasoning will 
 admit. The only question is, In what order these things 
 are caused ? Whether the Holy Spirit causes the mind, 
 while carnal, to discern and believe spiritual things, and 
 thereby render it spiritual ; or whether he imparts a holy 
 susceptibility and relish for the truth, in consequence of 
 which we discern its glory and embrace it ? The latter ap- 
 pears to me to be the truth."* 
 
 But this is a very unfair state of the question, so far as 
 it relates to the opinion of his opponents ; for he repre- 
 sents them as maintaining, that the Holy Spirit causes the 
 mind, while carnal, or before it is spiritually illuminated, to 
 discern and believe spiritual things ; and then he sets him- 
 self to argue against this contradiction of his own framing, 
 as a thing impossible even with God himself, because im- 
 possible in its own nature, and that the Holy Spirit declares 
 it to be so, 2. Cor. ii. 14. t Were I to state Mr. Fuller's 
 sentiments thus, "The Holy Spirit imparts to the mind, 
 while carnal, a holy susceptibility and relish for the truth," 
 would he not justly complain that I had misrepresented his 
 view, and that he did not mean that the mind could possess 
 any holy susceptibility or relish for the truth while it was in 
 a carnal state ; but only, that the Holy Spirit, by the very 
 act of imparting this holy susceptibility and relish for the 
 truth, removed the carnality of the mind ? But then this 
 explanation applies equally to the other side of the question ; 
 and surely it appears at least as consistent with the nature of 
 things, and as easy to conceive, that the Holy Spirit should 
 
 ♦ Page 204, 205. t Page 205, 206. 
 
6 OF A SUPPOSED HOLV PRINCIPLE 
 
 in the first instance, communicate the light of truth to a 
 dark carnal mind, and thereby render it spiritual, as that he 
 should, prior to that, impart to it a holy susceptibility and 
 relish for the truth. It would, indeed, be highly presumptuous 
 in me to affirm of this last what Mr. Fuller does of the for- 
 mer, viz : that it is injpossible with God : but I must be al- 
 lowed to say, that to me it is altogether inconceivable how 
 the human mind can have a holy relish for the truth before it 
 has any perception of it. A conviction of sin, and a fear of 
 its awful consequences, may indeed dispose a person to 
 listen to, and relish any thing which may give him hope ; 
 but till his mind is in some measure enlightened in the 
 knowledge of Christ, this cannot be termed a holy suscep- 
 tibility, much less a holy lelLsh for the truth, or a change of 
 heart. In such circumstances, it is only the effect of that 
 natural self-love or desire of happiness which is common 
 to all mankind, and which, though it may subserve his 
 relish for the truth as soon as he perceives it, must, till then, 
 lead him to seek relief or ease to his mind from, some other 
 quarter. 
 
 The principle upon which Mr. Fuller establishes this 
 holy disposition previous to faith seems to be this : — That 
 the understanding, or perceptive faculty in man is directed 
 and governed by his will and inclinations. The most of 
 his arguments are evidently foimded on this hypothesis. 
 But must it not be owned, that, so far as this is th- case, it 
 is an irregular exercise of his faculties, arising from the 
 i..oral disorder of his lapsed nature, whereby his judgment, 
 reason, and conscience, are weakened, perverted and blind- 
 ed, so as to be subjected to his will and corrupt inclinations ?* 
 
 ♦ Dr. Owen ascribes this to the di«!order introduced into the soul by 
 the fall ; his words arc, " The rise of this is the disorder that is brought 
 upon all its faculties by sin. God created them all in a perfect har- 
 monv and union. The mind and reason were in perfect subjection 
 and subordination to God and his will. The will answered in its 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 7 
 
 And shall we suppose that, in regeneration, the Holy Spirit 
 acts according to this order, by first performing some physi- 
 cal operation upon the blind will to give it a new bias or 
 incliiiation, and thus make way for the introduction of light 
 into the understanding ? 
 
 This is evidently Mr. Fuller's opinion ; for he says, 
 " G d does not cause the natural man to receive spiritual 
 things ;" that he considers as im{)ossible, '' but he re?noves 
 the obstructing film, by imparting a spiritual relish for those 
 things." This obstructing film he explains to be "the ob- 
 stinacy and aversion of the heart," and thinks that the first 
 operation of the Spirit is his "imparting a spiritual relish 
 for those thinss " which the mind does not as yet perceive. 
 " Thus," he says,. " it is that spiritual things are spiritually 
 discerned."* Whether I take these words by themselves, 
 or in connection with the whole paragraph, I can make no 
 other sense of them but this, that spiritual things are spiri- 
 tually discerned by a spiritual relish for we know not what; 
 for he does not admit that there is any previous communi- 
 cation of spiritual light to the understanding ; on the con- 
 trary, he denies this to be possiWe, even with God himself. 
 
 He observes, that " thouah holiness is frequently ascribed 
 in the Scriptures to a spiritual perception of the truth, yet 
 
 choiceof good, the discovery made of it by the mind; the affections con- 
 stantly and evenly foUov/ed the understanding an<j will. The mind's 
 subjection to God was the spring of the orderly and harmonious mo- 
 tion of the soul, and all the wheels of it. That being disturbed by sin, 
 the rest of the faculties move cross and contrary one to another. The 
 will chooseth not the good which the mind discovers : the affections de- 
 light not in that which the will chooseth ; but all jar and interfere, 
 cross and rebel against each other. This we have got by our falling 
 from God. Hence, sometimes the will leads, the judgment follows ; 
 yea, commonly the affections, which should attend upon all, get the 
 sovereignty, and draw the whole soul after thera," — On the Nature 
 and Power of Indwelling Sin. Chap, iii. 
 » Page 205, 206. 
 
8 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE 
 
 that spiritual perception itself, in the first instance, is as- 
 cribed to the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the heart." 
 And for this he cites Acts xvi. 4. 2 Cor. iv. 6. 1 John ii. 20, 
 27.* 
 
 Spiritual perception is without doubt the effect of the 
 Holy Spirit's influence upon the heart ; but the reader must 
 observe, that Mr. Fuller here uses the word heart to signify 
 the will and affections, as distinguished from the under- 
 standing or perceiving faculty ; so ihat his meaning is, that 
 the Holy Spirit does not, in the first instance, impart a 
 spiritual perception of the truth, and so make persons to 
 relish or love it; but that he makes them first to relish or 
 love it, and then to perceive or understand it. But, on this 
 subject, the word of God never mentions the word heart, in 
 Mr. Fuller's partial sense of it, but always as including the 
 understanding, as well as the will and affections, | and the 
 former as the avenue to the latter. It has, indeed, become 
 common with us to confine the metaphorical use of the word 
 heart to the aflections and dispositions ; but in Scripture 
 the heart is said to know, to understand, to study, to dis- 
 cern, to devise, to meditate, to ponder, to consider, to rea- 
 son, to indite, to doubt, to believe, to be wise, &c. In 
 short, every exercise which we consider as belonging to 
 
 * Page 20G. 
 
 t " The word heart in the Scripture is variously used. Sometimes 
 for the mind and understanding; sometimes for the will; sometimes 
 for the affections ; sometimes for the conscience; sometimes for the 
 whole soul. Generally it denotes the whole soul of man, and all the 
 faculties of it, not absolutely, hut as they are all one princii^le of mo- 
 ral operations, as they a!l concur in our doing trood or evil. The 
 mind, as it inquireth, discerneth. and judgeth what is to be done, 
 what refused: The will, as it chooseth or refuseth, and avoids : The 
 affections, as they like or dislike, cleave to, or have an aversation 
 from that which is proposed to them : The conscience, as it warns and 
 determines. All these together are called the heart." — Owen on the 
 Nature and Power of Indwelling Sin. Chap. iii. 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. » 
 
 the intellectual taculty, is in Scripture ascribed to the heart. 
 See Deut. iv. 39, Pss.]. xlv. 1. and xlix. 3. Prov. x. 8. 
 chap. XV. 2S. chap. xvi. 9. chap. xix. 21. Eccl. viii. 5. Jer. 
 xxiv. 7. Matt. xiii. 15. Mark ii. 6, 8. chap. xi. 23. Luke 
 ii. 19, 35. 
 
 The Scripture passages which Mr. Fuller refers to, prove 
 this, and are decidedly against him. The Lord's opening 
 the heart of Lydia, was his opening her mind, in the fust 
 instance, to perceive in some measure the sense and excel- 
 lency of what was spoken, so as to make her attend to it 
 with judgment and relish. It is equivalent to what the 
 Lord did to his disciples, "Then opened he their under- 
 standing {vuv mind), that they might understand the 
 Scriptures," Luke xxiv. 45. And if we can believe the 
 disciples themselves, it was by his opening the Scriptures to 
 their understanding (which is the same thing), that their 
 affections were moved : " Did not our hearts burn with- 
 IN us while he talked with us by the way, and while he 
 OPENED TO us THE ScRiPTURES," vcr. 32. To opeu the 
 understanding or mind, is a clear and common expression, 
 but to open the will or affections, seems not intelligible, 
 and is never used. Again, when the apostle says, " God 
 hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge 
 of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ," 2 Cor. iv. 
 6, he certainly does not mean that God had first shined 
 in their will and affections ; for these are not the perceptive 
 powers of the heart, which are adapted to receive light in 
 the first instance, but the understanding or judgment. Ac- 
 cordingly, this shining of the divine glory in the hearts of 
 these eminent ministers of Christ, is represented as giving 
 them the light [rrig yvwaecoi) OF THE KNOWLEDGE of it ; and 
 he also shows that it was in beholding this glory of the 
 Lord, that they were changed into the same image, chap, 
 iii. 18. The spiritual light communicated by the Spirit to 
 their understanding, worked effectually upon their will and af- 
 
10 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE 
 
 fections, and changed their souls into the divine image. With 
 respect to the anointing mentioned 1 John ii. 20, 27, I 
 cannot perceive how it favours Mr. Fuller's hypothesis. It 
 is represented as a preservative from the false doctrine of 
 seducers, and cannot be those blind and enthusiastical im- 
 pressions and emotions which some honour with the name 
 of a divine unction ; for, as it taught and made them know 
 all things, it must have been by enlightening their judg- 
 ment, and seems to have been a portion or decree of that 
 which Christ promised to his disciples, and by which they 
 were to be guided into all truth, John xiv. 26. and xvi. 13, 
 14. 
 
 To show that the will acts prior to the understanding, and 
 independently of it, he says, " Whatever maybe said of par. 
 ticular volitions being caused by ideas received into the 
 mind, original biasses are not so ;" and, in a note below, 
 affirms that "President Edwards speaks with great caution 
 on the will being determined by the understanding."* Yet 
 the citation shows that President Edwards uses no other 
 caution on this point than to explain what he means by the 
 understanding, viz. not only reason or judgment, but also 
 perception or apprehension. + And this explanation was 
 necessary, because the will is not always determined by what 
 right reason or judgment would dictate, but is often govern- 
 ed by erroneous perceptions and apprehensions. But be 
 the acts of the understanding rioht or wrong, still thev are 
 its acts, and must ever precede and influence the acts of the 
 will, unless we can suppose that the will acts without any 
 previous inducement, motive, cause, or ground of its choice, 
 which President Edwards absolutely denies. J 
 
 * Page 207. 
 
 t Enquiry on the Will, Part I. Sect. 2. 
 
 t III the same Section lie says, " By motive, I mean the whole of 
 that which moves, excites, or invites the mind to volition, whetlier that 
 be one ihin^ singly, or many things conjunctly. Whatever is a mo- 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 11 
 
 But it is said that original biasses are not caused by ideas 
 received into the mind. It may be so for any thing I 
 know. Adam was possessed of an original holy bias, yet 
 this, in order of nature, might arise from the discovery he 
 had of God. Had his will been wholly governed by this 
 bias, without any direction or influence from ideas in his 
 mind, I know not wherein it would have differed from 
 a blind instinct or propensity, being devoid of any rational 
 motive, end, or aim, as to him. Again, if this holy bias 
 had no dependence on any light in his judgment, how came 
 he to lose it, and receive a contrary bias, through the influ- 
 ence of those false ideas which Satan instilled into his 
 mind, and which is the origin of that evil bias which is to 
 be found in all his posterity? 
 
 But whether original biasses are caused by ideas received 
 into the mind or not, it has no concern with the question 
 u ;der consideration, unless it could be shown that regene- 
 ration is an original bias, and that it exists before any 
 spiritual light is communicated to the mind. 
 
 Mr. Fuller asserts that "every thing which proves spirit- 
 ual perceptiuii and faith to be holy exercises, proves that a 
 change of heart must of necessity precede them, as no holy 
 exercise can have place while the heart is under the domi- 
 nion of carnality."* That spiritual perception and belief 
 are holy, is freely admitted; and I have no objection to 
 their being termed (exercises, if nothing more is meant than 
 
 live in this sens-^, must be snmeUiinir that is extant in the view or ap- 
 p:-^lieiit;ioii of Uie unJerstaudinij, or perceiving faculty. Nothing can 
 induce III- inviie the mind to will or act any thing any fartlierthan itis 
 perceived, or in sonic way or other in the mind's view ; for what is 
 wliolly iiiipeiceivcd, and perfectly out of the mind's view, cannot af- 
 fect the mini at all. It is most evident that nothing is in the mind, 
 or r 'aches u, or t.ikes any hold of it, atry otherwise than as it is per- 
 ceived i)r thnii^hi ol" — Enquiry on the Will, Part I. Sect, 2. Sec also 
 II. Sri 8, 9, 10. 
 * P..ue207. 
 
12 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE 
 
 simply perceiving and believing. But how does this "prove 
 that a change of* heart must necessarily precede them ?" 
 Why, Mr. Fuller informs us, that " no holy exercise," con- 
 sequently no spiritual perception or belief, " can have place 
 while the heart is under the dominion of carnality." True ; 
 contraries cannot have dominion in the same heart, and at 
 the same instant; but for the same reason, no change of 
 heart can actually have place while it is under the dominion 
 of carnality. Here both sides of the question stand upon 
 equal ground. But, as it will be allowed that God can 
 change the heart, the question is, Whether does this change 
 begin with a removal of the darkness and unbelief of the 
 mind, or whether is the heart actually changed previous to 
 this, and while it is yet in a state of spiritual darkness and 
 unbelief? The former is my sentiment, the latter Mr. Ful- 
 ler's. •' It is thus (he says) I apprehend that God reveals 
 the truth to us by his Spirit, in order to our discerning and 
 believing it."* That is, he reveals the truth to us, by 
 changing our hearts before we perceive and believe it. In 
 this method he thinks it was revealed unto Peter, Matt. xvi. 
 17. — unto babes. Matt. xi. 25. — unto the apostles, 1 Cor. 
 ii. 9, 10, 12, 13, 14. 1 But all these passages are greatly 
 misapplied, when brought to prove, either that the heart is 
 actually changed while yet in a state of ignorance and un- 
 belief, or that God cannot remove this ignorance and unbe- 
 lief from the natural man, in the first instance, and so make 
 him spiritually to discern spiritual things. 
 
 The Scriptures expressly declare, that the word of truth, 
 or the incorruptible seed of the word, is the means or 
 instrument of regeneration. " Of his own will begat he us 
 with the word of truth," James i. 18. ""Being born again, 
 not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of 
 God, which livcth and abidethfor ever," 1 Pet. i. 23. One 
 
 * Page 208. ' t Page 209. 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 13 
 
 would think that these plain texts should fully determine the 
 point in dispute ; for if it is with the word of truth, that 
 God of his own will begets or regenerates men ; if the 
 word of God is the very seed of regeneration ; and if to be 
 born of God, born of the Spirit (John i. 13. chap. iii. 5.), and 
 to be born of the incorruptible seed of the word, are expressions 
 of the same import, then this birth must be effected by the 
 Spirit's causing men to understand and believe the word in 
 the first instance ; for it is certain that the word can have 
 no saving influence upon the heart previous to this. Mr. 
 Fuller admits that " we are as properly said to be born 
 again by the word of God, as we are said to be born into 
 the world by means of our parents."* If so, then we can 
 have no existence as new creatures previous to the instru- 
 mentality of the word, any more than we can have an ex- 
 istence as human creatures previous to the instrumentality 
 of our parents. 
 
 Yet he does not abide by this, but by means of an im 
 aginary distinction, endeavors to elude the force of the above 
 texts, and introduce regeneration previous to, and altogether 
 abstract from any influence of the word of God. He af- 
 firms, "That the term regeneration in the sacred writings 
 is not always used in that strict sense in which we use it in 
 theological discussion. Like every other term, it is some- 
 times used in a more strict, and sometimes in a more 
 general sense. "f Granting this were the case (as it really 
 is not), how does it determine in which of these senses it 
 is to be taken when ascribed to the word of God ? 
 
 " Regeneration (he says) is sometimes expressive of that 
 operation in which the soul is passive ; and in this sense 
 stands distinguished from conversion, or actual turning to 
 God by Jesus Christ.":}: This must be his strict sense of 
 that term. But where does he ever find the term regenera- 
 
 ♦ Page 210. t Ibid. t Ibid. 
 
 2 
 
14 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE 
 
 tion used in this sense ? Perhaps in theological, or rather 
 metaphysical discussion ; but I am confident it bears no 
 such meaning in all the sacred writings.* Regeneration, 
 strictly speaking, is not the operation or agency of the Ho- 
 ly Spirit, btit the effect of it. It is not his working, but his 
 workmanship. It is a spiritual change produced on man, 
 as to the sentiments and dispositions of his soul, whereby he 
 is made, in some measure, to perceive divine things as they 
 are, and to be affected towards them as he ought ; and there- 
 fore cannot, in the nature of things, actually take place 
 while the soul is purely passive, or only physically acted up- 
 on, like insensible or unconscious matter. True, indeed, 
 the operation or agency of the Spirit must, in order of na- 
 ture, precede regeneration, as a cause precedes its imme- 
 diate effect ; but so must also the influence of the word of 
 God, to which it is likwise ascribed ; because the Spirit ope- 
 rates upon the mind in and by the word, which is die in- 
 strumental cause of regeneration ; so that in this matter the 
 influence of the Spirit of truth, and of the word of truth, co- 
 alesce in one, and must not be separated. To regenerate 
 men, is to beget them to the faith ; and this faith, which is 
 the gift of God, " cometh by hearing, and hearing by the 
 word of God," Rom. x. 17, which is the incorruptible seed 
 whereby they are born again, i Pet. i. 23. Whatever iu- 
 
 • The term {ira\i)ycvt(ria) regeneration, occurs only twice in all the 
 New Testament. We find it in Matt. xix. 2S. where it signifies the 
 resurrection : " Ye who have followed me," viz. in this world, "in the 
 REGENERATION," i. e. at the resurrection, •' when the Son of man shall 
 sit in the ihone of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones," 
 &c. The orily other place whe e the word occurs, is Tit. iii. 5. 
 where it signifi -s that spiritual purification, of which baptism is a fig- 
 ure. But as Mr. Fuller understands it here in what he calls a lar^e 
 or general sense, and as including faith, (page 211,) he has not left 
 himself a single instance in Scripture, where it can be understood in 
 his strict sense, as above stated ; and indeed it is nowhere to be found 
 in such a sense but in metaphysical theology. 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 15 
 
 fluence of the Spirit, or exercise of mind, maybe supposed 
 previous to this, it is nowhere in Scripture called regenera- 
 tion, nor by any equivalent term. In other words, the 
 Scriptures nowhere declare that any unbeliever, while such, 
 is actually .regenerated; and therefore Mr. Fuller's strict 
 sense of the term re;ieneration, has no foundation in the 
 word of God, nor indeed in the nature of things. 
 
 But he produces two texts for this strict sense of it, and 
 observes, that " when the term (regeneration) is introduced 
 as a cause of faith, or as that of which believing in Jesus is 
 a proof (as it is in John i. 12, 13, and 1 John v. 4.) we 
 may be certain it stands distinguished from it."* Yet 
 these texts hold forth no such distinction, far less the whole 
 sentiment, viz. that regeneration is without the word, and 
 previous to the perception or belief of it. In John i. 12, 
 13. we are told that those of the Jewish nation who believed 
 on the name of Jesus, "were born, not of blood, nor of the 
 will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God ;" i. e. 
 of the will of God, as opposed to the will of man, and is the 
 same with what James declares, " Of his own will begat he 
 us with the word of truth,"' James i. 18. The word of truth 
 was first published to them, and God, by the sovereign in- 
 fluence of his Spirit concurring with that word, begat them 
 to the faith of it, and so gave them power to become his 
 sons : "For we are all the children of God, by faith " in 
 Christ Jesus," Gal. iii. 26. This is also the sense of John 
 V. 1. " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is 
 bora of God;" not previous to this belief^ but in producing 
 it, as our Lord said to Peter when he confessed this faith r 
 " Bless-d art thou, Simon Bar-jona ; for flesh and blood 
 hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, who is in 
 heaven," Matt. xvi. 17. The first thing therefore in rege- 
 neration, is the introduction of light into the judgment, where- 
 
 * Page 200. 
 
16 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE 
 
 by the soul is made to perceive and believe the (ruth and ex- 
 cellency of divine things, and consequently to be suitaV)ly 
 affected towards them. 
 
 The Scriptures frequently speak of the mental powers 
 under the metaphors of bodily members, organs, and senses, 
 such as eyes, ears, heart, bowels, reins, &c. even as it as- 
 cribes bodily parts to God himself. Hence many, instead 
 of explaining these metaphors in a suitableness to the spirit 
 of man, affix such gross notions to them, as are applicable 
 only to the material part of him ; and as when the bodily 
 organ (the eye, for instance,) is wanting or distempered, it 
 must first be supplied or rectified by some physical o|>era- 
 tion before it can perform its office, so they imagine that 
 some similar operation must be performed on the soul pre- 
 vious to the introduction of spiritual light into the understand- 
 ing. Thus Mr. Fuller speaks of God's first removing the 
 obstructing film from the mental eye, by imparting a spirit- 
 ual relish for divine things.* But we know that a bodily 
 taste or relish will not remove a film from the natural eye, 
 and it is not easy to conceive how a spiritual relish for we 
 know not what (were it possible that such a relish could ex- 
 ist,) will remove the film from the mental eye. He repre- 
 sents this spiritual relish, whereby the heart is changed and 
 turned towards God previous to. the knowledge of him, as 
 some new sense or faculty created in the soul, in which the 
 intellect has little or no concern. He compares it to a deli- 
 cate sense of propriety, in which the mind judges, as it were, 
 instinctively from a feeling of what is proper, and says, "It 
 is by this unction from the Holy One, that we perceive the 
 glory of the divine character, the evil of sin, and the love- 
 ly fitness of the Saviour; neither of which can be proper- 
 ly known by mere intellect, any more than the sweetness 
 of honey, or the bitterness of wormwood, can be ascertain- 
 
 • Page 206. 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 17 
 
 ed by the sight of the eye."* 13ut if this spiritual relish 
 precedes the exercise of intellect, or the mind's perception 
 of an object (which is the case supposed), then it is certain 
 it can have no object, consequently cannot be a spiritual 
 relish. We may, indeed, feci and relish objects of sense 
 without seeing them with our eyes, such as the hardness of 
 a stone by the touch, and the sweetness of honey by the 
 taste ; but spiritual objects cannot be felt or relished by the 
 soul, while the judgment has no spiritual perception or know- 
 ledge of them. Therefore, to affirm that an unction from 
 the Holy One makes us " perceive the glory of the divine 
 character, the evil of sin, and the lovely fitness of the 
 Saviour," without enlightening the judgment, in the first 
 instance, appears to me altogether unintelligible, and con- 
 trary to the plain declarations of the Scriptures, viz : that 
 God of his own will begets men to thy faith, with the word 
 of truth, and that they are born again of the incorruptible 
 seed of the word. So much for Mr. Fuller's strict sense of 
 regeneration. 
 
 With regard to his large sense of the term, viz : as in- 
 cluding faith, he says, " Regeneration, taken in this large 
 sense of the term, is undoubtedly by the word of God. It 
 is by means of this that a sinner is first convinced of sin, 
 and by this, as exhibiting mercy through Jesus Christ, is 
 kept from despair. It is by this only that he can become 
 acquainted with the character of the Being he has offended, 
 the nature and demerit of sin, and the way in which he 
 must be saved from it. These important truths, viewed 
 with the eye of an enlightened conscience, frequently pro- 
 duce great effects upon the soul, even previous to its yield- 
 ing itself up to Christ. And the impartation of spiritual 
 life, or a susceptibility of heart to receive the truth, may 
 generally, if not always, accompany the representation of 
 
 • Page 212. 
 2* 
 
18 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE 
 
 truth to the mind. It was while Paul was f^ppaking, that 
 the Lord opened the heart of Lydia. It is also allowed, 
 that when the word is received into the soul, and finds place 
 there, it worketh effectually, and 'becomes a principle of 
 holy action, a well of water, springing up to everlasting 
 life."* 
 
 If by an enlightened conscience, and a susceptibility of 
 heart, to receive the truth, he does not mean any thing 
 previous to a representation of truth to the mind, I can 
 most heartily subscribe to this view of regeneration, as be- 
 ing agreeble to the word of God. But then I can by no 
 means reconcile it with his strict sense of regeneration, 
 unless I could suppose that a person is regenerated before 
 his first conviction of sin, and previous to his being acquaint- 
 ed with the character of the Being he has offended, the na- 
 ture and demerit of sin^ and the way in which he mu^st be saved 
 from it ; all which, he admits, cwne by means of the word. 
 
 He gives the sum of what he pleads for in these words : 
 *' All I contend for is, that it is not by means of a spiritual 
 perception, or belief of the gospel, that the heart is, for the 
 first time, efiectually influenced towards God ; for spiritual 
 perception and belief are represented as the effects, and not 
 the causes of such influence."! If he means that the in- 
 fluence of the Spirit of G od is the cause of spiritual percep- 
 tion and belief, ve are agreed ; but if he means, as I sup- 
 pose he does, that the heart is effectually influenced towards 
 God previous to any true knowledge of him, or to any 
 spiritual perception and belief of the truth, or to any in- 
 fluencing motive whatever being presented to the view of 
 the mind, such a sentiment appears to me not only un- 
 scriptural, but altogether irrational and absurd. 
 
 He says, " A spiritual perception of the glory of divine 
 things, is not the first operation of God upon the mind.":j: 
 
 ♦ Page 211. t Page 211, 212. t Page 212. 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 19 
 
 To avoid ambiguity, it must be noticed that the word ope- 
 ration is sometimes used to express the effect, at other times 
 the cause. If he means that spiritual perception is not the 
 first effect produced on the mind, then the effect prior to 
 this must be entirely of a mechanical or physical nature ; 
 for it cannot be a moral effect, where no ideas are commu-- 
 nicated, nor any object brought to the view of the mind. 
 But if by operation he intends that divine energy or influ- 
 ence, which is the cause of regeneration, it is freely granted 
 that this must, in order of nature (though not of time), pre. 
 cede that spiritual perception which is the immediate effect 
 of it ; but so must also the word of God, which is the 
 means of that effect. As to the operation of the Spirit, 
 whereby the truth is introduced into the mind, so as to pro- 
 duce its proper effects, we can no more explain the manner 
 of it, than we can explain that creating operation whereby 
 God commanded the light to shine out of darkness, or that 
 by which he quickens the dead, to both of which it is com- 
 pared, 2 Cor. iv. 6. Eph. ii. 1. But we may safely affirm, 
 that there is not any holy susceptibility or relish for the 
 truth subsisting in the human heart previous to the influ- 
 ence of the word. Indeed, there appears to be no occasion 
 for this ; for the word of God, through the effectual operation 
 of the Spirit, is quick and powerful, sharper than any two- 
 edged sword, Heb. iv. 12. It finds its way into the most 
 unsusceptible and untoward mind, and breaks the stoutest 
 and most obdurate heart. " Is not my word like as a fire] 
 saith the Lord ; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock 
 in pieces?' Jer. xxiii. 29. It storms the heart in its 
 strongest holds, whereby it seeks to fortify itself against the 
 truth. " For the weapons of our warfare (says the apostle) 
 are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling 
 down of strong holds : casting down imaginations, and 
 
 * Page 114. 
 
20 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE 
 
 every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge 
 of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the 
 obedience of Christ," 2 Cor. x. 4, 6. Such passages do 
 not admit the supposition, that the heart is possessed of any 
 principle of grace previous to the influence of the word by 
 the Spirit. 
 
 If a holy disposition of heart be previous to faith, it must 
 be without it, and so cannot be pleasing to God ; for, with- 
 out faith, it is impossible to please him, Heb. xi. 6. It 
 must be prior to actual union with Christ, and while the 
 mind is without divine ilium ination, conviction, or any 
 spiritual motive, consequently is no part of that regeneration 
 which is by the incorruptible seed of the word, 1 Pet. i. 23. 
 nor of that sanctification through the truth which Christ 
 prays for, John xvii. 17. This previous holy principle he 
 describes as an " effectual change of the bias of the heart 
 towards God," as if the bias of a person's will and affec- 
 tions could be turned towards an object in whom he does 
 not believe, and of whose true character, as revealed in the 
 gospel, he is supposed as yet to have no just conception. 
 This also makes the doctrine of reconciliation need- 
 less, in order to reconcile the heart to God. 
 
 Further, if men are regenerated, and possessed of holy 
 dispositions before they believe, then they must be godly 
 unbelievers, — a character unknown in the word of God ; 
 and should they die in that state, they must be saved with- 
 out faith, for no regenerated holy person shall perish. Mr. 
 Fuller is aware of this plain consequence, and endeavors 
 to elude it. His words are : " If there be a priority (i. e. 
 if regeneration be before faith) in order of time, owing to 
 the want of opportunity of knowing the truth, yet, where a 
 person embraces Christ, so far as he has the means of 
 knowing him, he is in effect a believer."* This answer 
 
 • Pajre 214. 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 
 
 21 
 
 appears to me exceedingly confused and incobrrent. The 
 point he strenuously contends for is, That regeneration is 
 before faith ; but here he speaks of it hypothetically, as if 
 he were not sure of it, "If there be a priority in order of 
 time ;" and he makes this supposed priority to be only in 
 case of the "want of opportunity of knowing the truth," 
 which imports, that none having that opportunity, are rege- 
 nerated before they believe. Again, such as " want an op- 
 portunity of knowing the truth," are yet supposed to em- 
 brace Christ so far as they have the means of know- 
 ing him ;" as if they could both want an opportunity, and 
 yet have the means of knowing him ; or as if they might 
 know and embrace Christ, without knowing the truth which 
 reveals him. Such, he says " are in effect believers ;" an 
 expression which in this connection I do not understand. 
 " The Bereans (he observes) searched the Scriptures daily, 
 whether those things were so ; therefore it is said, many of 
 them believed. And had they died while in this noble pur- 
 suit, they would not have been treated as unbelievers."* 
 Yet it is not said that all of them who searched the Scrip- 
 tures believed, but many of them ; and there is not the 
 least foundation to suppose that any of them who searched 
 the Scriptures would have been saved without believing ; 
 and to affirm that men will bo saved short of believing, ap- 
 pears to me contrary to the uniform declarations of Scrip- 
 ture, and a very unsafe doctrine, however necessary it may 
 be to support Mr. Fuller's hypothesis. 
 
 It is alleged that the honest and good heart, mentioned 
 in the parable of the sower, Luke viii. 15,t represents per- 
 sons as regenerated previous to their hearing the word. 
 But such an interpretation is a striking instance, among 
 many, of the abuse of Scripture metaphors, whereby doc- 
 trines are grounded on similitudes and parables altogether 
 
 ♦ Page 214. t Page 174. 
 
22 or A SUPPOSED holy principle 
 
 foreign to their design. Because it is a well-known truth 
 in husbandry, that if the soil is not good, either by nature 
 or culture, before the seed is sown into it, it will not be 
 productive ; therefore it is imagined that it must also be a 
 truth in theology, that the heart of man must be honest and 
 good previous to his hearing the word, otherwise it [can 
 have no proper effect upon him. But this is far from being 
 the design of that parable, which is, to set forth the different 
 reception and effects of the word among those who actually 
 hear it. Some consider this parable as respecting the first 
 publication of the gospel to Jews and proselytes, by our 
 Lord and his apostles, when it found many previously pos- 
 sessed of honest and good hearts, who looked for redemption, 
 and waited for the consolation of Israel ; such as Nathanael, 
 Joseph of Arimathea, Cornelius, and many others, but this 
 honest and good heart was not begotten in them without 
 the word, but by means of the Old Testament revelation, 
 which they believed, and by the ministry of John the Bap- 
 tist, whose office it was " to make ready a people prepared 
 for the Lord," Luke i. 16, 17. 
 
 But, though this affords a good answer, there is no occa- 
 sion to confine the parable to the first publication of the 
 gospel ; for we may easily trace the order of things, by com- 
 paring the three Evangelists, and harmonizing them into 
 one compound text. The first thing in order is, the sow- 
 ing of the seed, or publishing the word of the kingdom : 
 A sower went forth to sow ; for how should men hear with- 
 out a preacher ? Those to whom the word was published 
 heard it. This was common to all the classes ; they were 
 all hearers. But then the good effects of hearing the word 
 was confined to one class of them ; and these eflfects are 
 threefold, and in the following order — 1. Having heard the 
 word, they understood it. Matt. xiii. 23. and received it, 
 Mark iv. 20. The word of God, accompanied by the influ- 
 ence of the Holy Spirit, enlightened their minds, removed 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 23 
 
 their prejudices, and made them perceive the import, evidence, 
 and excellency of what was declared ; so that they under- 
 stood and received it as the word of God, 1 Thess. ii. 13. 
 as a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, 1 Tim. 
 i. 15. Thus they are born again of the incorruptible seed 
 of the word, 1 Pet. i. 23. and thus God, of his own sove- 
 reign will, begets them to the taith with the word of truth, 
 Jam. i. 18. for faith cometh by hearing the word of God, 
 Rom. X. 17. and now, and not till now, are they possessed 
 of a principle of grace in their hearts. — 2. Having heard, 
 understood, and received the word, they, in an honest and 
 good heart, keep it, Luke viii. 15. i. e. they retain and 
 hold it fast, in opposition to their letting it slip, like the 
 other classes of hearers : The seed of God remaineth in 
 them, 1 John iii. 9. even that which they have heard, chap, 
 ii- 24. They continue in Christ's word, and his words 
 abide in them, John viii. 31. ch. xv. 7. which is to continue 
 in the faith, grounded and settled, and not moved away from 
 the hope of the gospel which they have heard, Col. i. 23. 
 But that honest and good heart in which they keep (KaTcxnct) 
 or retain the word, did not exist prior to their hearing and 
 understanding it, but was evidently produced by that means, 
 as was shown on the first particular. Paul traces the origin 
 of love, a pure heart, and a good conscience (which consti- 
 tute the honest and good heart) only back to faith unfeigned, 
 which respects the word, 1 Tim. i. 5. for it is by faith that 
 God purifies the heart. Acts xv. 9. — 3. The last thintr 
 in order is, they bring forth fruit with patience, and in va- 
 rious degrees, Luke viii. 15. Matt. xiii. 23. The word of 
 God which they have heard, understood, and received, effec- 
 tually worketh in them, 1 Thess. ii. 13, amd bringeth forth 
 fruit in them, since the day they heard and knew the grace 
 of God in truth, Col. i. 6. This, therefore, is the order of 
 things set forth in the explanation of the parable. It is by 
 means of the word that the heart is made honest and good, 
 
24 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE 
 
 thouirh the nature of the similitude, which is taken from 
 agriculture, does not permit it to illu.strate that particular. 
 
 Mr. Fuller says, "A spiritual perception of the "glory 
 of divine things appears to be the first sensation of which 
 the mind is conscious ; but it is not the first operation of 
 God upon it."* If not, then this first operation of God 
 makes no impression upon the rational mind of man. It 
 communicates no light to the judgment, no spiritual per- 
 ception of divine things, nor any sensation respecting 
 them of which a thinking mind is conscious. Iq his opi- 
 nion the uiiderstandiiig cannot be spiritually enlightened, 
 but in consequence of some holy disposition previously im- 
 planted in the heart by this first operation ; and then he ad- 
 mits that spiritual perception will follow as the first sensation 
 of which the mind, already regenerated, is conscious. So 
 that what he says of Mr. Brine's previous principle, 1 think 
 will with equal justice apply to his own ; it is " something 
 different from what God requires of every intelligent crea- 
 ture ;"| for it is plain that the human intellect has no con- 
 cern in it, and it is certain that God does not require blind 
 disposiiions of his intelligent creatures. He affirms, that 
 the introduction of light into the mind in the first instance, 
 is a thing altogether impossible even with God himself, un- 
 til, by some other operation, he has regenerated the soul, al- 
 tered its moral state and disposition, given it a spiritual 
 relish for divine things, and produced a change of heart, 
 whereby it is etiectually influenced towards him ; and all 
 this previous to, and without any illumination of the mind, 
 or instrumentality of the word of God. if 
 
 * Pa?(>.2r2. t Page 127. 
 
 t Mr. Fuller's sentiments on this subject seem to be formed upon the 
 scheme of Messrs. Bellamy and Hopkins, two American divines, who, 
 thoii^'h ihey have written many good things, have overstrained others 
 beyond the sober Scripture medium, in their opposition to Arminian 
 and Anlinomian speculations. Mr. Hopkins, in a sermon on John i. 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 25 
 
 Though man is a fallen depraved creature, yet he is still 
 possessed of intellectual and nioi il powers, however much 
 impaired, otherwise he would not be a rational moral agent, 
 susceptible of instruction, the subject of law, or the object 
 
 13. after havingj asserted, That regeneration consists wholly in a change 
 of the will or heart, and not iji the intellect or faculty of understandincr » 
 and that in this operation the Spirit of God is the only agent ; he pro- 
 ceeds to show, " That this change is wrought by the Spirit of God im- 
 mediately. That is, it is not effected by any medium or means what- 
 ever. I would (says he) particularly observe here, that light and 
 truth, or the word of God, is not in any degree a mean by which this 
 change is eflected. It is not wrought by light — Men are first regene- 
 rated in order to introduce light into the mind : therefore they are not 
 regenerated by light, or the " truths oi' God's word." He affirms. That 
 natural men may see every thing in matters of religion but the moral 
 beauty and excellence of divine things : That this moral beauty is not 
 discerned by the understanding, nor can it possibly be made the object 
 of it by any operation on the mind, or any supposed illumination what- 
 ever, any more than it is possible by any operation on a stone to bring 
 it to the understanding and discerning of a man without givino- it the 
 faculty of understandmgand reason. That, therefore, men are notre- 
 generat'^d by the word ; but the heart (i. e. the will) must first be re- 
 newed by the immediate operation of the Spirit of God, giving it a 
 good taste, in order to prepare it to understand and receive the word. 
 See Hopkins's Sermon on John i. 13. with the Appendix. See also 
 Bellamy's True Religion Delineated, and his Essay on the Nature and 
 Glory of the Gospel of Christ. 
 
 To show that men are born of God, there is certainly no occasion to 
 reason against, or rather flatly to contradict express Scripture, by de- 
 nying that God begets them with tlie word of truth, or that they are 
 born again of the incorruptible seed of the word, for both are perfectly 
 consistent. And though it is true that the natural man may speculate 
 on the truths of the gospel without discerning either their true evi- 
 dence, or their moral beauty and excellence, so as to have a taste or re- 
 lish for them ; yet this will never prove it impossible that a good taste 
 should be formed by a proper view of divine things in a spiritually en- 
 lightened judgment. To affirm that no enlightening influence of the 
 Spirit of God upon the understanding can have any more effect in 
 forming a spiritual taste, than if it were exerted upon a stone, is the 
 language of unhallowed reasoning, which serves to exclude the under- 
 
 3 
 
26 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE 
 
 of praise or blame. In regeneration the Spirit of God does 
 not create new powers or Ihculties, but rectifies those al- 
 ready in existence ; gives the lead to the legitimate direct- 
 ing powers, which were blinded and enslaved by corrupt 
 dispositions, affections, and passions; and restores the soul 
 to order and harmony. The leading faculties of the human 
 mind by which, when it acts regularly, all the rest are di- 
 rected and governed, are the understanding or judgment, 
 reason and conscience. These constitute his mental capaci- 
 ty to receive instruction, to perceive and distinguish truth 
 from its opposite, to discern (he fitness or unfitness of things, 
 and the moral qualities of actions and objects. But, not- 
 withstanding these natural powers, such is the blindness and 
 depravity of the human heart, that the natural or animal 
 man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God revealed 
 in the gospel ; for, judging of them by the preconceiv- 
 ed principles, wisdom and reasoning of a carnal mind, 
 they appear foolishness to him ; neither can he know them 
 till he is spiritually enlightened, because they are spiritual- 
 ly discerned. Therefore I conceive that the first operation 
 of the Spirit of God in regeneration is the introduction of 
 spiritual light into the understanding or judgment, which is 
 the same with his opening the understanding to discern the 
 things of the Spirit as revealed in the gospel in their true 
 lieht; for there is no medium between the introduction of 
 spiritual light into the mind and the mind's spiritual percep- 
 tion of it. This spiritual perception of divine things is at- 
 tended with a persuasion of their truth and reality, and an 
 impression of their supreme exrellence and imj)ortance, 
 which gains them immediate access to the will and affec- 
 
 stanHin^ from being the suhji^ct of regeneration, as well a? the word of 
 God from being the means of it. In my opinion Mr. Fuller would 
 have been more profitably employed in consulting the Scrif.turo.<? upon 
 this subject, than in adopting the sentiments and rtasoniu^s of these 
 authors. 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 27 
 
 tions, exciting desire, relish, choice, and esteem. Thus the 
 soul is regenerated agreeably to the regular order of its fa- 
 culties ; but to maintain that the will and affections are 
 changed previous to any discernment of spiritual things in 
 the ju Igment, is to reverse that order, and is the same as to 
 affirm that ihe soul relishes, chooses, and loves without an 
 object ; that is, its relish, choice, and affection have no 
 relation to any thing, consequently these exercises (could 
 we suppose them to exist) can have nothing of the nature 
 of virtue in them : for it is an undoubted truth, that no 
 motion or exercise of the will and affections can be of a 
 virtuous and holy nature, but as influenced by proper objects 
 or motives. 
 
 Let it further be observed, that the word of God is address- 
 ed to men's understanding, judgment, reason, and con- 
 science, as the only channel through which its truths can 
 have any influence upon their will and affections ; and all 
 its doctrines, precepts, arguments, evidences, and motives 
 proceed upon that principle, as might be shown at large ; 
 but I must draw to a conclusion of this part of the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 I had said, that the truth is no sooner perceived and be- 
 lieved, than it takes possession of the will and affections ;* 
 upon which Mr. Fuller observes, " This, I should think, is 
 allowing that perception is distinct from believing, and 
 necessarily precedes it."!" In order of nature, indeed, we 
 
 * The whole paragraph runs thus : " As to the effects of faith up- 
 on the heart, such is the important, interesting, and salutary nature of 
 the saving truth testified in the gospel, with its suitableness and free- 
 ness for the chief of sinners, thai it is no sooi.er perceived cmd be- 
 lieved than it takes possession of the will and affections, and becomes 
 in the soul the ground of its hope, trust, and reliance; the object of 
 desire, acceptance, esteem, and joy ; and the principle of every holy, 
 active, and gracious disposition of heart." See Commission, page 82. 
 t Page 203. 
 
28 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE 
 
 must have a perception of something, real or imaginary, be- 
 fore we can believe, for belief must respect some object in 
 the mind's view ; but then we cannot perceive that object to 
 be real or true without believing it, because that very per- 
 ception is believing it. It belongs, therefore, to Mr. Fuller 
 to show, how a spiritual perception of the glory of divine 
 truth is distinct from believing it ; or, in other words, how 
 such a perception of divine truth can exist without including 
 in it a perception of its truth and reality. I am certain he 
 cannot show this without reducing what he terms " a spirit- 
 ual perception of the glory of divine truth," to a mere emp. 
 ty speculation, in which nothing exists as a reality in the 
 mind's view. 
 
 let he proceeds upon this distinction, and says, "But if 
 a spiritual perception of the glory of divine truth precede 
 believing, this may be the same in effect as regeneration 
 preceding it."* But if he really admits that a spi- 
 ritual perception of the truth is the same with regene- 
 ration, then he, in effect, gives up his argument. He 
 has all along maintained, that regeneration is previous 
 to a spiritual perception of divine things, and that the 
 introduction of light into the mind in the first instance 
 is impossible ; that it consists in a spiritual relish for di- 
 vine things, and a chanare of heart whereby *t is effectual- 
 ly influenced towards God, previous to any illumination of 
 the mind, and without the instrumentality of the word.. 
 Therefore, to admit that a spiritual perception of the truth 
 is in effect the same with regeneration, is to yield the point, 
 and grant all that I think worth contending for on this head ; 
 for I am certain there can be no spiritual perception of the 
 truth without believing it. 
 
 But he thinks his argument is entire, notwithstanding this 
 concession, if he can only maintain the priority of recjene- 
 
 ♦ Page 204. 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 29 
 
 ration to faith ; and this he attempts by separating a spirit- 
 ual perception of the truth from the belief of it, so iar as 
 to make room for a change of heart between them. His 
 words are, "Allowing that the word requires to be perceiv- 
 ed ere the will and affections can be changed, it does not 
 follow that it must also be believed for this purpose ; for 
 the very perception itself may change us into the same im- 
 age ; and, in virtue of it, we may instantly with our whole 
 heart set to our seal that God is true."* This appears to 
 me a very strange statement. There is not a more self- 
 evident axiom than this, That the human will and affections 
 cannot be rationally affected, much less changed by any 
 truth, till it is in some measure believed or realized in 
 the mind ; yet Mr. Fuller, instead of fairly yielding 
 the point, or admitting that a belief of the truth is 
 necessary to a change of the will and affections, will 
 rather maintain an absolute absurdity, viz : That a 
 mere perception of the truth without believing it, will 
 produce this change. And by the words in Italic, he seems 
 to ground this on 2 Cor. iii. IS. as if the apostle had said, 
 " We all, with open face, beholding as in a glass, the 
 glory of the Lord," without believing it, "are changed in- 
 to the sams image." This requires no answer, and the 
 matter having come to this issue, I may be excused from 
 pursuing the argument on this head any further, and 
 shall only observe, that Mr. Fuller can take either side 
 of this question as he finds occasion. In answering those 
 who deny the belief of the gospel to be saving faith, and 
 make it to consist in coming to Christ, receiving him, and 
 relying upon him for acceptance, he says, " All this, in the 
 order of things, follows upon believing the truth concerning 
 him ; no less so than coming to God follows a believing 
 that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently 
 
 ♦■ Page 204. 
 3* 
 
30 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE 
 
 seek him. We may, therefore," mark the expression, " be 
 
 REGENERATED BY A PERCEPTION AND RELIEF OF THE 
 
 TRUTH, and, as the immediate effect of it, come to Jesus, 
 and rely upon him for salvation."* Here he agrees with 
 my sentiments, both as to the nature of faith and its influ- 
 ence on regeneration, which is perfectly inconsistent with 
 all the arguments he uses against me on these particulars. 
 What a pity it is thnt such distinguished talents as Mr. Ful- 
 ler possesses, should be employed in this manner ! 
 
 I have now considered his chief arguments for a previous 
 principle of grace in the heart, or regeneration before be- 
 lieving, which he thinks necessary to the holy nature of 
 faith ; and have shown, that whether he places this supposed 
 principle before or after a perception of the truth, it is equal- 
 ly without foundation while he hold.^ it to be previous to a 
 belief of the truth. What I maintain, in opposition to this 
 sentiment, is sliortly this, That in regeneration, the Holy 
 Spirit, in the first instance, by his inexplicable energy, 
 gives the mind a believing or realizing perception of the 
 truth as revealed in the word, and thereby operates on the 
 will and affections, not only in the beginning of the change, 
 but in all the subsequent progress of sanctificatir n ; for 
 men are not only born again of the incorruptible seed of the 
 word, but are also sanctified through the truth, which is the 
 word of God, John xvii. 17. 
 
 We shall now take notice of his concludino- reflections 
 on the consequences of the principles he opposes with re- 
 spect to addressing the unconverted. He observes, 
 
 " First, li the necessity of repentance in order to forgive- 
 nesa be given up, we shall not be in the practice of urging 
 it on the unconverted."! I cannot conceive what ground 
 Mr. Fuller has to suppose, that those whom he opposes 
 have given up the necessity of repentance in order to for- 
 
 • Page 202, 203. t Page 214 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 31 
 
 giveness. However negligent I may be in urging sinners 
 to repentance, it has always been my firm belief, that not 
 only the unconverted, but even the converted themselves, 
 need often to b*^ called to repentance, and that in order to 
 forgiveness. He has seen as much of my writings as fully 
 refutes this mis^representation, and therefore it cannot pass 
 for a mere mistake. I am afraid there will be occasion for 
 some more remarks of this kind before we have done. 
 
 He assigns the reasons why we must thus give up repent- 
 ance in order to forgiveness, " We shall imagine it will 
 be leading souls astray to press it before, and in order to be- 
 lieving ; and afterwards it will be thought unnecessary, as 
 all that is wanted will come of itself."* So that, according 
 to him, we cannot, consistently with our principles, press 
 repentance either on the converted or unconverted. Yet I 
 find it perfectly consistent with my principles to press re- 
 pentance on all to whom the gospel is preached ; for, though 
 I know that none will truly repent but those who believe, 
 yet the gospel doctrine of salvation, with men's need of it, 
 being first declared, a reasonable foundation is laid for call- 
 ing all who hear it to repentance, and to urge this by every 
 argument and motive which the word of God affords. 
 
 But I own that, upon Mr. Fuller's plan, I should be very 
 much embarrassed in pressing true repentance on the un- 
 converted. He had said before, that "It does not come up 
 to the Scripture representation to say, repentance is a fruit 
 of faith ;" f' and here he says, repentance must be pressed 
 upon the unconverted before, and in order to believing. 
 Now, my difficulty lies here. According to this order of 
 things, I am debarred, in urging repentance, from using any 
 arguments or motives drawn from the gospel ; for it is cer- 
 tain that such motives cannot possibly have any influence 
 without faith, or till they are first believed, and, according to 
 
 ♦ Page 214, 215. t Page 173. 
 
32 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE 
 
 him, they cannot be believed till men first truly repent ; for 
 ^hey must repent before, and in order to believing. So that 
 his scheme renders the principles and motives of the gos- 
 pel altogether useless as to their influence on repentance, 
 and therefore can with no propriety be used for that purpose. 
 From all this it plainly follows, that the gospel itself should 
 not be preached to men till they repent. 
 
 But is it not necessary that some principles should be be- 
 lieved previous to repentance, and as the means of produc- 
 ing it? Yes ; he admits "that a conviction of the being 
 and attributes of God must, in the order of nature, precede 
 repentance ; because we cannot repent for oflending a be- 
 ijig of whose existence we doubt, or of whose character 
 we have no just conception : but the faith of the gospel — is 
 represented in the New Testament as implying repentance."* 
 There is no dispute about whether the faith or belief of the 
 gospel implies repentance, as its inseparable concomitant 
 or immediate effect : nay, 1 can admit that when faith first 
 takes place in the mind, it imports repentance, or a change 
 of mind, as the word fieravoia signifies. It is a change from 
 darkness to light; from blindness, prejudice, and unbelief, 
 to a spiritual perception and conviction of the truth ; and 
 it is by convincing men of the truth concerning Jesus, that 
 the Spirit convinceth them of sin, because they believe not 
 in him. See John xvi. 9. compared with Acts ii. 36, 37. 
 But the point he wishes to establish is this, that true repent- 
 ance is previous to the belief of the gospel, and is produced 
 by a conviction of" the being of God, and a just conception 
 of his character; which last he supposes may be obtained 
 without the gospel. 
 
 I freely admit that men have some natural notices of God 
 and of his law in their conscience, sufficient to constitute 
 them accountable creatures, to render their guilt inexcusa- 
 
 * Page 173. 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 33 
 
 ble, and to make them susceptible of conviction ; and if 
 they have access to the revealed law of God, their know- 
 ledge of his character, of their duty, of their guilt, and con- 
 sequently of their danger, must be greatly enlarged. This 
 may awaken in some strong convictions of sin, and a fear 
 of divine punishment, which, if it does not drive them into 
 utter despair, may produce some outward reformation of 
 life, and even some struggles against heart sins, in hopes of 
 obtaining the favor of God by these things. Yet all this 
 may be without any true love to God and holiness, or any 
 real hatred of sin itself, but only of its punishment. This 
 is by some called legal repentance, because produced only 
 by the law ; and if this is that repentance which Mr. Ful- 
 ler pleads for, I have no objection to his placing it before 
 the belief of the gospel. All I contend for, is, that it is not 
 true repentance, or what the Scripture calls repentance unto 
 life, which, together with a humbling conviction of sin and 
 its desert, necessarily implies an apprehension and belief of 
 the mercy of God, through Christ, as revealed in the gos- 
 pel. 
 
 I may justly question if ministers of the gospel are 
 warranted to urge repentance on their hearers, as a pre-re- 
 quisite to faith. There is no example of any such thing in 
 the New Testament. All the calls to repentance stand 
 connected with preaching the go?pel, which contains the 
 most powerful persuasives to it ; and there is no instance 
 of any complying with these calls, but such as believed it. 
 While, therefore, ministers call on sinners to repent, if they 
 wish that this may have effect, they must also at the same 
 time, after the example of the first preachers, call on them to 
 believe the gospel, without which their minds are not prin- 
 cipled for true repentance, whatever conviction of guilt and 
 terror may be produced. 
 
 Though repentance ought to be urged upon all who hear 
 the gospel, and though none believe it who do not repent ; 
 
34 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE 
 
 yet I strongly suspect that it would be leading souls astray, 
 to press repentance upon them before, and in order to their 
 believing the gospel. Should a preacher keep strictly to 
 this order of things, and speak out plainly, the tenor and 
 spirit of his address must be something to the following ef- 
 fect : — " As for you, the unconverted part of my hearers, I 
 have no authority to preach the gospel to you in your present 
 state. To you the word of this salvation is not as yet sent. 
 You are not prepared or qualified for it ; for you are nothing 
 but mere sinners, and no sort of encourasjement or hope is 
 held out in all the book of God to any sinner as such con- 
 sidered. It is only to the penitent that the gospel is to be 
 preached ; for to such only does it hold out its golden scep- 
 tre.* You have therefore nothing to do with the gospel in 
 the first instance : nor is it your immediate duty to believe 
 it, nor even to take encouragement from it to repent, 
 which supposes your believing it. Let me therefore, in the 
 first place, call your attention to a previous duty ; a duty 
 which you must perform before, and in order to believing ; 
 and that is, that you sincerely and heartily repent of all your 
 sins ; and when you have performed this aright, from a 
 principle of disinterested love to God, and a thorough ha- 
 tred of sin, as such, you may then venture to believe the 
 gospel-testimony concerning Christ, and the way of salva- 
 tion through him, and rely upon him accordingly." This 
 appears to me to destroy the freedom of the gospel ; for it 
 brings the word of faith nigh to those only who view them- 
 selves as converted, and sets it at a distance not only from 
 the stout-hearted, but also from the self-condemned, who 
 can find nothing good in themselves, as a ground of en- 
 couragement ; and so it lays an insuperable bar in the way 
 of faith, consequently prevents genuine repentance. 
 
 A conviction of guilt and danger by the law, though it ought 
 
 ♦ First edit. Pref. p. 8. 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 35 
 
 to be urged, will not by itself produce true repentance. It 
 is by exhibiting the free grace and pardonino; mercy of 
 God, and the promise of the everlasting covenant, the sure 
 mercies of David, that the wicked and unrighteous are call- 
 ed and encouraged to forsake their evil ways and thoughts, 
 and to turn unto the Lord, Isa. Iv. 1 — 8. It was by the 
 gospel which John the Baptist preached, that any of his 
 hearers were brought to real repentance. See Luke i. 76, 
 77. John i. 7 15, 16, 17, 18, 29, 34. chap. iii. 35, 36. 
 Acts. xix. 4. It was by the gospel which Peter preached 
 on the day of Pentecost that three thousand souls were both 
 convicted and converted, Acts ii. It was by " the minis- 
 try of reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ, recon- 
 ciling the world to himself, not [imputing their trespasses 
 unto them," that Paul and his fellow-labourers besought 
 and prayed men, in Christ's stead, to be reconciled unto 
 God, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, 2U. The truth is, these first mes- 
 sengers of Chriht did not distrust the efficacy of the gospel, 
 but considered it as mighty through God, to pull down 
 strong holds, and as powerful both to wound and to heal. 
 They viewed it as furnished both with the terrors of the 
 Lord, to persuade men, ver. 11. and with the allurements of 
 his love and grace, to gain upon their hearts and reconcile 
 them unto God. But Mr. Fuller proceeds to another con- 
 sequence : 
 
 " Secondly, For the same reason that we give up the ne- 
 cessity of repentance, in order to forgiveness, we may give 
 up all exhortations to things spiritually good, as means of 
 salvation."* Though I do not agree with Mr. Fuller, that 
 repentance before believing, and in order to it, is connected 
 with forgiveness, for I know of no promise of forgiveness 
 to an unbelieving penitent ; yet 1 have already shown, that 
 I hold the necessity of true repentance, in order to forgive- 
 
 ♦ Pa":e 215. 
 
36 OF A SUPPOSED HOLV PRINCIPLE 
 
 ness, and have also hinted that Mr. Fuller must know this. 
 Let us now attend to his other consequence ; he says, 
 " For the same reason, we may give up all exhortations to 
 things spiritually good, as means of salvation." This, in- 
 deed, is not a direct assertion that we do so ; but mark what 
 follows : " Indeed, Mr. M'Lean seems prepared for this 
 consequence. If I understand him, he does not approve of 
 unconverted sinners being exhorted to any thing spiritually 
 good, any otherwise than as holding up to them the lan- 
 o-uaire of the law, for convincing them of sin. It is thus he 
 answers the question. Are unbelievers to be exhorted to 
 obedience to God's commandments? referring us to the an- 
 swer of our Lord to the young ruler, which directed him to 
 keep the commandments, if he would enter into life."* 
 Here he affirms that I disapprove of unconverted sinners 
 being exhorted to any thing spiritually good ; and, to prove 
 this charge, he refers his readers, at the bottom of the 
 page, to a pamphlet, enthled Simple Truth Vindicated, page 
 21, second edit, written about thirty-six years ago by Mr. 
 John Barnard of London. But did any inform Mr. Fuller 
 that I was the author of that pamphlet 1 or can he show, 
 from any part of my writings, that I hold the sentiment 
 which he here, without the least evidence, imputes to me? 
 No ; on the contrary, he was possessed of lull evidence 
 that I hold no such sentiment. To my certain knowledge 
 he has seen and read my Thoughts on the Calls and Invita- 
 tions of the Gospel, published first in the Missionary Maga 
 zine, Nos. II. III. IV. V. and afterwards more fully in a 
 separate pamphet. He knew this to be my performance, in 
 which I combat the very sentiment he here attributes to 
 me, and maintain, that the word of God calls upon uncon- 
 verted sinners to repent, believe, be converted, to orsake 
 their evil ways and thoughts, and to return unto the Lord, 
 
 ♦ Page 215. 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. 37 
 
 and call upon him ; and have endeavored to answer at some 
 length the chief objections brought against this. I have al. 
 so briefly touched on this subject in my Treatise on the 
 Commission, p. 86 — 89, and in The Belief of the Gospel 
 saving Faith, p. 35 — 41, 56, first edit, which he has also 
 seen. I am therefore utterly at a loss how to account for 
 this mistake, and especially for his declining afterwards to 
 rectify it publicly, though desired by his friend. But he 
 proceeds upon false ground, and says : 
 
 "It is easy to perceive that Mr. M's scheme requires this 
 construction of the exhortations of the Bible; for if he al- 
 low that sinners are called to the exercise of any thing spi- 
 ritually good, in order to their partaking of spiritual bless- 
 ings, he must give up his favorite notion of God's justify- 
 ing men while in a state of enmity against him."* I have 
 nothing to do with the former part of this quotation, but only 
 with what he calls my favourite notion, viz. " That God 
 justifies men while in a state of enmity against him." But 
 this is so far from being my favorite notion, that it never 
 once entered into my heart. I indeed affirm, upon the au- 
 thority of the inspired apostle, that justification is " to him 
 that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the 
 UNGODLY," Rom. iv. 5. Yet I never supposed that any, 
 from the moment of their thus believing, are in a state of 
 enmity against God, or that God justifies them while in that 
 state. So that this is altogether a misrepresentation ; but 
 more of this afterwards. 
 
 " Mr. M-Lean (he says) tell us in the same page," (i. e. 
 page 21, of Barnard's Simple Truth,) 'Mhat there is no 
 promise of life to the doing of any good thing, except all 
 the commandments be kept."! Though 1 have no concern 
 in this, yet I must observe, that if Mr. Barnard, by doing, 
 means working, in order to obtain justification by the 
 
 ♦ Page 215, 21G. t Page 21C. 
 
S8 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE 
 
 works of the law, he is certainly right in saying that no 
 doing will answer this purpose, except all the command- 
 ments be kept ; for ''the law is not of faith," but its condi- 
 tion of life, as contrasted with that of the gospel, is, " That 
 the man who doeth those things, shall live by them ;" while 
 it "curseth every one that continueth not in all things writ- 
 ten in the book of the law to do them." Rom. x. 5. Gal. 
 iii. 10, 12. But I must observe, that Mr. Fuller gives the 
 very same view of our Lord's answer to the young ruler 
 that Mr. Barnard does ; his words are, " That to which the 
 young ruler was directed, was the producing of a righteous- 
 ness adequate to the demands of the law, which was natu- 
 rally impossible ; and our Lord's design was to show its 
 impossibility, and thereby to convince him of the need of 
 gospel-mercy."* What our Lord directs the young ruler 
 to do, was, to keep the commandments, to sell what he had, 
 and give to the poor, and to take up his cross, and follow 
 him. Now, if his doing these things was naturally impos- 
 sible (as Mr. Fuller affirms,) then, according to his own 
 reasoning,! the young ruler was under no obligation to do 
 them, it was not his duty, and he was perfectly innocent in 
 neglecting them. 
 
 Having mentioned some Scripture calls to faith and re- 
 pentance, he observes, " That if Mr. M'Lean was called to 
 visit a dying sinner, he would be careful not to use any 
 such language as this ; or, if he did, it must be ironically, 
 teaching him what he must do on his own self justifying 
 principles, to gain eternal life. If he be serious, he has 
 only to state to him what Christ has done upon the cross, 
 and assure him, that if he believes it, he is happy."J I 
 should reckon it a piece of wanton cruelty to speak ironi- 
 cally to a dying sinner on the concerns of his soul ; but I 
 would tell him seriously, that he could not be justified by the 
 
 •Page 158. t Page 115— 124. t Page 217. 
 
PREVIOUS TO FAITH. d§ 
 
 works of the law, because that required perfect sinless obe- 
 dience ; and having shown him his guilty and lost condi- 
 tion, I would at the same time set before him the gospel-re- 
 medy, as the sole, the free, and immediate ground of hope 
 for perishing sinners ; nor would I hesitate, from any no- 
 tion of his being unqualified or unprepared for Christ, or 
 destitute of a previous holy principle, "to state to him what 
 he has done upon the cross, and assure him, that if he be- 
 lieves it, he is happy." 
 
 Mr. Fuller here seems sensible that he has gone rather too 
 far, and therefore instantly checks himself ; "Far be it from 
 me," he says, " that I should disapprove of an exhibition of 
 the Saviour as the only foundation of hope to a dying sin- 
 ner, or plead for such directions as fall short of believing 
 in him. In both these particulars I am persuaded Mr. 
 M'Lean is in the right ; and that all those counsels to sin- 
 ners, which are adapted only to turn their attention to the 
 workings of their own hearts, to their prayers, or their tears, 
 and not to the blood of the cross, are delusive and danger- 
 ous."* But if these are Mr. Fuller's real and fixed senti- 
 ments, for what end did he write his Appendix ? Is not 
 the most of it adapted to turn the attention of sinners to the 
 workings of their own hearts instead of the blood of the 
 cross ? Hereby they are taught that they must be regene- 
 rated, and have their hearts turned effectually towards God 
 without the word, and before they are illuminated or have 
 a perception of the truth, and, at any rate, previous to their 
 believing it. That they must truly repent before they be- 
 lieve in Christ, and in order to it. That justifying faith it- 
 self is a persuasion influenced by a previous moral state of 
 the heart and partaking of it ; a holy exercise of the soul, de- 
 pending upon choice, implying repentance, and including 
 love and other holy afiections. That God does not justify 
 
 * Page 217. 
 
40 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE 
 
 the ungodly, though, however godly they are, he does not 
 impute it to them for righteousness, &c. Now, as all these 
 things respect the holy state, dispositions, affections, and 
 exercises of the heart : and as they are all stated as previous 
 qualifications in the sinner, and placed in a conditional 
 point of view between him and the Saviour ; so all the coun- 
 sels and directions given to sinners concerning them in 
 that view must have an infallible tendency to turn their at- 
 tention, in the first instance, to the workings of their own 
 hearts, and not to the work finished by Christ on the cross, 
 consequently as Mr. Fuller admits, must be " delusive and 
 dangerous." 
 
 But then he asks, " Does it follow that they are to be ex- 
 horted to nothing spiritually good, unless it be for their 
 conviction ?"* As I have given no occasion for such a 
 question, so it lies not on me to answer it. I may, how- 
 ever, observe, that when the gospel is declared to sinners, 
 a foundation is laid for exhorting them not only to faith and 
 repentance, but to every thing that is spiritually good in its 
 own place and order. Yet I see no ground for exhorting 
 them to any thing short of believing immediately, or which 
 does not suppose it ; far less for directing them to seek af- 
 ter certain previous qualifications to fit them for Christ, or 
 to warrant their believing on him. 
 
 He imagines that "Mr. M'Lean, to be consistent, must 
 not seriously exhort a sinner to come off from those refuges 
 of lies, to renounce all dependence on his prayers and tears, 
 and to rely upon Christ alone, as necessary to justification, 
 lest he make him a pharisee."f From what has been al- 
 ready said, the reader will perceive that this requires no 
 answer from me. Such exhortations are included in the 
 exhortation to faith itself. But if he means them as exhor- 
 tations to some holy exercises previous to faith, then he 
 
 ♦ Page 217. t Ibid. 
 
FREVIOUS TO FAITH. 41 
 
 must suppose that a sinner will come off from his false re- 
 fuges before he knows the true refuge ; and that he will 
 renounce all dependence on his prayers and tears before he 
 perceives any better foundation to depend on. If Christ is 
 held forth as a free and immediate Saviour to the guilty, 
 such exhortations are very proper, and likely to be under- 
 stood ; but a preacher may so dwell upon the active exer- 
 cises of the mind in coming off, renouncing, humbling 
 one's self, &c. as to counteract the very design of such ex- 
 hortations. How free and gracious is our Lord's invitation, 
 " Come unto me all ye that labor, and are heavy laden, and I 
 will give you rest !" Yet some preachers have discovered 
 such a variety of arduous exercises imported in the w^ord 
 come, as to lay very great obstacles in the sinner's w^ay to 
 Christ, and so to increase the burden of those who are 
 heavy laden, instead of directing them immediately to the 
 Saviour for rest to their souls. This is the tendency of all 
 those exhortations and labored directions how to perform 
 what is called the great work of believing in order to be 
 justified : and this is the natural effect of the doctrine 
 which teaches sinners that they must be true penitents, and 
 possessed of holy dispositions of heart previous to their be- 
 lieving; and that their belief cannot be genuine, unless 
 it arise from this moral state of the heart, and partake of it. 
 Calls and exhortations to believe are both proper and ne- 
 cessary when men are told what to believe, and upon what 
 grounds, without which all the preacher's vociferations are 
 but empty and unmeaning noise : but the gospel is much 
 perverted when faith is represented under the idea of acting 
 or working, and in this view urged upon sinners in order 
 to their justification ; for this is the reverse of calling them 
 to believe in the sufliciency of Christ's work to justify them, 
 and so must necessarily draw their attention off from that 
 to seek after justification by some exertions or exercises of 
 
42 OF A SUPPOSED HOLY PRINCIPLE, ETC. 
 
 their own, of a very different nature from believing the gos- 
 pel. 
 
 Having considered Mr. Fuller's doctrine respecting a 
 principle of grace in the heart previous to faith, together 
 with his concluding reflections, I proceed now to 
 
QUESTION II. 
 
 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH INCLUDES IN ITS NATURE 
 ANY THING MORE THAN A BELIEF OF THE GOSPEL ? 
 
 In my Treatise on the Commission, p. 74 — 83, and in 
 a pamphlet entitled, " The Belief of the Gospel saving 
 Faith," I think I have sufficiently shown and proved from 
 Scripture, that justifying faith is neither more nor less than 
 a belief of the gospel, or of God's testimony concerning his 
 Son ; and have also taken notice of the principal objec- 
 tions to this view of it. Therefore, instead of transcribing 
 what I have already advanced, I must refer the reader to 
 these publications, where he will find my sentiments on 
 this subject in their own proper order and connection. In 
 the mean time, as Mr. Fuller has given a very just and 
 scriptural account of faith in the first edition of his book on 
 " The Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation," (which I have 
 perused of late with more attention than formerly), I cannot 
 give a better view of my own sentiments on this subject 
 than by transcribing his. 
 
 "Faith (says he) appears always to carry in it the idea of 
 a crediting some testimony where intuitive evidence cannot 
 be obtained." This he confirms by what is said of the 
 Thessalonians, Our testimony among you was believed, 2 
 
44 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 Thess. i. 10. "And thinks that no better definition can be 
 given of true faith than that which is given by the Holy 
 Ghost himself in 2 Thess. ii. 13, The belief of the 
 TRUTH," p. 10. In answering objections to this definition, 
 he grants that true faith is the belief of Scripture proposi- 
 tions, because, to believe a proposition is to believe the thing 
 or truth conveyed by it, p. 21. He admits that "believing, 
 simply considered, is a mere natural act ; but that believing 
 such things as the gospel reveals, must be a spiritual act." 
 He also allows that it is " a rational act, excited by rational 
 evidence," and thinks it is " no reproach to true faith to be 
 so represented." That " if it be supported by evidence at 
 all, it must be a rational act ;" and that " nothing deserves 
 the name of faith but what " is so supported," p. 25, 26. 
 Further, he distinguishes true faith from "the actual out- 
 going of the soul towards Christ for salvation in a way of 
 fleeing to him, receiving him, resting on him," &c. These 
 things, he says, are "'distinct from the belief of the truth as 
 an inseparable effect is distinct from its cause." And 
 even trusting in Christ he considers as " an immediate ef- 
 fect of believing what God says concerning him." — That 
 <^ it does not appear, strictly speaking, to be faith, but its 
 immediate effect — an inseparable attendant on it ; but seems 
 to be distinct from it," p. 22, 23. — [Here, it must be owned, 
 there is a sufficient niceness of distinction.] Lastly, he ar- 
 gues for this simple view of faith from the plainness of the 
 Scriptures, and from the impossibility of understanding them, 
 had the sacred writers used this term in an uncommon sense. 
 "This view of faith (he says) seemsto be plain and easy to 
 be understood, and does not embarrass our minds with a 
 number of words without ideas. Great and glorious as the 
 matter contained in Scripture is, Protestants commonly 
 maintain that it is set forth in language plain and intelligi- 
 ble — that the inspired writers made use of terms in common 
 use in the aflTairs of life adapted even to the understandings 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 45 
 
 of the common people — and that they did not use these 
 terms in any contrary sense, but in the same sense as they 
 were used in the common affairs of life. If they had used 
 them in a sense peculiar to themselves, then had they been 
 unintelligible to their hearers. Then had the Jews been 
 furnished with a sufficient answer to our Lord's reprehen- 
 sive question, Why do ye not understand my speech'? lea, 
 then must it have been a miracle for him or his apostles 
 ever to be understood, or their writings, in any future ages. 
 To apply this observation to the point in hand : It is well 
 known that faith, in common speech, signifies the same as 
 credence ; a credit of some report, declaration or testimony, 
 where intuitive evidence is not to be obtained. Now, if 
 true faith, as mentioned so frequently in the Scriptures, be to 
 be understood according to this easy, obvious sense of the 
 word, then the inspired writers acted in character ; but if 
 they included a meaning in the terms faith, believe, be- 
 liever, &c. peculiar to themselves, then whence does it ap- 
 pear that they spake and wrote intelligibly ?" p. 28, 29. 
 
 I could not possibly express my own view of faith with 
 greater accuracy or simplicity than Mr. Fuller has done in 
 the above extract; and had he kept consistently to his own 
 definition of it, and the arguments by which he supports it, 
 there would have been no difference between us on this sub- 
 ject. But, notwithstanding his distinguishing faith from the 
 outgoings of the soul towards Christ, in fleeing to him, re- 
 ceiving him, resting on, and trusting in him, &c. notwith- 
 standing all he says of the term belief being so plain, ob- 
 vious, intelligible, and easy to be understood, and his 
 repeated acknowledgment that Christ and his apostles did 
 not use it in any peculiar sense, but in the same sense in 
 which it was used in the common affairs of life ; yet he 
 says, " However, to avoid obscurity, I shall attempt more 
 fully to explain the terms," p. 10. It seems, then, that the 
 plain definition given by the Holy Ghost himself, viz. the 
 
46 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 BELIEF OF THE TRUTH, (than which, he owns, there can- 
 not be a better) is, after all, so obscure, that it needs to be 
 explained before we can understand the terms of it. 
 
 With regard to the term belief, he explains it to be a 
 cordial reception of the truth ; and if by this he means no- 
 thing more than belief, it is far from being so plain an ex- 
 pression, or so suited to convey that idea, as the Scripture 
 term itself which directly expresses it. Belief is a term 
 which does not admit of a logical definition, because the 
 act of the mind signified by it is perfectly simple, and of 
 its own kind ; nor does it need to be defined, or even ex. 
 plained, because it is a common word, and well under- 
 stood. But it is evident that by a cordial reception he in- 
 tends something more than belief, some exercise of the 
 will and afiections respecting the truth ; and it can admit of 
 no dispute, that all who really believe the gospel as a faith- 
 ful or true saying, must also perceive it to be a good say- 
 ing, worthy of all acceptation, and so receive it cordially : 
 But the question is, Whether is this cordiality of reception 
 what the Scripture means by the term belief, or the imme- 
 diate eflfect of it ? for it is certain that it is neither the pro- 
 per nor common meaning of that term, and it is as certain 
 that the will and afiections cannot be moved by any truth 
 till it is first perceived and believed. For this cordial re- 
 ception he produces Philip's words to the enunch. Acts 
 viii. 37. " If thou believest with all thine heart, thou 
 mayest," taking it for granted that the word heart there 
 means the will and affections. But it has already been 
 shown, that in Scripture the word heart is sometimes put for 
 the intellectual, sometimes for the moral powers of the soul, 
 and at other times for both ; and therefore the sense can on- 
 ly be determined by the nature of the exercises ascribed to 
 it ; so that, when the heart is said to choose, incline, love, 
 desire, &c. we are certain that it is put for the will and af- 
 fections ; but when it is said to perceive, know, understand, 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 47 
 
 reason, consider, &c. then it must signify the intellect ; 
 and this must also be meant by the term when doubting or 
 believing is ascribed to it, these being exercises of the un- 
 derstanding or judgment, in relation to the truth or false- 
 hood of things. When Joshua said to the children of Is- 
 rael, "Ye know in all your hearts, and in all your souls, 
 that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which 
 the Lord your God spake concerning you," Josh, xxiii. 14, 
 he was not affirming any thing respecting their will and af- 
 fections, but that they had a clear experimental proof and 
 full conviction of God's faithfulness to his promise. So 
 Philip, by believing with all the heart, means just a sincere 
 and hearty conviction of mind as to the truth of what he 
 had declared concerning Jesus. And that the eunuch so 
 understood him, is plain from his reply, " I believe that Je- 
 sus Christ is the Son of God ;" where we see he expresses 
 the truth which he believed by a proposition,* which would 
 have been improper had he meant to express the exercise 
 of his will and affections respecting it ; for it would not 
 be language to say, I consent, choose, or love that Jesus 
 Christ is the Son of God. The same thing may be ob- 
 served of the expression believing in, or with the heart, 
 Rom. X. 9, 10, where it relates to the proposition, " That 
 God hath raised him from the dead," and is distinguished 
 from confessing with the mouth, and so must import a real 
 inward conviction of the mind, as opposed to a mere verbal 
 or insincere profession of belief. It must always be kept 
 in view that there is no dispute about the immediate effects 
 of faith on the will and affections, but simply about the na- 
 ture of faith itself. 
 
 The other term in the Scripture definition is, the 
 
 ♦ Belief is always expressed in language by a proposition wherein 
 something is affirmed or denied, and without belief there could be nei- 
 ther affirmation or denial, nor any form of words to express either. 
 Dr. Reid on the Intellectual Powers of Man. Essay ii. p. 270. 
 
48 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 TRUTH. This Mr. Fuller admits to be the Gospel, p. 10 ; 
 but when he comes afterwards to explain that truth, he ob- 
 scures it to such a degree that I can scarcely recognize the 
 apostolic gospel in it. He first specifies some gospel 
 truths, and states them as so many abstract disconnected 
 particulars, keeping out of view their coherence, import, or 
 design, such as, '' that there was such a person as Jesus 
 Christ — that he was born at Bethlehem — lived, and wrought 
 miracles in Judea — was crucified, buried, and raised again 
 from the dead — that he ascended to glory, and will judge 
 the world at the last day — that he is God and man, and 
 bears the titles of king, priest, and prophet of his church — 
 that there is an eternal election, a particular redemption, an 
 effectual vocation, a final perseverance," &c. &c. &c. 
 Having run over these particulars, and left us to guess the 
 rest from his three et ceteras, he admits " that these, no 
 doubt, are truths, "and great truths ;" but terms them 
 general and external truths, and thinks " they may be be- 
 lieved where no saving faith is," p. 13. 
 
 Now, though I must own that Mr. Fuller's list of detach- 
 ed articles is far from giving a proper view of what the 
 Scriptures emphatically call the truth ; yet I cannot help ob- 
 serving, that his stating them in such alight not only tends 
 to depreciate the particulars mentioned, but also that great 
 truth with which they stand connected, and which is the sub- 
 ject and scope of the gospel testimony ; and thus lead his 
 readers to conceive that the belief of the gospel will be of 
 little service to them, and to imagine that there is some 
 other truth of greater importance, which demands a prefer- 
 able regard. The grand foundation truth which the gospel 
 testifies is, that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, John i. 
 34. chap. XX. 31. Acts ix. 20, 22. chap, xviii. 5. All its 
 supernatural evidence unites in attesting this great truth, and 
 all its doctrines are founded on, and derive their meaning, 
 glory, and importance from it. This truth includes in it his 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 49 
 
 character and also his work, as the Saviour of lost siuners, 
 as that he died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and 
 that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day for 
 our justification, Kom. vi. 25. 1 Corin. xv. 3, 4. And 
 whatever Mr. Fuller may say about what he calls general and 
 external truths, which may be believed where no saving 
 faith is, yet the word of God expressly assures us, that those 
 who believe this truth are blessed, Mat. xvi. 17, have life 
 through Christ's name, John xx. 31, have righteousness 
 imputed to them, Rom. iv. 24, are born of God, and over- 
 come the world, 1 John v. 1, 6, and shall be saved, Rom. 
 X. 9, 1 Cor. XV. 2 ; so that the belief of this truth is saving 
 faith. This is that truth which Paul terms " a faithful say- 
 ing, and worthy of all acceptation, viz. that Christ Jesus 
 came into the world to save sinners," and of such the chief^ 
 1 Tim. i. 15. This is the apostolic testimony which the 
 Thessalonians believed, 2 Thess. i. 10, and whose faith is 
 therefore described to be a belief of the truth, chap. ii. 13. 
 
 But it is evident that Mr. Fuller does not consider this 
 as the main thing intended by the term, for he explains it 
 thus : " By truth I mean (and I think the apostle means the 
 same) to include with the fore-mentioned doctrines their 
 qualities or properties, which make a great, and even an es- 
 sential part of their truth," p. 13. It will admit of no doubt, 
 that to believe the gospel is to believe (so far as we are en- 
 lightened) whatever it testifies, both relating to doctrines 
 and their qualities. The doctrines themselves exhibit the 
 qualities of what they reveal, and it appears to me a con- 
 tradiction to suppose that a person may really understand 
 -'nd believe the doctrines of the gospel without some percep- 
 tion of their importance and excellence, though the great- 
 est saint upon earth, even when possessed of the full assur- 
 ance of faith, perceives the excellence of the truth only in 
 part. But I am of opinion that the gospel doctrines are 
 termed the truth, not on account of their qualities as good 
 
 & 
 
50 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 or bad, nor only as exhibiting the substance of the legal sha- 
 dows ; but chiefly because they are true as opposed to all 
 falsehood or deceit, 2 Pet. i. 16. 1 John, ii. 21, 22,27. The 
 agreement of the gospel testimony with the reality of what 
 it testifies, is its truth or veracity ; and as it reveals the most 
 important of all truths, and upon the highest authority, it 
 being the testimony of God, who cannot lie, so it is by 
 way of eminence termed The Truth. Now, though a belief 
 of this testimony includes a belief of the qualities or pro- 
 perties of what is testified, yet it is as truths or realities 
 that they are the objects of faith ; and till they thus exist 
 as truths in the mind, they can have no influence on the 
 will and affections. 
 
 But let us see what those truths or qualities are which 
 Mr. Fuller thinks are more especially the objects of saving 
 faith. He specifies the following, viz. " The infinite ex- 
 cellency of God, the reasonableness and goodness of his 
 law, the exceeding sinfulness of sin in itself considered, 
 men's vile, dangerous, and lost condition, the equity of God 
 in sending them to hell, the infinite loveliness of Christ, 
 and excellency of his way of salvation, the beauty of holi- 
 ness, &c. &c. ; these are truths concerning which every 
 wicked man is an infidel," p. 14, 15. These are, indeed, 
 very important truths, and without some suitable conviction 
 of them the gospel will not appear in its proper light, nor be 
 duly esteemed ; yet, excepting two general expressions, viz. 
 the loveliness of Christ and excellence of his way of sal- 
 vation, I find nothing of what is properly called the gospel 
 in them. These particulars may be learned in a good 
 measure from the law, without any knowledge of the way 
 of salvation ; for they are truths altogether independent of 
 the gospel, and would have remained the same immutable 
 truths though Jesus Christ had never come in the flesh. 
 True, indeed, the gospel supposes these truths, the whole 
 scheme of salvation infers them, and is calculated to give 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 51 
 
 the clearest views and deepest impressions of them, and al- 
 so to reconcile the mind to them ; yet I do not find that our 
 Lord and his apostles, in preaching the gospel, ever dwell 
 on these particulars as the direct and main subject of their 
 testimony, or as that truth which they called upon men to be- 
 lieve unto their salvation. Peter declared the truth on the 
 day of Pentecost, Acts ii. and also to Cornelius and his 
 house, chap. x. and so did Paul at Antioch in Pisidia, chap, 
 xiii. These discourses are plain and simple, and in per- 
 fect unison with each other ; they were also countenanced 
 of God, and attended with remarkable effects : yet in none 
 Jifthem is there any direct or explicit mention of what Mr. 
 Fuller chiefly considers as The Truth. They seem wholly to 
 consist of what he terms general and external truths, and 
 which he says may be believed where no saving faith is. 
 The apostles declared the testimony of God concerning his 
 Son, and constantly connected salvation with the belief of 
 it ; but Mr. Fuller, though he does not exclude the main 
 subject of their testimony, yet he gives it such epithets as 
 tend to depreciate it, while he transfers salvation from it 
 to (he belief of some other truths or qualities which he con- 
 siders as more peculiarly the objects of saving faith. 
 
 Hitherto my remarks have been confined to the first 
 edition of his book. He has left out of the second edition 
 the greater part of that description of faith which I have 
 extracted from the first ; yet it is with pleasure I observe, 
 that in this last edition his account of faith is exceedingly 
 plain, simple, and scriptural. He says, "That the belief 
 of the truth which God hath recorded in the Scriptures con- 
 cerning Christ, is saving faith, is evident from the follow- 
 ing passages ;" for which he cites Mark xvi. 16. John xx. 
 31. Luke viii. 12. Matt. xvi. 17. Rom. x. 9. 1 John v. 1, 
 5. John iii. 33. chap. v. 33, 34. 2 Thess. i. 10. chap. ii. 
 13. From these passages he observes, that a belief of the 
 gospel — of the word — of the gospel-testimony — a belief that 
 
52 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God, &c. must be 
 saving faith, because salvation is connected with that be- 
 lief; and he is so certain of this, that he further says, "If 
 the foregoing passages do not prove the point, we may de- 
 spair of learning any thing from the Scriptures."* And I 
 may add, that if Mr. Fuller does not perfectly agree with 
 me on this head, I despair of learning any thing from his 
 words, for no words can more clearly express my view of 
 the subject. 
 
 In his Appendix he enters upon this point, by professing 
 his agreement with me : " I have the pleasure (says he) 
 to agree with Mr. M. in considering the belief of the gos- 
 pel to be saving faith."! ^^ ^^^^ were really the case, then 
 the controversy would be at an end. But do we not differ 
 as to the meaning of the word belief? No : we agree, 
 *' that the inspired writers used this term in the same sense 
 as it is used in the common aifairs of life, and that it signi- 
 fies the same as credence ; a credit of some report, decla- 
 ration, or testimony, where intuitive evidence is not to be 
 obtained." And do we agree also as to what is meant by 
 the Gospel 1 Yes ; we agree in general, " that it is the 
 truth which God hath recorded in the Scriptures concerning 
 Christ ;" and certainly we will not differ about the excellent 
 qualities of that truth, or the hearty reception it must meet 
 with from all who really believe it. We cannot therefore 
 differ on this subject, while both of us abide consistently by 
 what we have expressly agreed to. 
 
 Yet Mr. Fuller will not abide by this, but strikes out a 
 difference in these words : " Our disagreement on this sub- 
 ject is confined to the question, "What the belief of the Gos- 
 pel includes ?"! But how is it possible that we can dis- 
 agree on this, if we are agreed as to what belief itself is? 
 We both admit that it is credence : a credit of some report, 
 
 ♦ Page 16, 17, 18. t Page IGO. t Ibid. 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 63 
 
 declaration, or testimony ; and that the Scripture does not 
 use that term in any uncommon sense. We not only 
 agree in the sound of the term belief, but in the most point- 
 ed explanation (though it needs none) of its meaning, both 
 by synonymous words, and by distinguishing it from every 
 other exercise of the mind, however nearly allied to it, or 
 inseparable from it. How, then, can we possibly disagree 
 about what it includes ? It must be kept in view that the 
 question under consideration does not respect the antece- 
 dents, concomitants, or effects of faith ; nor can Mr. Ful- 
 ler include these in it, without departing from his own 
 pointed definition of it, and falling into the most glaring 
 inconsistency. If, therefore, he is consistent with himself, 
 the question must respect simply what the nature of faith it- 
 self includes. Now, with respect to this he says,* " I con- 
 sider faith as credence, and nothing else." And if it is 
 credence or belief, and nothing else, then it is certain that 
 it can include nothing else in its nature. And with re- 
 spect to its concomitants and effects, which are out of the 
 present question, I do not know that we differ at all. 
 
 But, notwithstanding Mr. Fuller^s simple and scriptural 
 definition of faith or belief ; his express declaration, that 
 he understands the term belief according to its ordinary 
 use in the common affairs of life ; his nicely distinguish- 
 ing it from all those exercises of the soul which are either 
 its concomitants or immediate effects ; his professing to 
 consider it as credence, and nothing else ; and his train 
 of arguments in support of this simple view of it — I say, 
 notwithstanding all this, it is evident he means no such 
 thing ; but, on the contrary, labors in his Appendix to 
 prove that belief is something else than credence ! He 
 professes to have the pleasure of agreeing with me, that the 
 belief of the gospel is saving faith. WTiat pleasure he cau 
 
 ♦ In his letter to me, dated Nov. 25, 1794; 
 6* 
 
fi4 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 have in this, I am not able to conceive, since he endeavors 
 to show that it is only an agreement in the sound, but not 
 in the sense of that proposition ; for he afiirms that we dis- 
 agree on the question, What the belief of the gospel in- 
 cludes ? and that " there is an important difference in the 
 ideas which we attach to believing."* For my own part, I 
 honestly declare that I attach no unusual or double meaning 
 to that word. I think it bears but one simple sense, which 
 needs no explanation, because every body understands it ; 
 nay, I attach no other idea to the word believing, than what 
 Mr. Fuller himself must necessarily attach to it if he really 
 means what he says, viz. that he understands it according 
 to its ordinary use in the common affairs of life, to be a 
 crediting some report, declaration, or testimony, or to be 
 credence and nothing else. If, therefore, there is an im- 
 portant difference between this and the idea which Mr. Ful- 
 ler attaches to believing, it must be a difference in his real 
 meaning from the plain sense of his words, which belongs 
 to him to reconcile. 
 
 When I take into view what he advances on this subject, 
 I think Mr. Scot's definition of faith would have suited his 
 purpose better than his own. The belief of the truth, he 
 aays, is "a cordial consent to the testimony of God in his 
 holy word ;" and faith in Christ in particular he defines "a 
 cordial consent to the testimony of God concerning his 
 Son."t Had Mr. Fuller fairly retracted his own definition, 
 and adopted something like this, it would have been more 
 consistent with his real sentiments ; but to state true faith 
 as only belief or credence, and then endeavor to explain it 
 into something else, appears to me a deviation both from 
 simplicity and consistency. 
 
 It is now time for me to take notice of his animadver- 
 
 ♦ Pref. p. viii. Note. 
 
 t The warrant and nature of faith in Christ, p. 8. 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 65 
 
 sions on what I have advanced on this subject in my Trea- 
 tise on Christ's Comniissionj and in the pamphlet entitled, 
 "The Belief of the Gospel saving Faith." All I have said, 
 or meant to say, in these publications on the nature of faith, 
 centres in this single point, viz. That justifying faith is 
 simply a belief of the gospel ; and therefore, if Mr. Fuller's 
 animadversions are in point, they must go to a denial of 
 that position. But, instead of attacking this directly, h^ 
 proceeds, first, to misrepresent my sentiments, and then to 
 combat his own misrepresentations. 
 
 He charges me with denying that there is any thing holy 
 in the nature of faith, or that it is a virtue or moral excel- 
 lence.* But if the reader will turn to the note he refers to, 
 Commission, p. 75, 76, he will find that the very reverse is 
 the truth. Mr. Fuller in his letter had said, that " if faith 
 was a mere exercise of the understanding, it would contain 
 no virtue." To this I replied, " that he must mean a be- 
 lieving exercise of the understanding ; and to affirm that 
 this contains no virtue, when it has God or his word for its 
 object, is rather too bold, considering how highly the Scrip- 
 ture speaks of it, representing it as the root or principle of 
 all Christian virtues. Gal. v. 6. 1. Tim. i. 5, as that which 
 gives glory to God, Rom. iv. 20, and without which it is 
 impossible to please him, Heb. xi. 6. Surely it is right to 
 believe all that God says." The reader may now judge 
 which of us deny the simple belief of the gospel to be a 
 virtue. But, notwithstanding my express declaration, with 
 the Scripture grounds of it, he still persists in his accusa- 
 tion. And why ? Merely because I denied that the prin- 
 ciple upon which he argued will hold good in all cases. 
 Having affirmed that " if faith was a mere exercise of the 
 understanding, it would contain no virtue," he adds, "and 
 if faith contained no virtue, unbelief could contain no sin." 
 
 * Page 164, 165. 
 
66 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 My answer to this was, " That though we should grant the 
 unfounded assertion (viz. of Mr. Fuller) that mere belief 
 contains no virtue, it would not follow that * unbelief con- 
 tains no sin ;' for such an argument proceeds upon this 
 principle, that if there is no virtue in a thing, there can 
 be no sin in its opposite ; but this does not hold true in in- 
 numerable instances." I instanced an abstaining from 
 many crimes which might be mentioned ; taking food when 
 hungry ; believing the testimony of a friend, and I may add, 
 the exercise of mere natural affection, in none of which 
 is there any real moral virtue ; yet the opposite of them 
 would be very sinful and vicious. And, to bring the matter 
 to the point in hand, and show the inconclusiveness of Mr. 
 Fuller's reasoning, I made the " supposition that there was 
 no more virtue contained in believing the witness of God 
 than in believing the witness of men," yet even in that 
 case " it does not follow that there would be no sin in un- 
 belief, which is to make God a liar," 1 John v. 10. Now, 
 it is this supposition which Mr. Fuller says " must be allow- 
 ed to prove that Mr. M., notwithstanding what he has said 
 to the contrary, does not consider faith as containing 
 any virtue.* But, passing this impeachment of my hon- 
 esty, let us state the matter shortly : Mr. Fuller asserts, 
 *' That if faith were a mere exercise of the understanding, 
 it would contain no virtue ; and if faith contained no vir- 
 tue, unbelief could contain no sin." I, on the other hand, 
 maintain. That a believing exercise of the understanding 
 (which alone can be properly termed faith), when it has God 
 or his word for its object, does contain virtue; but that, 
 even supposing Mr. Fuller's assertion were true that it did 
 not contain virtue, yet his conclusion would not follow, viz. 
 that unbelief could contain no sin ; because there are many 
 things (some of which I specified) which have no real po- 
 
 ♦ Page 165. 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 67 
 
 sitive virtue or holiness in them, and yet their opposites 
 would be verv sinful. Now, as Mr. Fuller denies that 
 there is any virtue in believing God with the understanding 
 (the only faculty with which we can believe any thing,) he 
 must, according to the principle of his argument, also deny 
 that there is any sin in disbelieving God with the under- 
 standing, or in holding him in our judgment as a liar. He 
 cannot possibly avoid this shocking conclusion without giv- 
 ing up the general principle upon which his argument hin- 
 ges, viz. That if there is no virtue iu a thing, there can be 
 no sin in its opposite. 
 
 He attempts, however, to support this principle by run- 
 ning to the opposite extreme, and af&rms that the instances 
 I mention as containing no virtue, such as taking food 
 when hungry, believing the testimony of a friend when we 
 have every reason to do so, the exercise of natural affection, 
 &c. are all virtuous and holy exercises.* But if they are, 
 and if, as he affirms, " even our believing the testimony of 
 a friend when we have every reason to do so, be a virtuous 
 and holy exercise," how comes it that the exercise of our 
 understanding in believing the testimony of God contains 
 no virtue ? Is this the only exercise which admits of no 
 holiness in it, nor of sin in its opposite? I hope Mr. Ful- 
 ler will rather give up his argument than stand to this plain 
 consequence of it. 
 
 But wherein consists that holiness which he ascribes to 
 common eating, believing the testimony of a friend, the 
 exercise of natural affection, &c. ? Not, surely, in these na- 
 tural exercises themselves ; for then wicked men, and, in 
 some of them, even brute animals would exercise holiness. 
 It must therefore lie in something else, and he very proper- 
 ly places^ it in the aim of the moral agent, or his doing 
 these things with an eye to the glory of God ; while he owns 
 
 ♦ Page 1G7, 1G8. 
 
68 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 *< That there may, indeed, be no holiness in these things as 
 performed by apostate creatures."* Now, as holiness lies 
 not in these exercises themselves, but in the pious aim of 
 the agent ; and as they are not universally, nor for the most 
 part, performed with a holy aim ; so they sufficiently show 
 that the general principle of Mr. Fuller's argument does 
 not hold good in innumerable instances, and that I was ful- 
 ly warranted to adduce some of these instances as contain- 
 ing no moral virtue, though their opposites are very sinful. 
 But Mr. Fuller is very tenacious of his argument, and 
 therefore bluntly replies, " This, I am persuaded, is not 
 true." And how does he prove it to be false '? Why, by 
 this argument, " If they were performed as God requires 
 them to be (and as they should be in order to their being 
 the proper opposites to the sins referred to), they would be 
 holy exercises. "f That is. If they were what, in fact, they 
 generally are not, then they would be holy exercises ! Mr. 
 Fuller should recollect that the question here does not re- 
 spect a matter of right, or what things ought to be, but a 
 matter of fact, or what they actually are, and what he him- 
 self allows them to be as they are performed by apostate 
 creatures. 
 
 But to return to the point ; Mr. Fuller, as was observed, 
 affirms, " That if faith were a mere exercise of the under- 
 standing, it would contain no virtue." The expression, 
 ** a mere exercise of the understanding," does not convey 
 to me any distinct idea of faith. The understanding may 
 be exercised in a variety of ways without belief. We may 
 have a clear and speculative conception of many things 
 which we do not consider as real or true. There is a wide 
 difference between understanding the sense of a proposition, 
 and believing the truth of it. Belief is a particular kind of 
 ©xercise of the understanding, whereby it perceives and 
 
 ♦Page 167. t Ibid. 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 69 
 
 realizes the truth of thiugs testified or promised upon proper 
 evidence. 
 
 Though the act of the mind which is termed belief must 
 necessarily be of the same general nature in all cases, and 
 though true faith is nothing more than belief; yet belief in 
 all cases, and indeed in most cases, does not contain vir- 
 tue. The following distinctions may serve to explain this 
 a little. — 1. When belief is the effect of mere natural causes, 
 there is no positive holiness in it ; but when produced by 
 the illumination of the Holy Spirit and word of God, it 
 must be holy, for the nature of the effect must correspond 
 with its cause ; and Mr. Fuller admits, " that the special 
 influences of the Holy Spirit are not required for that which 
 has no holiness in it ;"* and "that whatever the Holy Spirit 
 as a sanctifier produces, must resemble his own nature."! — 
 2. When belief is not grounded upon proper evidence, but 
 is chiefly influenced by the will, inclination, or disposition to 
 believe, it is not so properly termed belief as credulity, and does 
 not contain virtue ; for the will has no more right to super- 
 sede or supply the place of evidence, than it has to reject 
 the clearest proofs ; and Mr. Fuller acknowledges that " no- 
 thing deserves the name of faith but what is supported by 
 evidence." First edit. p. 26. That belief also which is 
 grounded merely on the evidence of sense, experience, or 
 human testimony, is not divine faith, or peculiar to real 
 Christians, but is merely natural and common to mankind. 
 But when belief is grounded on proper evidence that God 
 is the author of revelation, and credits that revelation be- 
 cause it is the word of him who cannot lie, but will make 
 good all he hath said, however far transcending the ordinary 
 course of things ; such a belief must be holy, for it is ground- 
 ed on just views of the character of God, and gives him the 
 glory of his power and faithfulness, Rom. iv. 20. — 3. 
 
 ♦ Pagje 128. t Page 171. 
 
60 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 When the objects of belief are only natural things, or the 
 common affairs of this world, it has nothing spiritual in it ; 
 but when it respects God, and the supernatural truths of his 
 word, it must be a spiritual belief. Mr. Fuller also admits, 
 that, " though believing, simply considered, is a mere na- 
 tural act, yet believing such things as the gospel reveals 
 must be a spiritual act." First edit. p. 25, 26. — 4. With 
 regard to its influence an(i effects, as belief in general is 
 the main spring in the life of man, without -which he 
 could have no rational motive or end in his volitions, af- 
 fections, or actions ; so the belief of divine revelation, and 
 partic\ilarly of the gospel, on the authority of God, is re- 
 presented in Scripture as the main spring in the life of a 
 Christian, or as the root or principle of all Christian vir- 
 tues. Acts XV. 9. Gal. v. 6. Tim. i. 5. Heb. xi. 1. 
 John v. 4, 6. Hence it is that the same moral influence 
 and effects upon the will, affections, and life which are as. 
 cribed to the word and Spirit of God, are also ascribed to 
 faith. Now, Mr. Fuller admits, that " if faith is the root of 
 holiness, it must be holy itself; for the nature of the fruit 
 corresponds with that of the root."* Thus it appears that 
 the quality of belief depends much on the nature of its pro- 
 ductive cause, grounds, objects, and effects. When these are 
 not holy and spiritual, neither is belief; but when they are, be- 
 lief must be also holy and spiritual ; and with this Mr. Fuller 
 seems to agree in every particular. I shall only add, — 6. 
 That as without faith, it is impossible to please God, Heb. 
 xi. 6. — as faith is highly commended in Scripture, Mat. xv. 
 28. Rom. iv. 18 — 23. Heb. xi. — and as it has the promise 
 of spiritual blessings (Mark xvi. 16. John iii. 15, 36. Acts 
 X. 43. ch. xiii. 39. ch. xvi. 31. Rom. x. 9.) it must be 
 spiritual and holy, or rather the radical principle of all 
 spirituality and holiness. And here I adopt Mr. Fuller's 
 
 ♦ Page 166. 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 61 
 
 criterion of spirituality, viz : that " whatever has the 
 promiseof spiritual blessings, that is considered as a spirit- 
 ual exercise."* 
 
 The reader will now perceive with what justice Mr. Ful- 
 ler represents me as denying that faith contains any virtue, 
 and as laboring to establish that principle. It was certainly 
 very unfair in him to catch at a mere supposition, which I 
 made for argument's sake, and to state it as my real senti- 
 ment, though he saw that I expressly opposed that sentiment. 
 Nor was it fair in him to alter my introductory words, viz. 
 "But though we should grant the unfounded assertion, that 
 mere belief contains no virtue," &c. and to substitute the 
 following, "If mere belief contains no virtue," &c.f as if 
 I had really admitted that it did not. But, whatever holiness 
 may be ascribed to faith, still I maintain that it is credence 
 or belief, and nothing else ; and, with respect to the effica- 
 cy ascribed to it in justification, that must be laid to the ac- 
 count of its object ; its own intrinsic power, virtue, or holi. 
 ness, being out of the question. 
 
 It has already been shown that Mr. Fuller, very inconsis- 
 tently, both admits and denies " that faith is credence, and 
 nothing else ;" and that not merely in some inadvertent and 
 occasional expressions, but in a train of reasoning on both 
 sides of the question. But the whole scope of his Appen- 
 dix goes to deny that faith (be its cause, grounds, objects, 
 or effects what they may) can be a holy principle, unless it 
 arise from a previous moral state of the heart, and be pro- 
 duced by an act of the will. But though the gospel is of 
 such a salutary and interesting nature, that no man can be 
 believing it if his will continues either averse or indiffer- 
 ent to it, yet belief is not an act of the will ; for, could we 
 suppose a man ever so much inclined to work himself up 
 into a persuasion of its truth, yet he cannot give real credit 
 
 ♦ Page 74. t Page 164. 
 
62 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 to it till he perceive it to be the testimony of God. If he 
 could, what is the use of all that accumulated divine evidence 
 which attended and confirmed it at its first publication 1 
 Was it not written and recorded for this express purpose, 
 "that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of 
 God, and that believing they might have life through his 
 name 1" John xx. 31. It is this evidence which makes the 
 command to believe reasonable, and which leaves those 
 who believe not altogether without excuse, John xv. 22, 24. 
 But 1 shall attend a little to the manner of his reasoning on 
 this subject. 
 
 His main arguments seem to be grounded on the follow- 
 ing principle, viz : '' I scarcely can conceive of a truth more 
 self-evident than this, That God's commands extend only 
 to that which comes under the iufluence of the will."* 
 
 But the principle here laid down, is so far from being 
 self-evident, that to me it does not appear evident at all. 
 That the commands of God extend both to the will, and to 
 that which comes under its influence, I freely admit ; but 
 that they extend only to these, I deny ; for it is evident, 
 particularly in the present case, that they extend also to the 
 belief of the revealed truths and motives by which the will 
 itself is influenced. None of his commands whatever ex- 
 tend to blind volitions, enjoining consent to, or acquies- 
 cence in any thing which is supposed to be neither perceived 
 nor believed in the judgment ; nor could any actings of the 
 will in such a case, supposing them to exist, be of a holy 
 nature, or acceptable to God. The first and great com- 
 mandment of the law is, to love the Lord our God with all 
 our heart, which certainly respects the exercise of the will 
 and affections, and that obedience which comes under their 
 influence ; but it is equally evident that this presupposes a 
 belief "that God is ;" that he is holy, just, and good ; " and 
 
 * Page 163. 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 63 
 
 that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." 
 Without this belief, or previous to it, there cannot, in the 
 nature of things, be any holy exercise of the will and affec- 
 tions towards God, nor any acceptable obedience to him, 
 Heb. xi. 6. Every command of God, therefore, extends 
 not only to the will, and what falls under its influence, but 
 also to the belief of the motives he sets before us, to influ- 
 ence the will itself. And I cannot conceive of a truth 
 more self-evident than this, that every holy motion of the 
 will and affections towards God, always presupposes the 
 mind's perception and belief of some manifestation which 
 God hath made of himself. 
 
 The gospel exhibits the most glorious manifestation of 
 the character of God, and of his good-will to guilty men ; 
 but as that can have no influence on the will and affections 
 till it is perceived and believed, so belief is the first and 
 great commandment which accompanies the declaration of 
 the gospel. Now, a command to believe, supposes some- 
 thing spoken or revealed by God, and proposed as the mat- 
 ter or object of belief. Without this, belief would be an 
 absolute impossibility, and so not a duty. A command to 
 believe also supposes sufficient evidence aflTorded, that 
 what is declared or testified is a revelation from God, and 
 therefore true. Without this, belief would be credulity, a 
 weakness of mind which exposes to all manner of imposi- 
 tion and deception, and cannot be commanded of God. 
 But as God has sufficiently manifested himself to be the Au- 
 thor of revelation, so the command to believe that, is a com- 
 mand to believe his own word, with whom it is impossible 
 to lie. In this case unbelief is not merely the effect of ig- 
 norance, but of aversion of heart to the truth ; and so unbe- 
 lievers are represented not only as blind, but as hating the 
 light, and closing their eyes lest they should see it, John 
 iii. 19, 20. Acts xxviii. 27. It is a treating of God him- 
 self as a liar, and so a sin of the first magnitude. But it 
 
64 WHETHER JUSTIFVING FAITH 
 
 does not follow from this that faith must be influenced by 
 a previous moral state of the heart, or produced by the active 
 exercise of the will, any more than it follows that its merit 
 must be equal to the demerit of unbelief. Though, in be- 
 lieving, the will does not resist light and evidence, but gives 
 place to it ; and though when the truth is believed, it hearti- 
 ly acquiesces in it, yet belief itself is not produced by the 
 will, but by the word and Spirit of God enlightening the 
 mind, to perceive the truth and its evidence. It is of his 
 own will, not ours, that God begets us to the faith with the 
 word of truth, James i. 18. Every thing that is holy in the 
 state of the heart, or exercise of the will and affections, is 
 the effect of the truth believed ; for faith purifies the heart, 
 and worketh by love, but is itself the gift of God. 
 , In support of the above principle, he says, " Knowledge 
 can be no further a duty, nor ignorance a sin, than as each 
 is influenced by the moral state of the heart ; and the same 
 is true of faith and unbelief."* 
 
 But if faith " be no further a duty, but as influenced by 
 the moral state of the heart," then it can be no man's duty 
 to believe the testimony of God concerning his Son, till he 
 is previously possessed of that moral state. Till then, nei- 
 ther the revelation of God's testimony with its evidence, his 
 faithfulness in that testimony, nor his command to believe 
 it, can, according to this, constitute faith a duty, nor unbe- 
 lief a sin ! So that the obligation which makes it a duty to 
 believe God, must be founded entirely on some previous 
 good disposition wrought within us, and not in any objec- 
 tive revelation, or command of God in his word. Again, 
 if faith is not a duty, unless it arises from a previous moral 
 state of the heart, then no man who adopts this opinion 
 will find himself warranted to believe, till he knows that the 
 state of his heart is changed. This must be its unavoid- 
 
 * Page 163. 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 65 
 
 able effect, so far as it operates ; and, in my opinion, a very 
 pernicious one. To say that he " cannot possibly be con- 
 scious of this change till he has believed,"* is no answer 
 at all to this. It is only saying, that in his first believing, 
 he cannot possibly avoid presumption. Further, to assert 
 that faith cannot be genuine, and so a duty, unless it arise 
 from a previous moral state of the heart, is to take for 
 granted the very point at issue, though the regular exercise 
 of our faculties, the Scripture instances of conversion, the 
 nature of the means to which that change is ascribed, &c. 
 all militate against that assertion. It is contrary to the re- 
 gular exercise of our faculties that the state of the heart 
 should be changed previous to any illumination of the mind, 
 or while the soul is in a state of total ignorance and unbe- 
 lief. It does not agree with the Scripture instances of con- 
 version ; for in none of them do we read of any real change 
 in the state of the heart previous to their hearing the word 
 and its influence, though some might be less prejudiced and 
 more candid than others. Nor does it comport with the 
 nature of the means with which the Spirit concurs in pro- 
 ducing that change, and to which it is always ascribed, viz. 
 the word of God ; for it is obvious, that if the word is the 
 means, it can have no influence in changing the state of 
 the heart any farther than it is understood and believed. 
 
 He thinks, " We might as well make a passive admission 
 of light into the eye, or of sound into the ear, duties, as a 
 passive admission of truth into the mind."| 
 
 But I see no reason why believing should be considered 
 as a mere passive admission of truth into the mind. The 
 truths of revelation are not like surrounding material objects 
 which obtrude and act upon our bodily senses. They 
 respect things spiritual and invisible, and are brought to the 
 view of our minds merely by means of testimony, and 
 
 ♦ Page 163. t Ibid. 
 
66 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 therefore our belief of that testimony requires the mind's 
 attention to, and consideration of its import and evidence. 
 The gospel report, indeed, comes to us unsolicited, and faith 
 comes by hearing that report, and by the divine influence 
 which accompanies it ; yet believing itself is the proper 
 exercise of our own minds, and we are no otherwise passive 
 in believing the testimony of God than we are in believing 
 the testimony of men to which it is compared. But, with 
 regard to that previous moral state of the heart which, in 
 Mr. Fuller's opinion, makes faith a duty, it is a thing where- 
 in the mind is perfectly passive ; for, according to him, it 
 is produced immediately by the Spirit operating upon the 
 will without the word, or any truth communicated to the 
 judgment, and in which the soul is not only passive, but of 
 which it is altogether unconscious :* yet from this passive 
 and unconscious moral state of the heart, he supposes the 
 duty and activity of faith to arise ; and this faith he de- 
 scribes to be a receiving the truth into the heart, or a volun- 
 tary acquiescence in it. But it is obvious to the common 
 sense of mankind, that no truth can be acquiesced in by the 
 will, or received into the affections, till it is first perceived 
 and believed. And this self-evident truth interferes with 
 all Mr. Fuller's arguments on this head. 
 
 In the foregoing part of his book he asserts, "That if 
 faith were wholly an intellectual and not a moral exercise, 
 nothing more than rationality, or a capacity of understand- 
 ing the nature of evidence, would be necessary to it. In 
 this case it would not be a duty, nor would unbelief be a 
 sin, but a mere mistake of the judgment. IN or could 
 there be any need of divine influence ; for the special influ- 
 ences of the Holy Spirit are not required for the production 
 of that which has no holiness in it.''^ 
 
 Here he plainly denies that it is a duty to believe the di- 
 
 ♦ Page 135. t Page 128. 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 6T 
 
 vine testimony merely with the intellect, or that power of 
 the mind termed the understanding, though it is by that alone 
 we can perceive its import and evidence, and assent to its 
 truth. Had he only denied that there can be any real be- 
 lief of the gospel when it does not influence the will and 
 affections, I should most heartily subscribe to it ; but to de- 
 ny that a belief of the gospel with the understanding is itself 
 a duty, is to deny that we are under any obligation to be- 
 lieve God ; nay, it is in effect to deny that it is our duty to 
 acquiesce in, or love the truth ; for that depends entirely on 
 a previous perception and belief of it, and can have no ex- 
 istence without this. 
 
 He not only denies that believing God with the under- 
 standing is a duty, but adds, " nor in this case would unbe- 
 lief be a sin, but a mere mistake of the judgment." But 
 this can only be true upon one or both of the following sup- 
 positions. Either that God has not given a clear revelation 
 of the truth, and supported it with sufficient evidence ; or, 
 if he has. That there is no moral turpitude in mental er- 
 ror. But both these suppositions are absolutely false; and 
 therefore unbelief in those who have access to hear the gos- 
 pel, is not a mere mistake of the judgment, but a most 
 heinous sin, and in this case altogether without excuse, as 
 our Lord expressly declares, Johiivxv. 22, 25 ; so that, though 
 faith is not the exercise of the will, but of a spiritually en- 
 lightened judgment whereby the will is moved; yet unbe- 
 lief arises not merely from ignorance, but also from the 
 aversion of the will whereby the judgment is blinded, and 
 most unreasonably prejudiced against the truth. 
 
 He affirms, that "aversion ol" heart is the only obstruc- 
 tion to faith ; that the removal of that aversion is the kind 
 of influence necessary to produce it — that the mere force of 
 evidence, however clear, will not change the disposition of 
 the heart," and that " in this case therefore, and this only, it 
 
68 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 requires the exceeding greatness of divine power to enable a 
 sinner to believe."* Now, g^ he restricts the influences of the 
 Holy Spirit entirely to the will, and speaks so diminutively 
 of the understanding, denying that its exercise in believing 
 the gospel is a duty, or of a holy nature, so as to require the in- 
 fluence of the Holy Spirit to produce it ; I think it plainly ap- 
 pears from all this, that he does not consider the understanding 
 as the subject of any part of regeneration, or as capable of 
 it; or if he does, he must consider it as changed into some- 
 thing else than the understanding, something more than 
 rationality, or a capacity of understanding the nature of 
 evidence," and its exercise into something else than a 
 perception and belief of the truth. 
 
 But the word of God speaks very differently on this head. 
 It represents the darkness, blindness, and ignorance of the 
 mind, with regard to spiritual things, as the source of men's 
 alienation from the life of God, and of their rebellion against 
 him, Eph. iv. 18, 19, as that by which Satan reigns in and 
 maintains his power over the minds of men. Acts xxvi. 
 18, Eph. vi. 12, Col. i. 13, and under which he endeavors 
 still to keep them, notwithstanding the publication of the 
 gospel, by blinding their minds lest the light of it should 
 shine into them, 2 Cor. iv. 3, 4. On the other hand, the 
 regeneration and conversion of sinners is represented as 
 effected by means of light communicated to the understand- 
 ing. It is described as the opening of their eyes by means 
 of the gospel, turning them from darkness to light, and so 
 from the power of Satan unto God, Acts xxvi. 18, as a de- 
 livering them from the power of darkness, and translating 
 them into the kingdom of God's dear Son, Col. i. 13. The 
 new man is said to be renewed in knowledge, chap. iii. 10, 
 and the spiritual man to discern the things of the Spirit as 
 revealed in the gospel, 1 Cor. ii. 15, and hence it is term- 
 
 * Page 128. 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 6^ 
 
 ed spiritual understanding, Col. i. 9. Paul prays in behalf 
 of the Ephesian believers for a further illumination of their 
 understanding by the Spirit, " that the God of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the 
 Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him ; 
 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened, that ye 
 may know," &€. Eph. i. 17, 18. With regard to faith, 
 it is plain that it has its seat in an enlightened understand- 
 ing. Those on whom the word has its proper effect, are 
 they who hear and understand it. Matt. xiii. 23, and the 
 highest degree of faith is termed *' the full assurance of un- 
 derstanding," Col. ii. 2. Many other passages might 
 be produced to the same purpose ; but these are sufficient 
 to show that the understanding is the subject of regenera. 
 tion as well as the will ; that the Holy Spirit exerts his spe- 
 cial influence upon it, and that failh has its seat there. Fur- 
 ther, as the word is the means of regeneration and saucti- 
 fication, it is plain that it must be understood and believed 
 in the judgment previous to its influence upon the will. 
 
 He observes, that the mere force of evidence, however 
 clear, will not change "the disposition of the heart." I ad- 
 mit that it will not, unless it be the evidence of something 
 which is exceedingly important, engaging, and interesting, 
 appearing to the mind through the enlightening influence of 
 the Spirit. But does he mean to deny that the glorious gos- 
 pel is mighty through God to pull down strong holds, cast down 
 reasonings, &c. and so to change the disposition of the heart? 
 If so, then he must deny that men are regenerated and sancti- 
 fied through the truth, or by the incorruptible seed of the 
 word, John xvii. 17. 1 Pet. i. 23. 
 
 Christ says, *' No man can come unto me, except the 
 Father who has sen-t me draw him," John vi. 44. On this 
 he observes, " That the only bar to which our Lord refers, 
 lies in that reluctance or aversion which the drawing of the 
 
70 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 Father implies and removes."* That God removes the 
 aversion of the will is freely granted ; but how, or in what 
 order? By an immediate influence upon it, previous to 
 any communication of spiritual light to the judgment? No ; 
 for Christ, in the following verse, explains this drawing to 
 be by divine teaching : " It is written in the prophets, And 
 they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore who 
 hath heard and learned of the Father cometh unto me," 
 ver. 45. It is evident, therefore, that there is a bar of igno- 
 rance to be removed as well as of aversion, and that the for- 
 mer must be removed in order to a removal of the latter. 
 Peter, addressing the Jews, says, " And now, brethren, I 
 wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your ru- 
 lers," Acts iii. 17 ; but Mr. Fuller, upon his principle, would 
 have told them that it was only through aversion they did 
 it, and that though they knew, yet they crucified the Lord of 
 glory. Paul says, «« I obtained mercy, because I did it ig- 
 norantly in unbelief," 1 Tim. i. 13 ; but Mr. Fuller would 
 have told him, that had he been duly convinced of his sin, 
 he would have been sensible that he did it knowingly, and 
 that his unbelief was nothing but aversion. 
 
 I shall now take notice of his arguments from Scripture 
 to prove that faith is more than belief, as arising from, and 
 partaking of a moral state of the heart. He observes, 
 
 « First, That faith is a grace of the Holy Spirit," and 
 from this infers that it must be of a spiritual and holy na- 
 ture resembling its divine origin, f" 
 
 By a grace I suppose he means a fruit of the Spirit, and 
 in this I fully agree with him ; for faith is the gift of God, 
 and is given on the behalf of Christ, Eph. ii. 8. Phil. i. 
 29 ; and I have also inferred from this, that it must be 
 spiritual and holy (see before, p. 38.) But yet we difler as 
 to what faith itself is. I view it as the belief of a spiritually 
 
 ♦ Page 65. f Page 171. 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 71 
 
 enlightened understanding ; but he considers it as consist- 
 ing chiefly of the consent or acquiescence of the will, and 
 denies it to be holy in any other view. But he proceeds, 
 
 " Secondly, Faith is that in the exercise of which we give 
 glory to God, Rom. iv. 20.— If faith be what Mr. McLean 
 acknowledges it to be, a duty, and an exercise of obedience, 
 its possessing such a tendency is easily conceived ; but if it 
 be a passive reception of the truth, on which the moral state 
 of the heart has no influence, how can such a property be 
 ascribed to it ?'* 
 
 I do consider it as an indispensable duty to believe all 
 that God says, and look upon it as obedience, because he 
 hath commanded it. As to the nature of faith itself, I have no 
 other idea of it than that which the apostle gives of Abraham's 
 faith in the passage referred to. Nothing can be plainer 
 than that it was his believing God's promise respecting his 
 seed, (Gen. xv. 4 — 7.) And, notwithstanding he knew that 
 its accomplishment was altogether above the power of na- 
 ture, or any fitness in himself, yet being the promise of a 
 faithful and almighty God, he " against hope believed in 
 hope, that he might become the father of many nations, ac- 
 cording to that which was spoken, so shall thy seed be. 
 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own 
 body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, 
 neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb ; he staggered not 
 at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in 
 faith, giving glory to God. And being fully persuaded, 
 that what he had promised he was able also to perform," 
 &c. v. 18 — 22. Thus, in believing God's promise, he 
 gave him the glory of his power and faithfulness. This ac- 
 count of Abraham's faith is too plain to need any comment ; 
 and what a contrast does it form to the numerous and jar- 
 ring descriptions of faith with which the world has since 
 
 ♦ Page 172. 
 
72 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 been pestered and puzzled ! The apostle intends it not only 
 as a description, but commendation of Abraham's faith, 
 as an example of ours, ver. 23, 24, 25. Yet he says nothing 
 of the previous moral state of Abraham's heart, \vhatever 
 that was, nor of the actings of his will and affections, which 
 now make the capital figure in modern definitions of faith. 
 Nothing is mentioned but simply his believing God accord- 
 ing to that which was spoken, and the strength of his belief. 
 And indeed nothing could be more foreign, or even oppo- 
 site to the apostle's purpose, than to dwell upon Abraham's 
 virtuous and holy dispositions when setting him forth as 
 an example of God's justifying the ungodly by faith with- 
 out works. Another argument he uses is, 
 
 " Thirdly, Faith is represented as depending upon choice, 
 or the state of the heart towards God ;" for which he cites 
 John xi. 40. ch. v. 44. Mark ix- 23..* 
 
 As to John xi. 40, it contains our Lord's words to Mar- 
 tha respecting the resurrection of her brother, when she ap- 
 peared to be staggered at the circumstance of his having 
 been so long dead, and are intended to strengthen her faith; 
 " Said I not unto thee. If thou wouldest believe, thou shouldst 
 see the glory of God ?" i. e. his miraculous power display- 
 ed. Mr. Fuller here lays the stress upon the English aux- 
 iliary verb wouldest, to show that her belief depended upon 
 her choice. Yet he knows that Martha was a believer in 
 Christ already, ver. 27 ;^ that she believed her brother 
 would be raised at the last day, ver. 24 ; and not only so, 
 but that Jesus could have prevented his death, or even now 
 raise him up if he pleased, ver. 21, 22. What, then, was 
 the belief which now depended on her will ? Was it a be- 
 lief that Christ could or would then raise her brother ? And 
 does Mr. Fuller think that she did not choose to believe this, 
 or that her doubt arose from aversion to it ? 1 should like 
 
 ♦ Page 172. 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 73 
 
 to know how he accounts for that slowness of heart which 
 appeared in the disciples to believe the resurrection of their 
 Lord, Mark xvi. 11, 14. Luke xxiv. 11, 25. Will he at- 
 tribute it entirely to their disinclination, or aversion of 
 heart to that joyful event ? The truth is, believers may have 
 occasional doubts which do not arise from aversion of heart 
 to the truth, but from remaining ignorance, or the absence 
 of evidence from the mind ; but these doubts are not re- 
 moved by an act of their will, but by a renewed perception 
 of light and evidence in the judgment. Men frequently 
 have doubts respecting things while they earnestly wish them 
 to be true. 
 
 With respect to John v. 44. " How can ye believe who 
 receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor 
 which cometh from God only?" they are Christ's words to 
 the unbelieving Jews, and point out one great cause of 
 their unbelief, viz. their love of human applause or honor, 
 with their mutual exchange of it among themselves, where- 
 by their consciences were fortified against conviction of 
 sin, and their spiritual pride and self-righteousness support- 
 ed ; so that while this was the case, they could not believe 
 on the Saviour of lost sinners. But Christ does not here 
 insinuate that their believing depended on their choice, or 
 that any will really seek the honor which cometh from God 
 only, before they believe the way of acceptance with him. 
 
 Another text is Mark ix. 23. *' Jesus saith unto him, If 
 thou CANST believe, all things are possible to him that be- 
 lieveth." On this he asks, " If believing had no depend- 
 ance upon choice, or the state of the heart, how is it 
 that our Saviour should suspend the healing of the child, 
 upon the parents being able to exercise it? Did he sus- 
 pend his mercy upon the performance of a natural impossi- 
 bility ; or upon something on which the state of the heart 
 bad no influence ?"* To this I answer, that belief is a na- 
 
 ♦ Page 172. 
 7 
 
74 WHETHER JUSTIF5?ING JAITH 
 
 tural impossibility in all cases where there is no informa- 
 tion or evidence given ; for " how shall they believe in 
 him of whom they have not heard," Rom. x. 14, and though 
 this had been the case with the parent of the child, yet 
 Christ might justly suspend the cure till that natural impos- 
 sibility was removed. But it is plain that he must have 
 heard something of Christ's fame as to miraculous cures, 
 and given some credit to it, otherwise he would not have ap- 
 plied. The disappointment he met with in his application 
 to the disciples, might raise or increase his doubts if even 
 the power of their master extended to that case ; and this 
 seems to have been the state of his mind in addressing him 
 thus, " If thou CANST do any thing, have compassion on 
 us." But it does not appear that this doubt arose from his 
 want of will, or his not choosing to believe that Christ was 
 able to cure his child ; for nothing would have given him 
 greater pleasure than to be fully persuaded of this. Nor 
 was his doubt removed by an act of his own will, (though 
 not against it,) but by Christ's reply to him, assuring him 
 of the sufficiency of his power, if he only gave credit to it, 
 " If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that 
 believeth." 
 
 " Fourthly, Faith is frequently represented as implying 
 repentance for sin, which is acknowledged on all hands to 
 be a holy exercise," Mark i. 15. Matt. xxi. 32. 2 Tim. 
 ii. 25.* 
 
 There is no dispute about whether faith implies repent- 
 ance for sin. It implies many things which it does not in- 
 clude in its nature. For instance, it implies both its ne- 
 cessary causes and inseparable effects ; but these are not 
 faith itself. He observes, that " it does not come up to the 
 Scripture representation to say, repentance is a fruit of 
 faith ;" yet he owns, " that a conviction of the being and 
 
 ♦ Page 173. 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 75 
 
 attributes of God, must, in the order of nature, precede re- 
 pentance," i. e. even legal repentance ; and he also admits, 
 that "whenever the Scriptures speak of repentance as fol- 
 lowed by the remission of sins, it will be allowed that faith 
 is supposed ; for repentance without faith could not please 
 God, nor have any connection with the promise of for- 
 giveness." This, I think, is to admit that repentance unto 
 life is a fruit of faith in Christ. But then he says, " faith 
 without repentance would not be genuine." I grant it ; 
 but neither would faith without works be genuine ; yet as 
 faith and works are not the same, neither is faith and re- 
 pentance, though they are more immediately connected. 
 
 "Fifthly, Faith is often expressed by terms which indi- 
 cate the exercise of affection. It is called receiving Chris^^ 
 John i. 12, — receiving the love of the truth, that we may be 
 saved, 2 Thess. ii. 10. — In true believers Christ's words 
 have place, which is more than a mere assent of the under- 
 standing, John viii. 37, — they, in an honest and good heart, 
 having heard the word, keep it, Luke viii. 15."* 
 
 As to receiving Christ, Mr. Fuller himself admits that it 
 is " distinct from the belief of the truth as an inseparable ef- 
 fect is distinct from its cause," (see before, p. 44,) and that 
 " receiving him, in the order ofthings, follows upon believing 
 the truth concerning him."f Yet I own that receiving the 
 testimony of God concerning him, is the same as believing 
 in him. — All who truly believe the truth receive the love of 
 it, because they perceive and believe the loveliness of what 
 it reveals ; but this does not prove that faith and love are 
 the same. — Christ's words have place in believers ; but 
 how does this show that faith is more than an assent of the 
 understanding ? — Those who have heard and believed the 
 word, keep, (or retain) it in an honest and good heart, as I 
 have already shown (see before, p. 22, 23 ;) but what is this 
 
 ♦ Page 174. t Page 203. 
 
7G WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 to Mr. Fuller's purpose ? None of these passages prove 
 that faith is the exercise of affection, or that belief and love 
 are the same, though in this case they are inseparable. 
 
 ** Sixthly, Belief is expressly said to be with the heart, 
 Rom. X. 9, 10; with all the heart, Acts viii. 37."* 
 
 I have answered this already (see p. 47, 48,) and shall 
 only here take notice of his explanation of these expres- 
 sions ; he says, " Doing any thing with the heart, or with 
 all the heart, are modes of speaking never used in Scrip- 
 ture, I believe, for the mere purpose of expressing what is 
 internal or mental, and which may pertain only to the un- 
 derstanding : they rather denote the quality of unfeignedness, 
 a quality repeatedly ascribed to faith, 1 Tim. i. 5, 2 Tim. i. 
 5. and which marks an honesty of heart which is essential to 
 it" I have not the least objection to the positive part of 
 this explanation ; for if a man does not believe unfeigned- 
 ly, he does not, properly speaking, believe at all, but only 
 professes it with his mouth hypocritically. But I am per- 
 fectly at a loss to conceive what more there is in an unfeign- 
 ed (or avvTTOKpiTb-i unhypocritical) belief, than a real internal or 
 mental belief with the understanding. I suspect it will re- 
 quire something beyond metaphysics itself to explain this, 
 though I own I am no adept in that science. 
 
 " Seventhly, The want of faith is ascribed to moral 
 
 CAUSES, or to THE WANT OF A RIGHT DISPOSITION OF 
 
 HEART." John V. 38 — 44, chap. viii. 45 — 47. | 
 
 This is granted ; for when the outward light and evidence 
 of the gospel is set before men, something more than simple 
 ignorance must be the cause of their rejecting it, and so it 
 is ascribed also to aversion ; but it does not follow from 
 this, that any thing more than that same light and evidence 
 of the gospel, properly perceived and understood, through 
 
 • Page 175. t Page 175, 176. 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEP. 77 
 
 the enlighteuing influence of the Spirit, is necessary to pro- 
 duce faith, and so to remove that aversion. 
 
 " Lastly, Unbelief is not a mere error of the understand- 
 ing, but a positive and practical rejection of the gospel. 
 John viii. 45, 46, 47.'-* 
 
 This argument is much the same with the last, and re- 
 quires only the same answer ; but I may add, that though 
 unbelief is not a mere error of the understanding, yet there 
 is some very essential error of the understanding included 
 in it, as the Scriptures abundantly testify ; and therefore to 
 affirm (as Mr. Fuller constantly does) that unbelief " is 
 owing only to the aversion of men's hearts, and nothing 
 else,"f is to contradict a great number of the plainest pas. 
 sages in the word of God, and to deny that any direct illu. 
 mination of the understanding is necessary to produce faith. 
 It is to affirm, that an unbeliever may have the same ideas 
 and conviction of the evil and demerit of sin, and the same 
 discernment and belief of the truth and excellency of the 
 gospel that a believer has, and that the only difference lies 
 in the will or disposition of the heart. 
 
 Indeed, if Mr. Fuller's sentiments and reasoning on this 
 subject be just, there must be a great deal of improprieties 
 in Scripture language, which cannot fail to mislead us. 
 Peter and James inform us, that men are born again of the 
 incorruptible seed of the word, 1 Pet. i. 23, James i. 18. 
 But Mr. Fuller tells us, that, strictly speaking, this is not 
 the case, for that they are born again of the Spirit without 
 the word4 The Scripture frequently attributes unbelief to 
 ignorance, or not understanding the truth, as one cause of 
 it in those who hear the gospel. Matt. xiii. 19, Acts iii. 17, 
 Rom. X. 3, 1 Tim. i. 13. But Mr. Fuller argues against 
 this, as if it were a natural inability, like what arises from 
 want of information or natural capacity, and so inconsistent 
 
 ♦ Page 176. f Page 177. t Page 210. 
 
 7* 
 
78 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 with a moral one ;* and therefore ascribes unbelief entirely 
 to aversion. Paul affirms, that faith is not of ourselves, 
 but is the gift of God, Eph. ii. 8. But Mr. Fuller affirms, 
 that it " cannot with any propriety be termed the gift of 
 God ; but he gives us that from which it immediately fol- 
 lows."! Now, if there are so many improprieties in the lan- 
 guage of Scripture on this subject, " whence does it appear 
 that the inspired writers wrote or spoke intelligibly?" 
 
 In my Treatise on the Commission of Christ, after hav- 
 ing shown that true faith must be distinguished by its gen- 
 uine effects on the heart and life, and having pointed out 
 some of its immediate effects on the heart, I add : " But 
 these eff'ects of faith, or, which is the same, of the truth be- 
 lieved, ought not to be confounded with faith itself, as is 
 commonly done. Though faith is the confidence of things 
 hoped for, and also worketh by love ; yet it is neither 
 hope nor love, for the apostle distinguisheth it from both ; 
 And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three, 1 Cor. 
 xiil. 13. The same may be said of all its other effects up- 
 on the heart ; for whatever is more than belief is more than 
 faith, and ought to go by another name," p. 82, 83. And 
 in a note below I take notice of what Mr. Fuller had said 
 on this passage in his letter, viz. that " faith, hope, and 
 love are three, considered only in respect of their objects." 
 But he denies that he " ever thought of affirming that they 
 are three only in that view."J If not, why did he give this 
 view as expressive of the sense of the passage ? Does the 
 apostle affirm that they are three in different senses ? He 
 says, " My argument only required me to point out a sense 
 in which they were distinct, provided they were not so in 
 respect of their holy nature."§ This, I am obliged to say, 
 is a mere evasion. He knew I never disputed the holiness 
 of their nature ; and he was also sensible that his argument 
 
 • Page 120. t Page 209. X Page 199. ? Ibid- 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 79 
 
 required him to deny that they are distinct in themselves ; 
 for to admit this, would be to give up his argument, and 
 therefore he places the distinction of faith, hope, and love 
 in their objects : "the object of faith being revealed truth — 
 of hope, future good — and of love, the holy amiableness of 
 God, and of whatever bears his image." 
 
 In answer to this I observed, " That the apostle is not 
 speaking of the objects of faith, hope, and love, but of them- 
 selves ; and if they are not three as distinguished from 
 each other, their objects can never make them three. The 
 apostle says, the greatest of these is love ; but love is not 
 greater than faith and hope in respect of its object, but in 
 its own nature ; which shows that faith, hope, and love, are 
 different from each other, and properly termed three." Now, 
 what reply does Mr. Fuller make to this 1 only the follow- 
 ing : " I see no solidity in Mr. M'Lean's objection to an 
 objective distinction."* This is a very easy reply ; but I 
 can excuse him for once, being confident that if a better 
 had occurred to him, it should not be wanting. The whole 
 drift of his reasoning on the nature of faith is to confound 
 it with love, hope, and other fruits of the Spirit ; and though 
 the apostle distinguishes them numerically as three, and ex- 
 pressly says, that love is the greatest of these three ; yet he 
 professes to see nothing solid in my objection to a mere 
 objective distinction, i. e. he sees no reason why it may 
 not be admitted that love has a greater object than either 
 faith or hope have ! But, though this absurdity were ad- 
 mitted, it would not favor his cause ; for love could not 
 have a greater object than faith has, unless it were distinct 
 from it. 
 
 Mr. Fuller was sensible that he could not answer my 
 objection to his view of this passage, and therefore has re- 
 course to misrepresentation. " Mr. M'Lean," he says, 
 
 • age 199. 
 
80 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 ^' thinks that faith, love, and hope are distinct as to their na- 
 ture." — True ; but then he adds — "and that the excellency 
 ascribed to love, consists in its being holy ; whereas faith is 
 not so."* Had he given this as an inference of his own 
 from my view of faith, it might pass as a piece of reasoning, 
 however unfair ; but to state it directly as my sentiment, 
 or as what I think, is, I am sorry to say, a violation of truth, 
 and altogether unworthy of Mr. Fuller. He also affirms, that 
 "It has been farther objected," viz : to the holiness of faith, 
 "that the reception of God's testimony is compared to a 
 reception of a human testimony ; and as a disposition of 
 heart, whether holy or unholy, is not necessary to the one, 
 so neither is it to the other."| But this objection is entire- 
 ly of Mr. Fuller's own framing ; and he well knows that 
 the note he alludes to (Commission, p. 75,) contains no ob- 
 jection to the holiness of faith, as I have already abundant- 
 ly shown. See before, page 55, 56. Further, he amuses 
 his readers with part of a private conversation which passed 
 between us at Kettering : " Mr. M'Lean, when asked 
 whether hope did not imply desire, and desire love ? answer- 
 ed, Yes, hope is a modification of love. It was replied, 
 Then you have given up your argument. "J It may, per- 
 haps, have been inaccurate to term hope a modification of 
 
 ♦ Page 199. t Ibid. 
 
 t Page 199. Mr. Fuller has written this to several of his corre- 
 spondents both in England and Scotland ; some of his letters I had 
 seen before I took notice of it in the note, Commission, p. 82. My 
 visit to Mr. Fuller was not with a view to litigate points, but to culti- 
 vate intimacy and friendship, I therefore declined following out any 
 dispute upon differences which occurred in conversation ; but promis- 
 ed to write him my thoughts upon these things when I got home, 
 •which 1 accordingly did. If he thinks it dangerous to correspond 
 with authors even when names are concealed, it must be much more 
 so to converse with those of them who wish to take advantage, and 
 publish names. His proclamation of victory, however, is rather pre- 
 mature. 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. 8l 
 
 love, as it seems to throw down the apostolic distinction be- 
 tween them. All I meant was, that hope implies love; and 
 I might have added, that despair, its very opposite, also im- 
 plies love, without in the least giving up my argument. 
 But let us bring the matter to the principles of common 
 sense. An agreeable and interesting object, believed or 
 realized in the mind as such, excites love or desire. A 
 probable prospect of obtaining it, is 1 o| e . The want of this 
 is despair. But the actual enjoyment of the object, while 
 it perfects love, admits of neither hope nor despair. Here 
 the following two things are obvious, 1. That the distinc- 
 tion in the above cases is not objective ; for faith, love, de- 
 sire, hope, and despair, relate only to one object. 2. That 
 though both hope and despair imply love to that object, yet 
 they are not the same as love, for love exists most perfect- 
 ly without them. I cannot therefore give up my argument, 
 that faith, love, and hope are three, considered in themselves, 
 and that love is the greatest of these three, till I find a more 
 solid reason for doing so than anything which Mr. Fuller has 
 yet advanced. Nay, I am confident that Mr. Fuller must give 
 up his argument, before he can give any explanation of this 
 passage that will bear examination. 
 
 Though faidi, hope, and love are all holy fruits of the 
 Spirit, and inseparably connected in the hearts of true Chris- 
 tians while in this pilgrimage state ; yet love is the great- 
 est of them both in respect of its nature and duration. — 1. It 
 is the greatest of them in respect of its nature, as being 
 more like God, or bearing more of his moral image than 
 either faith or hope. We are expressly and repeatedly told 
 that "God is love," 1 John iv. 7, 8, 16 ; but it does not ap- 
 pear that either faith or hope can with any propriety be 
 ascribed to the Divine Being ; for as his wisdom, know- 
 ledo-e and understandinir are infinite, and extend immediate- 
 ly to every thing, he has no occasion to receive any thing 
 upon testimony ; and as he is possessed of perfect happi- 
 
82 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH 
 
 ness in and of himself, and has every thing that pleases 
 him immediately in his power, so there is no room to hope 
 or wish for any thing beyond this. It is evident that faith 
 and hope, however excellent, are peculiar to dependent and 
 imperfect creatures, and are adapted to our present state, 
 while as yet we have not the immediate sight and posses- 
 sion of their objects. 2. Love is the greatest in respect of 
 its duration. The state of things to which faith and hope 
 are adapted will come to an end. Their objects are things 
 not seen, and made known to us at present only by the di- 
 vine testimony and promise; but when they become objects 
 of sight and enjoyment, there will be no more occasion 
 for faith and hope ; " for what a man seeth why doth he 
 yet hope for ?" Rom. viii. 24. They will then give place 
 to the immediate vision and fruition of their objects. But 
 love never faileth. That which supersedes faith and hope 
 perfects love, which shall endure for ever in the glorified 
 state. 
 
 A time shall come, when constant faith 
 
 And patient hope shall die ; 
 One lost in certainty of sight, 
 
 And one dissolv'd m joy. 
 
 But love shall last when these no more 
 
 Shall warm the pilgrim's breast, 
 Or open on his dying eyes 
 
 His long-expected rest : 
 
 Love's unextinguish'd ray shall burn 
 Through death, unchang'd its fi-ame: 
 
 Its lamp shall triumph o'er the grave 
 With uncorrupted flame. 
 
 Thus it appears that faith, hope, and love, are in the 
 strictest propriety of speech termed three, and that the great- 
 est of these is love. And therefore every attempt to con- 
 
INCLUDES MORE THAN BELIEF. S3 
 
 found faith and love, particularly on the point of a sinner's 
 acceptance with God, is to pervert the Scripture doctrine 
 of justification by faith only. 
 
QUESTION III. 
 
 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD AS THE 
 JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY? 
 
 On this important question I shall, 1 . Recite what I have 
 already advanced in my Treatise on the Commission of 
 Christ ; and then — 2. Examine Mr. Fuller's sentiments on 
 this subject. 
 
 What I have advanced on this subject in the Commission 
 is contained in the following words : 
 
 "It will perhaps be asked, Why so nice in distinguish- 
 ing here ? What harm can arise from including in the na- 
 ture of faith such holy dispositions, affections, and exercises 
 of heart, as are confessedly inseparable from it? In answer 
 to this, let it be considered, 
 
 " 1. That unless we carefully distinguish faith from its 
 effects, particularly on the point of a sinner's acceptance 
 with God, the important doctrine of free justification by 
 faith alone will be materially affected. The Scriptures 
 pointedly declare. That God justifies sinners "freely by 
 HIS grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus 
 Christ," Rom. iii. 24, and that this justification is received 
 "through FAITH in Christ's blood," ver. 25. Faith in this 
 case is always distinguished from, and opposed to the works 
 
WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD, ETC. 85 
 
 of the law, Rom. iii. 26, 27, 28. chap. ix. 32, Gal. ii. 16, 
 chap. iii. 9 — 15, not merely of the ceremonial law which 
 was peculiar to the Jews ; but of that law by which is the 
 knowledge of sin, Rom. iii. 20, which says, " Thou shall 
 not covet," chap. vii. 7, and which requires not only out- 
 ward good actions, but love and every good disposition of 
 heart, both towards God and our neighbor, Matt. xxii. 37 
 - — 41 ; so that the works of this law respect the heart as well 
 as life. The distinction therefore between faith and works, 
 on this subject, is not that which is between inward and 
 outward conformity to the law ; for if faith is not in this 
 case distinguished from, and opposed to our conformity to 
 the law both outwardly and inwardly, it cannot be said that 
 we are '• justified by faith without the deeds of the law," 
 Rom. iii. 28, or that God "justifieth the ungodly," chap, 
 iv. 6. Faith, indeed, as a principle of action, "worketh by 
 love ;" but it is not as thus working that it is imputed for 
 righteousness ; for it is expressly declared that righteous- 
 ness is imputed "to him that worketh not, but bkliev- 
 ETH on him that justifieth the ungodly." — "It is of faith 
 that it might be by grace," chap. iv. 16, and grace and 
 works are in this case represented as incompatible with 
 each other, chap. xi. 6 ; for "to him that worketh is the 
 reward not reckoned of grace but of debt," chap. iv. 4. 
 Now, when men include in the very nature of justifying 
 faith such good dispositions, holy affections, and pious ex- 
 ercises of heart as the moral law requires, and so make them 
 necessary (no matter under what consideration) to a sin- 
 ner's acceptance 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." 
 
 "2. The eftect of such doctrine upon the mind of an 
 awakened siuner is obvious. He who conceives that, in 
 order to his pardon and acceptance with God, he must first 
 be possessed of such good dispositions and holy aflJections 
 
 8 
 
86 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 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 justi- 
 fieth 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 the salvation of his soul, must 
 set him upon attempts to reform his heart, and to do some- 
 thing under the notion of acting faith, that he may be justi- 
 fied ; and all his endeavors, prayers, and religious exercises 
 will be directed to that end." Commission of Christ, page 
 83, 84, 85. 
 
 The reader has here before him the whole of that passage 
 which Mr. Fuller so strenuously opposes, and loads with 
 the most odious consequences. He will perceive that I am 
 not here speaking of faith as it works by love, or as a principle 
 of sanctification, or holiness of heart and life (which I had 
 mentioned a little before,) but merely as it relates to justi- 
 fication, or respects the ground of a sinner's acceptance 
 with God ; so that, whatever Mr. Fuller opposes to it, must be 
 restricted to that point, otherwise it is nothing to the pur- 
 pose. The reader wiK. also observe, that I am not here de- 
 nying that faith itself is a holy principle ; but I am oppos- 
 ing those who "include in the very nature of faith as justi- 
 fying, such good dispositions, holy affections, and pious ex- 
 ercises of heart as the moral law requires, and so make them 
 necessary to a sinner's acceptance with God." This I con- 
 sider as perverting the dctiae of justification by faith alone. 
 I had no particular view to Mr. Fuller in this, it being a 
 
AS THE JUSTiriER OF THE UNGODLY* 87 
 
 thing too common with many ; but as he finds himself con- 
 cerned to defend it, he ought to do it in plain and express 
 terms, and deny that sinners are justified by faith only, that 
 there is any thing peculiar to faith in justification, or that it 
 is any more calculated to exclude boasting, and to corres- 
 pond with grace in this matter, than if we were justified by 
 love, or the exercise of any other virtue. But, instead of 
 this, he involves the subject in a train of reasoning, where- 
 in he sometimes appears to me both to admit and deny the 
 same things alternately. 
 
 What I have said of the effects of this doctrine on the 
 minds of awakened sinners, is, I am confident, fully veri- 
 fied in the experience of all who have seriously come un- 
 der its proper influence. An awakened sinner asks, ^' What 
 must I do to be saved?" and an apostle answers, "Believe 
 on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," show- 
 ing him at the same time what he is to believe, and thus he 
 is relieved and made happy, Acts xvi. 30 — 35. But a preach- 
 er of the doctrine I am opposing would have taught him an- 
 other lesson. He might, indeed,' in compliance with scrip- 
 ture language, use the word believe ; but he would tell him 
 that, in this case, it did not bear its usual sense, that it was 
 not the assent of his understanding in giving credit to the 
 testimony of the gospel, but a grace arising from a previous 
 spiritual principle, and including in it a number of holy af- 
 fections and dispositions of heart, all which he must ex- 
 ercise 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 pla- 
 cing it directly in the work finished by the Son of God up- 
 on the cross. In opposition to this I maintain, that what- 
 ever virtue or holiness may be supposed in the nature of 
 faith itself, as it is not the ground of a sinner's justification 
 
88 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 in the sight of God, so neither does it enter into the considera- 
 tion 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 ungod- 
 ly through the atonement. This view of the divine cha- 
 racter, at which others startle so much, is to him most pre- 
 cious, as being the only view which suits his case, and 
 which alone can give him hope. And though he must be 
 conscious that he now perceives and believes the gospel 
 ground of hope, and experiences relief from it ; yet he can 
 ascribe no holiness to himself on that account. His thoughts 
 centre entirely in the object of his belief as all his salva- 
 tion and all his desire. And if before this he has been se- 
 riously engaged in religious exercises to pacify his con- 
 science and make his peace with God, he will now be so far 
 from looking upon these as having prepared him for Christ, 
 or contributed to his present relief, that he will consider 
 them as having had a contrary tendency. 
 
 Mr. Fuller sometimes seems to agree with the above 
 etatement, at least in part. He admits, that " though 
 faith, as a principle of action, worketh by love ; yet it is 
 not as thus working, that it is imputed for righteousness. — 
 That justification by faith is opposed to justification by the 
 works of the law, even those works which are internal as 
 well as those which are external. — That faith is not suppos- 
 ed to justify us as a work, or holy exercise, or as being any 
 part of that which is accounted unto us for righteousness ; 
 but merely as that which unites to Christ, for the sake of 
 whose righteousness alone we are accepted."* And with 
 regard to the view which a sinner has of his own character 
 when he believes in Jesus, he says, *' He that believeth in 
 Jesus Christ, must believe in him as he is revealed in the 
 gospel : and that is as the Saviour of sinners. It is only 
 
 ♦ Page 178, 182. 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 89 
 
 as a sinner, exposed to the righteous displeasure of God, 
 that he must approach him. If he think of coming to him 
 as a favorite of heaven, or as possessed of any good quali- 
 ties which may recommend him before other sinners, he 
 deceives his soul : such notions are the bar to believ- 
 ing."*— He worketh not with respect to justification. — All his 
 hopes of mercy are those of a sinner, an ungodly sinner."! 
 
 Here Mr. Fuller admits 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 right- 
 eousness ; 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. Fuller here only means, 
 That faith does not justify as the procuring cause or meri- 
 torious ground of a sinner's justification and acceptance 
 with God ; and that while we hold this point, we may in- 
 clude as much virtue and holy exercise of the will and affec- 
 tions in the nature of justifying faith 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 be- 
 tween us does not respect the meritorious procuring cause 
 of justification ; but the way in which we receive it. The 
 Scriptures abundantly testify that we are justified by faith, 
 which shows that faith has some concern in this matter ; 
 and Mr. Fuller admits that justification is ascribed to faith 
 « merely as that which unites to Christ, for the sake of 
 whose righteousness alone we are accepted." Therefore 
 the only question between us is this. Does faith unite us to 
 Christ, and so receive justification through his righteous- 
 ness merely in crediting the divine testimony respecting 
 the sufHciency of that righteousness alone to justify us ? 
 Or, Does it unite us to Christ, and obtain justification 
 
 ♦ Page 111. t Page 185, 186. 
 
 8* 
 
90 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 through his righteousness by virtue of its being a moral ex- 
 cellency, and as including the holy exercise of the will and 
 affections'? The former is my view of this matter ; the lat- 
 ter, if I am not greatly mistaken, is Mr. Fuller's. 1 hold 
 that sinners are justified through Christ's righteousness by 
 faith alone, or purely in believing that the righteousness of 
 Christ which he finished on the cross, and which was de- 
 clared to be accepted by his resurrection from the dead, is 
 alone sufficient for their pardon and acceptance with God, 
 however guilty and unworthy they are. But, in opposition 
 to this, the whole strain of Mr. Fuller's reasoning tends to 
 show that sinners are not justified by faith alone, but by 
 faith working by love, or including in it the holy exercise 
 of the will and affections ; and this addition to faith he 
 makes to be that qualification in it on which the fitness or 
 congruity of an interest in Christ's righteousness depends.* 
 Without this addition, he considers faith itself, whatever be 
 its grounds or object, to be a mere empty unholy specula- 
 tion, which requires no influence of the Spirit to produce 
 it.f So that, if what is properly termed faith has, in his 
 opinion, any place at all in justification, it must be merely on 
 account of the holy exercises and affections which attend it. 
 In the note (Commission, p. 76), I put the question, 
 " Of what use is it to contend for the moral excellence of 
 faith, in point of justification ?" To this he answers, 1. 
 That it is of importance that faith be considered as a duty. 
 2. It is of importance that it be genuine, or such as will 
 carry us to heaven, and not dead or unproductive ; and, 3. 
 That unbelief be allowed to be a sin.":j: All this I admit is 
 of very great importance, and might be a proper answer to 
 a question relating to the marks of true faith ; to which 
 might be added, that it is of importance that faith produce 
 good works, without which it is dead, being alone. But, as 
 
 ♦ Page 183, 184. t Page 128. t Page 166. 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY, 91 
 
 it is intended as a direct answer to my question on the use 
 of the moral excellence of faith, in point of justification, it 
 must import that faith justifies as a duty, and as it is a 
 moral excellence, and productive or fruitful. 
 
 In his letter he says, " Though faith be a moral excel- 
 lency, yet it is not on account of that excellency that justi- 
 fication is ascribed to it ; for if we were justified by faith as 
 a virtue, we might as well be justified by love, &c., either 
 would be justification by our own righteousness." He 
 cannot, consistently with himself, mean any thing by this, 
 but that faith, as a virtue, is not the meritorious ground of 
 our justification ; not that it does not, as a virtue, obtain 
 justification through Christ's righteousness : for, as he in- 
 cludes the exercise of the will and affections in the very na- 
 ture of justifying faith, and confounds it so with love, as to 
 annihilate its distinctive character, we cannot in that case 
 be justified by faith as distinguished from love ; and every 
 attempt to distinguish them here, is at once to give up all 
 the arguments whereby he has endeavored to confound 
 them. 
 
 That he considers faith to justify as a virtue, is further 
 evident from what he says in the same letter : " May not 
 faith include the acquiescence of the heart, and so be a mo- 
 ral excellency ; and may there not be a fitness in God's 
 justifying those persons who thus acquiesce, without any 
 foundation being laid for boasting ]" Here we see that 
 he makes the moral excellency of faith to consist in the ac- 
 quiescence of the heart, or the exercise of the will and af- 
 fections, and places the fitness of God's justifying upon 
 that ground. My answer to this was, " That the distinction 
 between this and being justified by faith as a virtue, is too 
 fine ; for if this fitness in God's justifying, arises from the 
 moral excellency of faith, we must undoubtedly be justified 
 by faith as a virtue, in some sense or other." And in the 
 note, (Commission, p. 76,) I further observed, *' That as 
 
92 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 this fitness in God's justifying, is placed upon faith's being 
 a moral excellency, it must be such a fitness as is between 
 virtue and its reward; and so this is only a roundabout 
 way of saying that we are justified by faith as a virtue, 
 which is above acknowledged to be justification by our own 
 righteousness." 
 
 I am aware that there are different kinds of fitness. A 
 person may have a natural fitness for a certain state, not be- 
 cause he is possessed of virtue, but merely because his quali- 
 fications and that state are naturally adapted or suited to 
 each other. Again, a person may have a moral fitness for 
 a state, when his virtue commends him to it, or when he 
 is put into a good state, as a fit or suitable testimony of re- 
 gard to the moral excellency of his qualifications or acts. 
 The last, I think, must be what Mr. Fuller means by a fit- 
 ness in God's justifying, because he grounds it upon the 
 moral excellency of faith, or rather of its immediate ef- 
 fects. Yet he wishes to avoid the term moral fitness, and 
 in another letter says, " A fitness of wisdom is the whole 
 for which I contend." This, however, is no explanation of 
 his meaning ; for a fitness of wisdom applies both to a na- 
 tural and moral fitness. But as he labors to prove that the 
 virtuous exercises of the will and affections are included in 
 the nature of justifying faith, in order to show that there is 
 a fitness in God's justifying such as are thus virtuously exer- 
 cised, what other kind of fitness can he possibly mean in 
 such a connection, or according to the scope of his reason- 
 ing, but the fitness of justifying a virtuous character ? 
 
 After all, I freely admit that there is a fitness in faith cor- 
 responding to the gospel method of salvation, but it is of a 
 rery different nature from what has been stated above. The 
 salvation by Christ is communicated to men by means of 
 the revelation concerning it ; and faith alone is adapted to 
 perceive the import, and realize the truth of that revelation, 
 and so has a fitness to receive benefits conveyed by testi- 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 93 
 
 mony which no other fruit of the Spirit has. This office is 
 equally peculiar to it as seeing is to the eye, or hearing to 
 the ear, to both which it is compared, Isa. xlv. 22, ch. Ixv. 
 1, ch. Iv. 3. Again, the great doctrines of the gospel are 
 supernatural truths, which cannot be known by intuition, 
 experience, or the deductions of reason from any known 
 principles, but purely by revelation, 2 Cor. ii. 9, 10 ; and 
 the only evidence of their truth is the manifestation which 
 God hath made of himself as the Author of that revelation. 
 Now, faith is adapted to receive such truths upon the autho- 
 rity of God without any other evidence, and even when all 
 we know of nature seems to contradict them. A striking 
 instance of this we have in the faith of Abraham, which is 
 set before us as an example of ours. He believed God's 
 promise, that he should become the father of many nations : 
 and though both he and Sarah were past age, yet he took 
 not that into consideration as any objection. God, who 
 quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not 
 as though they were, had promised it, and that was enough 
 to him ; so that " against hope, he believed in hope that he 
 might become the father of many nations ; according to 
 what which was spoken. So shall thy seed be. — And being 
 fully persuaded that what he had promised, he was able also 
 to pertbrrn, and therefore it was imputed to him for righteous- 
 ness." Rom. iv. 17 — 23. In like manner righteousness 
 shall be imputed tons " if we believe on him that raised 
 up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for 
 our offences, and raised again for our justification," ver. 24, 
 25. And if our faith is of the same kind with that of Abra- 
 ham, it will surmount every discouragement arising from 
 the consideration of our natural unfitness to be justified ; it 
 being the faith of the operation of God, that raised up 
 Christ from the dead, for our justification, chap. x. 9, 10. 
 Col. ii. 12. 
 
 But the main thing to be considered on this head, is the 
 
94 WHETHER JUSIFTING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 peculiar and exclusive suitableness of faith to receive justi- 
 fication, and every other spiritual blessing purely of grace ; 
 i. e. of mere free favor to the utterly worthless and unde. 
 serving. The declared design of God in the salvation of 
 sinners, is the manifestation of his own glory, and especieJ- 
 ly the glory of his sovereign free grace. It is " that he 
 might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels 
 of mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory," Rom. ix. 
 23, — " That we should be to the praise of the glory of his 
 grace," Eph. i. 6, 12, and "that he might show the exceed- 
 ing riches of his grace, in his kindness towards us, through 
 Christ Jesus," chap. ii. 7. The sovereignty and freedom 
 of divine grace is not only displayed and magnified in elec- 
 tion and redemption in which men could not possibly have 
 any hand ; but also in the application of this redemption, 
 and particularly in justification. It is chiefly on this head 
 that the apostle insists so much on the freedom of divine 
 grace, because it is in opposition to this that the self-right- 
 eous bias of the human heart operates most powerfully, 
 leading men to seek for some virtuous qualifications in 
 themselves, that may account for their being justified. But 
 as God justifies sinners freely by his grace, through the re- 
 demption that is in Jesus Christ, Jiom. iii. 24, so faith 
 alone is adapted to receive justification purely of grace ; 
 and this the apostle clearly intimates, when he says, " There- 
 fore it is of faith, that it might be by grace," Rom. iv. 16. 
 Here we see that faith and grace are in perfect unison, and 
 suited to each other. Faith magnifies grace, and ascribes 
 all to it ; and grace admits nothing but faith, for both are 
 opposed to works. Grace and faith will not mix or com- 
 pound with works in this matter. Men must either be jus- 
 tified wholly of works, or wholly of grace through faith ; 
 for thus the apostle states the opposition, " If by grace, then 
 it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace. 
 But if it be of works, then it is uo more grace ; otherwise 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 95 
 
 work is no more work," Rom. xi. 6. From this it appears, 
 that so far as one takes place, the other is annihilated ; so 
 that if works of any kind, or upon any consideration what- 
 ever, have place in justification, grace and faith, according 
 to Paul's idea of them, can have none. Justification, in 
 that case, would be reckoned of works, not of faith ; of 
 debt, not of grace, chap. iv. 4. And that this is the sense, 
 is plain from what he opposes to it, " But to him that worketh 
 not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his 
 faith is counted for righteousness," ver. 6. This is, indeed, 
 a supernatural method of justification, very opposite to our 
 natural notions and self-righteous bias ; and therefore we 
 need not wonder that it hath met with so much opposition 
 from the beginning, under the most pious and specious pre- 
 texts. Nothing but a supernatural faith, like that of Abra- 
 ham, can answer to it, or receive it ; and that is the gift of 
 God. 
 
 I had said, that " 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 considera- 
 tion) to a sinner's acceptance with God, it perverts the apos- 
 tle's doctrine on this important subject, and makes justifi- 
 cation to be at least, as it were, by the works of the law." 
 Commission, p. 84. 
 
 To this he answers, " That we may judge whether this 
 assertion be well founded, it is necessary to examine the 
 evidence on which it rests ; and this, if I mistake not, is 
 confined to the phraseoloiiy of a single passage of Scripture. 
 If this passage (namely, Rom. iv. 4, 5,) do not prove the 
 point for which it is alleged, I know of no other that does ; 
 and, what is more, the whole tenor of Scripture teaches a 
 doctrine directly opposite."* 
 
 ♦ Page 184. 
 
96 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 Why Mr. Fuller mentions the phraseology of Rom. iv. 
 4, 5, I know not, unless it be to insinuate that it is in- 
 cautiously or improperly expressed, and so not to be under- 
 stood according to the most obvious and natural sense of the 
 words ; though the apostle is there arguing upon the sub- 
 ject in the most close and pointed manner. And it is cer- 
 tain that it must undergo a very great change, both in phrase- 
 ology and sense, before it can please him, or be accommo- 
 dated to his scheme. Yet, as Dr. Owen says, " we must 
 not forego this testimony of the Holy Ghost, let men be 
 as angry as they please." But it seems the evidence on 
 which I rest my assertion "^ is confined to this single passage 
 of Scripture." Supposing this were the case, as it is not, 
 would not asingle passage, if it is plain, express, and agreeable 
 to the scope, be sufficient evidence 1 The truth is, in my as- 
 sertion I had no particular view to this passage more than 
 to many others, several of which I refer to at bottom of p. 
 83, 84 ; and I may now add, that all the passages which 
 prove — that there is none righteous, no not one, but that all 
 have sinned and come short of the glory of God — that no 
 flesh can be justified by the works of the law either internal 
 or external — that justification is of free grace through the 
 redemption that is in Jesus Christ, and received by faith 
 alone — that grace and faith in this matter are in direct op- 
 position to works, debt, or any comparative ground of boast- 
 ing — and, in short, every argument which the apostle 
 uses on this head in his epistles to the Romans and Gala- 
 tians, all unite in proving that sinners are justified by faith 
 only, and not by the works of the law. Consequently this 
 doctrine is perverted when sinners are told that they cannot 
 be justified till they are previously possessed of such holy 
 afi'ections and virtuous dispositions of heart as the moral 
 law (which is not of faith) requires. This is what I assert, 
 and, in opposition to it. Mr. Fuller asserts, " that the whole 
 tenor of Scripture teaches a doctine directly opposite to 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 97 
 
 this :" That is, it teaches that sinners are justified not only 
 by faith, but also by holy affections and virtuous dispositions 
 of heart ; or, in other words, by their holiness and con- 
 formity to the law. It is evident, therefore, that the difference 
 betwixt us is very wide, and, considering the nature of the 
 subject, of vast importance. But he proceeds, 
 
 '* If by him that worketh not, and the ungodly whom 
 God justifieth, be meant persons who at the time had never 
 done any good thing in the sight of God, and who were ac- 
 tually under the dominion of enmity against him, Mr. M.'s 
 assertion will be granted him."* 
 
 It is my opinion, that him that worketh not, means per- 
 sons who have never done any good works in the sight of 
 God, or acceptable to him, previous to their believing and 
 being justified ; otherwise it would not be true that God 
 justifieth the ungodly; nor would their believing on him as 
 the justifier of such be true faith, but the belief of a false- 
 hood. I have no notion that the apostle means any thing 
 different, far less contrary, to what he plainly says, as if he 
 meant that God justifies the godly, though he does it as if 
 they were ungodly. Such a sense is not only an addition 
 to the apostle's words, but flatly contradicts them. On tiie 
 other hand, it never entered into my heart to imagine that 
 him that worketh not, but believeth, is descriptive of those 
 who, from the first moment of their believing, " are actually 
 under the dominion of enmity against God." On the con- 
 trary, it is my firm belief that the persona here described 
 are immediately reconciled to God by that which they now 
 believe, and as soon as they believe. Therefore my asser- 
 tion respecting the perversion of the doctrine of justifica- 
 tion has nothing to do with the execrable sentiment upon 
 which Mr. Fuller wishes to found it ; but it is founded up- 
 on the following principles which are intimately connected 
 
 ♦ Page 185. 
 9 
 
98 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH REiPEeTS GOD 
 
 on this subject. 1st. That belief, in its nature, is different 
 from the works of the law, whether these consist of holy af- 
 fections and virtuous dispositions of heart, or outward ac- 
 tions ; for the law is not of faith. 2iid, That believing on 
 him that justifieth the ungodly, is justifying faith ; for this 
 faith is counted for righteousness. 3rd. That such a belief 
 is inconsistent with working in order to be justified ; and, 
 4th. That every convicted sinner, till he thus believes, must 
 necessarily work with a view to justification, for he can 
 have no idea of obtaining it in any other way. If, therefore^ 
 Mr. Fuller would disprove my assertion, he must either re- 
 fute these principles, or show that the doctrine I oppose is 
 consistent with them. 
 
 But it will be proper to set before the reader at once Mr. 
 Fuller's view of Rom. iv. 4, 6, which amounts shortly to this. 
 
 That ''by him that worketh not, and the ungodly whom 
 God justifieth, is not meant persons who," previous to their 
 justification, and ''at the time, had never done any good 
 thing in the sight of God, but were actually under the do- 
 minion of enmity against him ; for the apostle is speaking 
 of believers. He that worketh not is at the same time said 
 to believe ; but whenever this can be said of a man, it can- 
 not with truth be affirmed of him that he has done nothing 
 good in the sight of God, or that he is under the dominion 
 of enmity against him, and has actually wrought nothing 
 for God. Holiness may precede justification as to time, 
 and it may be necessary, on some account, that it should 
 precede it, and yet have no causal influence upon it. 
 If antecedent holiness destroy the freeness of grace, I 
 know of no solid reason why consequent holiness should 
 not operate in the same way ; and then, in order to 
 be justified by grace, it will be necessary to continue the en- 
 emies of God through life." But, whatever degree of holi- 
 ness, previous to his justification, it may be necessary for 
 him to possess, however much he may have wrought for God, 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 99 
 
 and whatever good he may have done in his sight ; yet " he 
 worketh not with respect to justification, but in all his deal- 
 ings with God for acceptance, comes not as righteous, but 
 as ungodly. So that the character described by the apostle 
 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 be- 
 lieving on him that justifieththe ungodly." And this sense 
 of the passage, he thinks, is decisively proved by " the ex- 
 amples which the apostle refers to for the illustration of his 
 doctrine, namely, Abraham and David," who were both holy 
 men many years before they are said to be justified.* 
 
 On this view of the passage I shall make a few remarks, 
 and then give the sense in which I understand it. 
 
 First, There are several things here stated which are not 
 disputed by me, but agree well with my view of the passage, 
 
 * Page 180, 185, 186, 187, 188. This is exactly Mr. Hopkins's doc- 
 trine of justification, and of the antecedent holiness necessary to iL 
 According to him, a person must not only be convinced of his guilt, 
 and the just condemnation due to it ; but he muit have the true know- 
 ledge of God, and a new heart, a humble, penitent, and contrite heart 
 to hate sin as such, and to love God and delight in his law ; and all 
 this not only previous to his justification, and in order to it, but even 
 previous to his knowledge of the Mediator and faith in him. And 
 he scruples not to affirm, that those " who have never been reconciled 
 to God and his holy law in any other way, but by first seeing and be- 
 lieving in the grace of God through Christ, are yet ignorant of the 
 true grace of God, and enemies to it." Two Discourses, page 24, 
 25, note. Mr. Booth, in his Glad Tidings, has made some very just 
 animadversions on this author's sentiments. Mr. T. Scott has also 
 made a few but very pertinent remarks on the distinguishing tenet."? 
 of the American divines, and particularly alludes to Hopkins, when 
 he says, "they have certainly advanced positions which obscure the 
 glory of the gospel, and embarrass the minds of inquirers with many 
 unscriptural distinctions." — The Warrant and Nature of Faith ia 
 Christ, page 3, 4- 
 
100 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 as — 1. It is not denied that the apostle is here speaking of 
 believers. I have no notion that any are justified till they 
 believe, though I consider their believing and justification 
 to be coeval. — 2. Nor is it denied that believing is a good 
 thing. It is an effect of the regenerating influence of the 
 Spirit and word of God, and the principle of all holy affec- 
 tions and good dispositions, though in justification it is dis- 
 tinguished irom them ; and therefore, when I deny that holy 
 dispositions or good works are required as necessary to jus- 
 tification, I surely do not mean to deny that faith itself is 
 necessary to it. — 3. Far less do I affirm (as Mr. Fuller 
 would have me,) that a person who believes is still "actual, 
 ly under the dominion of enmity against God;" on the con- 
 trary, I maintain, that what he believes instantly removes 
 the enmity of his heart and reconciles him to God, exciting 
 love to him and hatred of sin. — 4. It is admitted that he 
 that believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, worketh 
 not with respect to justification, either at the first moment 
 of his believing, or (if he continues in the faith) through 
 his whole life after ; for that would be inconsistent with 
 such a belief. — 5. It is also admitted that a believer needs 
 pardon, not only for the sins of his past life when he first 
 believes, but a continued exercise of pardoning mercy for 
 the sins he commits afterwards during the whole course of 
 his pilgrimage in this world. Hence believers are exhorted 
 to repent of their sins, to confess them, and to come to the 
 throne of grace that they may obtain mercy, which is pro- 
 mised to them through the attonement and intercession of 
 Christ, Heb. iv. 16, 1 John i. 7, chap, ii. 1, 2. But I ob- 
 serve. 
 
 Secondly, That Mr. Fuller explains the term {affsprjs) 
 UNGODLY, in this passage, to mean only the godly, and 
 none else ; for he represents them as persons who have la- 
 bored and wrought for God, and done good in his sight 
 previous to their justification ; and affirms, that " holiness 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 101 
 
 may precede justification as to time, and that it may be ne- 
 cessary on some accounts that it should precede it." In. 
 short, he would have us to believe that the apostle uses this 
 term in a sense quite opposite to its usual meaning, and 
 such as will fitly apply to the most godly saint on earth ; for 
 he maintains that " the character described by the apostle is 
 not merely applicable to a Christian at the first moment of 
 his believing, but through the whole of life." I suppose he 
 will admit there are some godly characters in the world, and 
 that he would not reckon them properly characterized by 
 any author who should term them the ungodly ; nay, though 
 he should add the opposite character to it, and call them un- 
 godly godly persons, which comes nearer the character he 
 has in view : Why, then, does he attribute such a glaring 
 impropriety of speech to the inspired apostle, who is argu- 
 ing closely upon the most important subject 1 The word 
 ungodly occurs in the New Testament, I believe, seven or 
 eight times, and the word ungodliness, about six ; but nei- 
 ther of them are ever used to characterize persons actually 
 converted, but the very reverse ; and therefore it would be 
 strange beyond all example, if the apostle had used it here 
 in a sense altogether opposite to its usual acceptation. 
 
 Mr. Fuller, however, ventures to produce another passage 
 where the word ungodly signifies the godly, viz. Rom. v. 6, 
 " Christ is said to have died for the ungodly. Did he then 
 lay down his life only for those who at the time were ac- 
 tually 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."* According to 
 this, Christ could not have died only for the ungodly or his 
 enemies, unless he has died before there were any saints 
 upon earth ! But it is plain, beyond all dispute, that the 
 word ungodly in this passage has not the least reference to 
 
 ♦ Page 188. 
 9'' 
 
102 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAlTH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 any as godly ; and though it may include all the saints both 
 before and at the time of Christ's death ; yet it respects 
 none of them as saints, but is expressive of their former ir- 
 regenerate state, wlierein they are classed with all the rest 
 of the ungodly for whom Christ died, and so are strictly 
 and properly termed such, as having been really ungodly, 
 enemies, and children of wrath, even as others. The apos- 
 tle is writing to Christians, among whom he includes him- 
 self; and, to set forth the exceeding greatness of the love of 
 God towards them, he brings to view their former state and 
 character as being without strength, ungodly, sinners, ene- 
 mies ; and so he expresses himself not in the present, but 
 past tense, thus, " When we were yet without strength in 
 due time Christ died for the ungodly. — While we were 
 YET sinners Christ died for us. — If when we were ene- 
 mies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son," 
 &c. ver. 6, 8, 10. This passage, therefore, makes nothing 
 for Mr. Fuller's purpose, but proves, on the contrary, that 
 Christ died for such as in the strictest sense were ungodly, 
 even as ch. iv. 5, proves that God is the justifier of such, 
 and that justifying faith is a believing on him under that 
 character. 
 
 Thirdly, Mr. Fuller thinks it makes no diiference as to 
 the freeiiess of grace in justification, whether holiness be 
 required in order of time before it, or after it ; for he says, 
 "If antecedent holiness destroy the freeness of grace, I 
 know of no solid reason why consequent holiness should 
 not operate in the same way. — It is not the priority of time 
 that makes any difference, but that of causation." So that, 
 according to him, it makes no difference whether holiness 
 be required before justification or after it ; if holiness is not 
 the cause of justification, grace is equally free in both cases. 
 But Paul was of a very different mind, who, in setting forth 
 the freeness of grace in election, redemption, and justifica- 
 tion, lays a great deal of stress upon its priority in order of 
 
A3 THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 103 
 
 time to any holiness in us, and by this he demonstrates that 
 no holiness or works of ours can possibly be the cause. 
 He represents election as prior not only to our existence, 
 but to the creation of the world, to show that it is entirely 
 of grace, and not of our works or holiness ; and illustrates 
 the freedom and sovereignty of grace in it by the distinc- 
 tion made between Esau and Jacob, while as yet they were 
 not born, or had done any good or evil previous to the re- 
 velation of the divine purpose respecting them, Eph. i. 4. 
 Rom. xi. 5, 6, chap. ix. 11 — 14. With the same view he 
 represents the death of Christ as prior to any holiness, at 
 least either in himself or those he writes to ; and that it 
 was when they were yet without strength, ungodly, sinners, 
 and enemies that he died for them, Rom. v. 6 — 11. With 
 regard to justification, he takes pains to show that Abraham 
 was justified by faith in God's promise before he was pos- 
 sessed of that holiness, or had done any of those works 
 which the Judaizers made necessary to it, and while he was 
 only an uncircumcised Gentile, Rom. iv. 9 — 13. He also 
 founds an argument upon the priority of the promise, 
 (which includes the Gentiles,) to the giving of the law of 
 Moses, to show that the blessing freely promised is not ob- 
 tained by men's holiness or works, but purely by faith that 
 it might be by grace, and so sure to all Abraham's spiritual 
 seed both of Jews and Gentiles, Rom. iv. 13 — 17. Gal. 
 iii. 8, 9, 17, 18. Further, he takes notice of the Lord's 
 words in Isaiah, " I was found of them that sought me not ; 
 I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me," 
 Rom. X, 20, which exclude men's holiness not only as the 
 cause, but as antecedent to the blessing here promised. And 
 this corresponds with the Scripture instances of God's be- 
 ing found of, and made manifest to guilty sinners ; for what 
 holiness had Mary Magdelene, Zaccheus, the thief on the 
 cross, the three thousand converted on the day of Pentecost, 
 Saul the persecutor, the Philippian jailor, or, in short, anv 
 
104 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 of all the idolatrous Gentiles, previous to their believing the 
 gospel 1 
 
 But I must further observe, that when holiness (under 
 whatever consideration) is required of a sinner previous, or 
 in order to his being justified, justification cannot appear to 
 him to be of free grace through faith as opposed to works. 
 He indeed may admit that any holiness in him cannot 
 merit justification, and that in this respect he can only be 
 justified through the righteousness of Christ ; but still he 
 must look upon this antecedent holiness as coming betwixt 
 him and Christ, and as absolutely necessary to his obtain- 
 ing an interest in Christ's righteousness and justification 
 by it. He must necessarily view justification as suspended 
 upon his possessing this antecedent holiness, and so con- 
 sider it as the condition on which he is to be justified, which 
 must have the same effect upon his mind as if he were to 
 be justified by the works of the law. And if he is really 
 concerned about the salvation of his soul, this antecedent 
 holiness will engage his attention first of all, and lead him 
 to strive and pray that he may possess it in order to his ob- 
 taining justification. So that, while he has this view of the 
 matter, he must necessarily be following after righteousness, 
 or seeking to obtain justification as it were by the works of 
 tlie law, or by a kind of antecedent holiness, which, though 
 it may go under another name, yet, when made necessary to 
 his justification, differs nothing in its nature and tendency, 
 for words cannot alter the nature of things. In short, while 
 he considers this antecedent holiness as necessary to his 
 justification, he can have no idea that God justifieth the 
 ungodly, nor can he believe on him under that character. 
 
 Fourthly, Though Mr. Fuller pleads for the necessity of 
 holiness antecedent to justification, (when the sinner must 
 be supposed without any actual union with Christ, and so 
 in a state of condemnation, as all arc till they are justified) ; 
 yet he also maintains that whatever previous holiness may 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 105 
 
 be required of a sinner, and sought after by him as neces- 
 sary to his being justified, "he vvorketh not with respect to 
 justification, but in all his dealings with God for accept- 
 ance, comes not as righteous, but as ungodly." But it is 
 most evident, that if an awakened sinner believes that he 
 cannot be justified without antecedent holiness, he must of 
 necessity work to obtain that holiness in order to his being 
 justified, and so have a respect to justification in his work- 
 ing. He may, indeed, apply to God while he views himself 
 as an ungodly sinner ; but it is to obtain this previous holi- 
 ness that he may be justified, and his aim in all his reli- 
 gious exercises and dealings with God must have this for 
 its object ; because the very nature of such a principle pre- 
 cludes the idea that he can be justified as a mere sinner, or 
 while he views himself as such, and so is inconsistent with 
 his believing on him that justifieth the ungodly. 
 
 Fifthly, Mr. Fuller imagines, that if men admit what he 
 calls the grand principle on which the apostle rests the doc- 
 trine of justification by grace, viz. It is written. Cursed is 
 every one that continueth not in all things written in 
 the book of the law to do them. Gal. iii. 10 ; and if they al- 
 so admit that the righteousness of Clirist, and not their 
 own personal holiness, is the procuring cause of justifica- 
 tion,* this will sufficiently guard the freeness of grace in 
 justification, whatever antecedent holiness may be required 
 of men, or sought after by them in order to obtain it. But 
 I apprehend this is a very great mistake. True, indeed, such 
 as are thoroughly convinced that they have actually incur- 
 red and justly deserve the curse of the divine law — that 
 they cannot possibly deliver themselves from that curse by 
 any supposed doing, exercise, or holiness of theirs, perform- 
 ed in their own strength or by any assistance whatever — 
 that the only work by which redemption from this curse is 
 
 * Page 179, 180. 
 
108 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 which they include every virtuous and holy disposition of 
 heart as necessary to justification. The former paid no re- 
 gard to Paul's authority as an inspired apostle, but avowed- 
 ly contradicted him : but the latter admit the inspiration 
 of the apostle, and contradict him only in their method of 
 explaining his words. Both, however, agree in this, that 
 God does not justify the ungodly. 
 
 Sixthly, Mr. Fuller affirms "that the character described 
 by the apostle," namely, the ungodly, " is not merely appli- 
 cable to a Christian at the 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 justi- 
 fieth the ungodly." But the apostle does not say that the 
 person who worketh not, but believeth, is ungodly, far less 
 that such a character is applicable to a Christian through 
 the whole of life. This is a glaring misconstruction of the 
 apostle's meaning, and contrary to the whole tenor of 
 Scripture. The apostle does not use the word ungodly to 
 describe the existing character of an actual believer ;* but 
 
 ♦ It may well excite surprise and regret that Mr. M'Lean should 
 have been betrayed into such an inconsistency as is involved in the 
 denial that God justifies those who are in a state of enmity against 
 Him — a sentiment equally inconsistent with the Scriptures and with the 
 whole scope of his own performance. Tlie same sentiment is ad- 
 vanced in two other passages, and in each of them the reason assigned 
 is such as almost to justify the idea that the writer meant to deny 
 something very different from what his words express. On page 37 
 it is said "I indeed afHrm, &.c. Yet I never supposed that any, from 
 the moment of their thus believing, are in a state of enmity against 
 God, or that God justifies them while in that state." And on page — ■ 
 it is said, "Far less do I affirm, as Mr. Fuller would have me, that a 
 person who believes is still actually under the dominion of enmity 
 against God : on the contrary, I maintain that what he believes, in- 
 stantly removes the enmity of his heart, and reconciles him to God, 
 exciting love to Him and hatred of sin," Here we have the instant 
 and sure effect of the truth in reconciling the heart to God, adduced as 
 
• AS THE JUSTIFYER Of THE UNGODLY. 109 
 
 brings it in under a description of his faith in God : He is 
 one who "believethon him that justifieth the ungodly." 
 Should we search the Scriptures from the beginning to the 
 end, we shall nowhere find the word ungodly used to de- 
 scribe the existing character of real believers in God, 
 though it is twice used to describe their former state and 
 character. It is therefore very strange that Mr. Fuller 
 should put such an unnatural sense upon the word in this 
 passage, as it bears nowhere else in all the word of God ; 
 and it is no less so, that he should fix the character of un- 
 godly upon real believers through the whole of life after 
 their justification, in order to prove that they were holy or 
 godly prior to it ! 
 
 In support of these contradictory notions, he finds it 
 necessary to advance another strange sentiment, namely, 
 "That we have to deal with Christ for justification more 
 than once." I have reason to think that Mr. Fuller's view 
 of justification is pretty singular, and that he does not con- 
 
 proof that God does not justify his enemies. But are we to rcard 
 Mr. M'Lean as here affirming that faith and its effects are coeval, or 
 that God justifies men not as believers, but as bringing forth the fruits 
 of faith'? If he affirms neither of these, how can he deny that God 
 justifies men in a state of enmity to him ? If what he believes slay 
 the enmity of the sinner's heart, and he is justified as a believer 
 surely he is justified while stout-hearted against God, and in arms 
 against him. If, as is here said, the term ungodly do not describe the 
 existing character of an actual believer, how does it appear that God 
 justifies the ungpdly '? for it is the believer whom he justifies — and not 
 rather one who was once ungodly, but who at the moment of his jus- 
 tification has lost that character. But Mr. M'Lean has himself 
 proved at length that the term ungodly is never applied in the Scrip- 
 tures to those who love God, and are reconciled to him: As this er- 
 ror is one which forms no part of that truth for which Mr. M'Lean 
 contends, but is, on the contrary, clearly inconsistent with, and subver- 
 sireof it, it is hoped that the reader will thus regard it, and so dis- 
 criminate between the errors and inconsistencies of the writer and the 
 consistent and immutable truth which he labors to defend. Ed. 
 
 10 
 
110 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 sider it as any specific act of God at all, but only the uni-» 
 form declarations of the word of God, (the statute-book of 
 heaven,) as to what characters are exempted from the curse 
 of the law, and entitled to everlasting life. Nor does he 
 consider it as a blessing conferred at once : " Justification," 
 he says, *^ is not of so transient a nature as to be begun 
 and ended in an instant — It is described in language which 
 is expressive of its continuity — It is God that justifieth ; 
 who is he that condemneth? He that believeth on the Son 
 hath everlasting life — Hence also believers in every stage of 
 life deal with Christ for justification, desiring nothing more than 
 that they may be found in him, not having their own right- 
 eousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the 
 faith of Christ, the righteousness wliich is of God by faith."* 
 Now, if it is a truth that justification is carried on through 
 every stage of a believei*'s life, it will indeed follow that 
 he must bear the character of ungodly unto the end, as he 
 is not completely freed from condemnation, nor perfectly 
 justified by the righteousness of Christ, any more than he 
 is perfectly sanctified while in this world. But is this Paul's 
 doctrine of justification ? Far from it. The passages he 
 refers to are nothing to his purpose. I need not show this 
 as to Rom. viii. 3.3, and John iii. 36, the reader will per- 
 ceive it at once; and as to Phil. iii. 8 — 15, Paul does not 
 there represent himself as dealing with Christ for justifica- 
 tion, as if he had not yet obtained mercy, or an acquittal 
 from the sentence of condemnation, or as laboring to obtain 
 that justification which is to him that worketh not, but be- 
 lieveth : but he is guarding the Philippians against tlie in- 
 fluence of the Jews or Judaizing teachers, by opposing 
 his example to theirs, in his setting at nought all his own 
 legal righteousness in which he formerly boasted, and count- 
 
 ♦ See Gaius's paper in the Protestant Dissenter's Magazine for 
 April, 1799, p. 145. 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. Ill 
 
 hig it but as loss and dung in comparison of the excellen- 
 cy of the knowledge of Chirst Jesus his Lord, and of his 
 being found in him, having the righteousness which is of 
 God by faith, as opposed to works. With this view he also 
 sets his example before the Galatians, (chap. ii. 18, 19, 20, 
 21. chap. vi. 13, 14,) not as laboring for justification, but 
 living by it. In like manner he also sets before the Philip- 
 pians how earnestly he pressed after conformity to Christ, 
 and pursued the Christian race, that he might at last obtain 
 the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, or the 
 crown of righteousness and glory which fadeth not away. 
 See 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8. 1 Pet. v. 4. Thus, being alreadyjus- 
 tified by faith, he labored that he might be accepted, approv- 
 ed and rewarded at last as a faithful servant of Jesus Christ, 
 2 Cor. v. 9, 10. A proper view of this would remove any 
 apparent difficulty in reconciling Paul and James on this 
 subject ; compare Rom. iii. 28, with James ii. 24. But I 
 must not enter upon this at present. 
 
 . Had Mr. Fuller only affirmed that believers have the re- 
 mains of a corrupt nature in them, and are daily sinning 
 while in this world; that they have constant cause to be 
 humbled on that account before God, to confess their sins, 
 and pray to their Heavenly Father that they may obtain 
 mercy through the atonement and intercession of Christ, 
 (Matt. vi. 12; 1 John i. 7, 8, 9 ; Heb. iv. 16,) or had he 
 affirmed that pardon does not respect them as godly, but 
 as guilty, and that, as such, they must always apply for it, 1 
 should have most heartily agreed to all this : but to affirm 
 that believers are characterized in Scripture as ungodly 
 through the whole of life, and that they are not completely 
 justified at once when they believe in Christ, appears to me 
 a very unscriptural view of this important subject. Our 
 Lord says, " He that heareth my words, and believeth on 
 him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come 
 
112 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 into condemnation ; but is passed from death unto life," 
 John V. 24. Paul declares, that " by him all that believe 
 ARE JUSTIFIED from all things," Acts xiii. 39, and that 
 '^ there is now no condemnation to them who are in Christ 
 Jesus," Rom. viii. 1. Justification is a change of the sin- 
 ner's state ; for hereby he passes from a state of guilt, con- 
 demnation, and death, into a state of pardon, acceptance, 
 life and peace with God ; and this change of state is always 
 represented as taking place at once when men believe the 
 gospel. A person must either be in a state of justification 
 or condemnation, for there is no middle state ; and as the 
 righteousness of God which is by the faith of Christ, is un- 
 to all and upon all them that believe, so they must be per- 
 fectly justified from all things, and accepted in the Beloved, 
 though the privileges and blessings pertaining to this justi- 
 fied state continue to be dispensed according to the believ- 
 er's need. But I need not insist on this, as Mr. Fuller, not- 
 withstanding what he says above, admits " that we are intro- 
 duced into this blessed state at the moment of our believing. 
 From that instant we are no more under the law, but under 
 grace. The curses of the former stand no longer against 
 us, and the blessings of the latter become our portion." 
 
 Lastly, He produces the examples to which the apostle 
 refers for the illustration of his doctrine, viz. Abraham and 
 David, which he thinks are decisive of the question. On 
 the former he observes, that " if Abraham at the time he is 
 said to have believed God, and it was counted to him for. 
 righteousness, had never done any good thing, and was ac- 
 tually the enemy of God, Mr. M's position is established ; 
 but if the contrary is true, it is overturned ;" and then he 
 adduces Gen, xii. 1, Heb. xi. S, to prove that he was a be* 
 liever several years before he is said to be justified in Gen. 
 XV. 6. 
 
 If Abraham was a believer several years before he was 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY, 113 
 
 justified, it will indeed serve to illustrate Mr. Fuller's doc- 
 trine respecting the necessity of antecedent holiness ; but 
 then it must be observed that the apostle does not produce 
 this part of Abraham's example, or make the least mention 
 of it for the illustration of his doctrine, nor does it appear 
 that it would have suited his purpose in arguing with Juda- 
 izers. Hence there is ground to suspect that the apostle's 
 doctrine is not exactly the same with Mr. Fuller's on this 
 head. Indeed, if it can be shown that the faith whereby 
 Abraham was justified included a previous course of holi- 
 ness for several years, I am apprehensive that it will not 
 only overturn my position, which is a small matter, but also 
 the whole scope of the apostle's reasoning on this subject. 
 
 As Mr. Fuller has misquoted my words, and also repre- 
 sented me as maintaining that Abraham was justified while 
 he was actually the enemy of God, the reader will observe 
 that the position which he combats is this, viz. " When men 
 include in the very nature of justifying faith such good dis- 
 positions, holy affections, and pious exercises of heart 
 as the moral law requires, and so make them necessary to a 
 sinner's acceptance with God, they pervert the apostle's doc- 
 trine upon this important subject." Commission, p. S4. 
 In this position I suppose that sinners are justified by taith 
 only, as opposed to works — that holy dispositions, affec 
 tions, and exercises are internal works of the law, and ef- 
 fects of faith — that to include these in the nature of faith as 
 it justifies, is to give the same place to them in justification 
 as to faith itself, and so to pervert the apostle's doctrine, 
 who, from the whole of his premises on the subject, draws 
 this conclusion, " That a man is justified by faith without 
 the deeds of the law," Rom. iii. 28. 
 
 Now, in opposition to this, Mr. Fuller aftlrms That 
 the property of working by love is not only an immediate 
 and inseparable efTect of faith, but belongs to its nature as 
 justifying, and that, as thus working, it is necessary to justi- 
 
 10* 
 
114 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 fication.* That those who are described as working not, 
 and as the ungodly, whom God justifieth, are really persons 
 of an opposite character to what the words plainly express ; 
 but that they are represented as ungodly, and as not work- 
 ing, because, however godly they are, and however much 
 they have wrought tor God during a series of years previ- 
 ous to their being justified, yet they work not with respect 
 to justification, but in all their dealings with God for accept- 
 ance, come not as righteous, but as ungodly. And this 
 sense of the words, he thinks, is supported by that part of 
 Abraham and David's example which the apostle has thought 
 proper to omit.| Thus he overturns my position, by re- 
 versing the plain sense of the apostle's words, making the 
 ungodly to be the godly, who have a humble opinion of their 
 own character, and their working for God during a series 
 of years previous to their justification, to be notwithstand- 
 ing their not working with respect to it ! By the same rule 
 of interpretation he might have told us, that those who trust 
 in their own righteousness for justification are godly, be- 
 cause they imagine themselves to be so, and in all their 
 dealings with God for acceptance, come not as sinners, but 
 as godly ; and though they are real workers of iniquity, it 
 may, however, be truly affirmed of them, that they work it 
 not, because they do not work it with a view of being 
 either justified or condemned for it. 
 
 But it is time to return to the example of Abraham and 
 David. Let it then be observed, that the great apostle of 
 the Gentiles is establishing the doctrine of free justification 
 by faith without works ; and though his argument excludes 
 all works of every kind in obedience to any law whatever, 
 whether moral or positive, yet he has a particular view to the 
 state of the controversy as carried on between him and the 
 Jews or Judaizing teachers of his time. They maintained 
 
 ♦ Page 183, 184. t Page 185, 187. 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 115 
 
 that except men were circumcised and kept the law of 
 Moses, th*^/ could not be saved, Acts xv. 1, 6. Gal. vi. 12, 
 13. In opposition to this he shows that some of" the best 
 and most respected characters among their ancestors, and 
 who had been remarkably distinguished as the favorites of 
 Heaven, were not justified by circumcision or any works of 
 theirs whatever, but purely by faith ; and for this he pro- 
 duceth the example of Abraham, their venerable patriarch, 
 and the testimony of David who was a prophet, and one of 
 the most eminent of their kings. 
 
 With regard to Abraham, though he was no doubt justi- 
 fied, or received into a state of favor with God when he 
 called him at first, and made himself known to him. Gen. 
 xii. 1, yet that passage of his history was not sufficiently 
 explicit for the apostle's purpose ; for though it supposes, it 
 does not expressly mention Abraham's faith or justification, 
 but only his obedience to the divine call. Nor was it to 
 his purpose to refer the Judaizers to that remarkable instance 
 of his faith, in offering up his son Isaac, which was so high- 
 ly approved of God, Gen. xxii. 10 — 19, for they could have 
 replied, that that was a work, and performed after he was 
 circumcised and in covenant with God, and so did not sup- 
 port his position, but was rather a proof of their own doc- 
 trine. Therefore, to refute the Jewish argument, he must 
 bring an express proof that Abraham was justified merely 
 by faith, and that before God had formally made a covenant 
 with him, and while he was yet an uncircumcised Gentile.* 
 And to prove this, he produceth Gen. xv. 6, "Abraham 
 believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteous- 
 ness." This passage was directly in point, and fully to 
 his purpose in all respects. The use he makes of it is 
 
 * It appears to liave been an opinion amon^ the Jews, that Abra- 
 ham was not pure, or accepted with God, till after liis circumcision, 
 (See Whitby on Rom. iv, 1,) and therefore it was necessary to produce 
 an express Scripture testimony to the contrary. 
 
116 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 chiefly to show — That Abraham was justified by faith alone, 
 or believing God ; and that not only in distinction from, 
 but in opposition to all works of any kind, done in any 
 view, or required under any consideration whatever, ver. 4, 
 5, 6, 16. — That he was justified while an uncircumcised 
 Gentile ; and that his circumcision afterwards was a seal 
 of his being previously justified by faith, that in this he 
 might be a pattern of the justification of all them that be- 
 lieve, though they be not circumcised, ver. 9 — 13 ; and to 
 this purpose he applies at last all that he had said on the 
 subject, ver. 23, 24, 25. Thus he entirely overturned the 
 argument of the Jews, who could not plead that Abraham 
 was justified by any holiness or good works of his previous 
 to his being circumcised, without giving up their plea for 
 the necessity of circumcision to justification. 
 
 But it will perhaps be said, That though the apostle's ar- 
 gument is a sufiicient refutation of the Jewish antecedent 
 holiness, it does not exclude that antecedent holiness which 
 Mr. Fuller pleads for, because that was prior not only to 
 Abraham's circumcision, but also to the time referred to 
 Gen. XV. 6, when he is said to have righteousness imputed 
 to him, and so is beyond the limits of the apostle's argu- 
 ment with the Jews. Now, to this I answer, 
 
 1. That it is evident from the whole of the'apostle's doc- 
 trine on this important subject, that he not only excludes 
 circumcision and the holiness which the Jews supposed con- 
 nected with it, from being antecedently necessary to justi- 
 fication ; but he also excludes all holiness or good works 
 whatever, either ceremonial or moral, which can in any 
 sense be denominated the works of the law, performed 
 either by Jew or Gentile, with respect to justification, or 
 in any other view, from being antecedently necessary to it. 
 He lays the foundation of all that he says upon it, by 
 proving that bodi Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, and 
 in a state of guiltand condemnation, Rom. iii. 9, 19, 23, 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 117 
 
 and that they are without strength, enemies to God, and un- 
 godly, chap. v. 6, 10, This cuts out every idea that men 
 can possess any holiness, or perform any acceptable works 
 previous to their deliverance from that state ; and to suppose 
 they can, is a flat contradiction to the Scripture account of 
 man's natural state. Further, he shows that sinners are jus- 
 tified freely by God's grace through the redemption that is 
 in Jesus Christ, Rom. iii. 24. Now, as justification sup- 
 poses guilt, and respects the ungodly, so its being of free 
 grace and through the redemption that is in Christ, sets 
 aside every idea of antecedent holiness in the subjects of 
 it, either as meriting it or qualifying them for it ; and thus 
 only can it exclude all boasting, ver. 27. Again, with re- 
 gard to the way in which men actually receive this blessing, 
 he restricts that to faith alone, which he everywhere op- 
 poses to works on this subject, and declares that " to him that 
 worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungod- 
 ly, his faith is counted for righteousness," Rom. iv. 5 ; and 
 he represents this faith as corresponding with the freeness 
 of that grace by which the blessing is conferred, ver. 16. 
 Now, as it is by faith alone that men are justified, and pass 
 from death unto life ; as faith itself is the very beginning 
 of spiritual life, and the principle of all holiness either in 
 heart or conduct ; so there can be no true holiness antece- 
 dent to it for a moment of time, far less for a series of years. 
 And if it was otherwise with Abraham and David, as Mr. 
 Fuller affirms, their case must have been very singular 
 indeed, and their example altogether unfit to illustrate 
 the apostle's doctrine respecting the justification of the un- 
 godly. 
 
 2. Though the apostle cites Gen. xv. 6, as sufficient 
 to prove to the Jews that Abraham was justified by faith 
 before he was circumcised ; yet he does not by that passage 
 intend to show that Abraham was not justified till then. It 
 is plain, beyond all dispute, that Abraham was a believer 
 
118 WHETHER JUSTIFVING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 in God several years before this, even from the time that the 
 God of glory first appeared to him, Acts vii. 2, 3, and call- 
 ed him to leave his country, his kindred, and father's house, 
 Gen. xii. 1. The promises were then originally made to 
 him, which were afterwards renewed at different times, re- 
 specting the land of Canaan, the multiplication of his seed, 
 and that all the families of the earth should be blessed in 
 him, ver. 2, 3. To these original promises the Apostle re- 
 fers, when he says the gospel was preached before to Abra- 
 ham, and terms them the covenant which was confirmed of 
 God in Christ, four hundred and thirty years before the giv- 
 ing of the law, Gal. iii. 8, 17 ; and he explains the spiritual 
 sense of these promises to be the heavenly inheritance, the 
 promise of the Messiah, and of blessing the Gentile nations 
 in him, Heb. xi. 10, 16, Gal. iii. 8, 16. That Abraham 
 believed God in these promises when first made to him, 
 there can be no doubt ; for the apostle, referring to this date, 
 says, " By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out in- 
 to a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, 
 obeyed ; and he went out, not knowing^ whither he went." 
 Heb. xi. 8. His obedience to the divine call demonstrates 
 his faith in God, and in the promises he had made to him, and 
 made him yield himself up implicitly to his direction. Now, 
 the Scriptures constantly declare, that all that believe are 
 justified — !that they have everlasting life — and shall not 
 come into condemnation, but are passed from death unto 
 life, Acts xiii. 39. John iii. 36, chap. v. 24. Therefore 
 Abraham must undoubtedly have been justified when 
 he first believed, and was converted from the idolatry of 
 his father's house, to serve the living and true God, Josh, 
 xxiv. 2. Mr. Fuller himself admits, as was formerly no- 
 ticed, " that we are introduced into that blessed state," viz : 
 of justification, " at the moment of our believing. From 
 that instant we are no more under the law, but under grace. 
 The curses of the former stand no longer against us, and 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY, 119 
 
 the blessings of the latter become our portion ;"* and there- 
 fore he cannot consistently deny that Abraham was justified 
 from the first moment of his believing in God. And now, 
 what has become of Abraham's antecedent holiness, which 
 Mr. Fuller thinks decisive of the question ? Can he pro- 
 duce any of it previous to this period, when he first believ- 
 ed God, and was certainly justified ? This I am confident 
 he cannot do ; for it appears that Abraham till then was an 
 idolater ; so that God, in justifying him, in the strictest 
 sense justified the ungodly. 
 
 But though Abraham believed God, and was justified 
 when he first received the promises, yet his faith and pa- 
 tience were afterwards to be tried, and his justification to 
 be further manifested. The accomplishment of the promises, 
 which included his notable seed Christ, was to begin in his 
 having an heir of his own body ; but this was delayed till 
 he and Sarah were past age, and every natural ground of 
 hope was cut oflT. In these circumstances the promise was 
 renewed, Gen. xv. 1 — 5, when his faith in God who quick- 
 eneth the dead, triumphed over every difficulty ; so that, 
 though he was justified before, on this occasion God mani- 
 fested his acceptance of him as righteous purely by faith, 
 without works, ver. 6, which is recorded not for his sake 
 only, but for us also, Rom. iv. 23, 24. After he had received 
 the promised heir, his faith was put to a further trial, by the 
 command to offer him up for a burnt-offering, Gen. xxii. 2. 
 This he obeyed in intention, and the faith which now wrought 
 with his works was his " accounting that God was able to 
 raise him up, even from the dead," Heb. xi. 19. On this 
 occasion he received the most signal testimony of the di- 
 vine approbation, and another renewel of the promises rati- 
 fied by an oath, ver. 16, 17, IS. Thus it appears that 
 Abraham, who was justified when he first believed, being 
 freely forgiven all his past sins, and accepted into a state 
 
 ♦ Tlie Protestant Dissenter's Magazine for April, 1799, p. 1 13. 
 
120 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 of favor with God, was afterwards manifested to be in a 
 justified state, and approved of God upon the trial of his 
 faith and obedience. 
 
 With regard to the testimony of David, the apostle 
 quotes the two first verses of Psal. xxxii. " Blessed are 
 they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are co- 
 vered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not im- 
 pute sin," Rom. iv. 7, 8. Now, though these words may 
 include that continued forgiveness of sin which is the 
 privilege of the people of God who are already in a justified 
 state, (see 1 John i. 8, 9. chap. ii. 1, 2, 12,) and though 
 David, in a subsequent part of that Psalm, speaks of his 
 acknowledging his sin, and obtaining forgiveness, and 
 likewise shows that this is the exercise and attainment of all 
 the saints ; *' For this shall every one that is godly pray 
 unto thee, in a time when thoumayest be found," ver. 5, 6. 
 Yet it is evident that the apostle does not cite the beginning 
 of this Psalm as descriptive of the blessedness of the man 
 who has been the friend and servant of God for a series of 
 years,* and in whom the Lord finds previous righteousness 
 and good works, and so is justified by works and not by 
 faith only, of which James speaks, chap. ii. 24 ; but he pro- 
 duceth it as a description of the blessedness of the man unto 
 whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 
 consisting in having his sins freely forgiven, covered and 
 not imputed to him unto his condemnation, ver. 6, 7, 8 ; 
 which imports the imputation of righteousness to him. 
 This is the only sense which agrees with the whole scope 
 of the apostle's reasoning on the subject of justification ; for 
 he is not treating of the blessedness of the godly who have 
 been for a series of years in a justified state, but of the 
 blessedness which comes upon the ungodly when they are 
 introduced into that state upon their first believing. 
 
 ♦ Page 187. 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 121 
 
 And now I leave it with the reader to judge whether Mr. 
 Fuller has proved by the examples of Abraham and David, 
 that antecedent holiness is necessary to the justification of 
 the ungodly ; and if he has, whether these examples (as he 
 applies them) do not equally prove that men must be 
 the friends and servants of God tor a series of years before they 
 are justified ; for no singularity can be pleaded in the case of 
 Abraham and David, nor any reason given why their justifi- 
 cation should be delayed longer than other men's. As to what 
 he says of the necessity of repentance in order to forgiveness ; 
 a principle which he thinks requires to be disowned before 
 the position maintained by me can be admitted, I have 
 answered that already. 
 
 Let us now consider the sense of Rom. Iv. 4, 5. " Now, 
 to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, 
 but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on 
 him thai justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for 
 righteousness." The aposde is here showing how guilty 
 sinners receive or obtain the blessing of justification, or of 
 pardon and acceptance into a state of favor with God. 
 Two ways are mentioned, viz. works and faith. As to the 
 way of works, he had before proved that it is entirely shut 
 up, and that it is impossible for any to be justified in that 
 way, because all have sinned and come short of the glory of 
 God, chap. iii. 19, 20, 23 ; and that therefore men must be 
 justified purely by grace through faith in Christ's blood, 
 ver. 24, 25, 26. In tie passage under consideration he 
 shows, that if justification were of works, it could not be of 
 grace, or of free favor to the guilty, but must be counted 
 as a debt due to him for his work; "Now, to him that 
 worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.'* 
 Every body knows that the reward of a man's work cannot 
 be reckoned as a free gift, or matter of mere favor, but as 
 
 • Pa^e 188. 
 11 
 
122 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 a matter of debt due to him from his employer ; " for the 
 workmaQ is worthy of his hire." The reward may, indeed, 
 far exceed the value of the work, or any benefit the em- 
 ployer receives from it ; and this must always be the case 
 in all the works which the most perfect and innocent crea- 
 ture can perform iu obedience to his Maker, for they can- 
 not in the least profit him. "Is it gain to him that thou 
 makest thy ways perfect — If thou be righteous, what givest 
 thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand ?*' Job xxii. 3. 
 chap. XXXV. 7. " Or who hath first given to him, and it 
 shall be recompensed to him again ?" Rom. xi. 35. In this 
 view there never could have Leen any such thing as justifi- 
 cation by works as a debt ; even though Adam and the 
 whole of his posterity had stood in innocency, the reward 
 must still have been of grace. Had this been the apostle's 
 notion of grace, he could not have opposed it to works in 
 justification ; for whether it were of works or of faith, it 
 would be still of grace or free favor. It is evident, how- 
 ever, that this is not the grace which the apostle has in 
 view, for no Jew or Judaizer could deny that ; but the 
 grace he speaks of is such as would be annihilated, if works 
 of any kind, or under any consideration whatever, were to 
 have place in, or influence upon, the justification of a sin- 
 ner. In that case, he says, " the reward is not reckoned 
 OF GRACE, but of DEBT." So that graco and works cannot 
 mix here. They must both change their nature before they 
 can unite either in the election or justification of sinners. 
 Rom. xi. 6. 
 
 In the next verse he opposes believing to working, and 
 the free justification of the ungodly through faith, to a re- 
 ward of debt. "But to him thatworketh not, but believeth 
 on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for 
 («'j unto) righteousness." On these words I observe, 
 
 1. That him " that worketh not " is opposed to " him that 
 worketh" iu the foregoing vtrse. No hint is here given 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OP THE UNGODLY. 123 
 
 that he worketh for God in any respect more than with 
 respect to justification ; nor is there the least intimation of 
 his being possessed of holiness for a series of years before 
 this. The apostle expressly says, he worketh not ; so that 
 all arguments grounded on the contrary supposition are 
 vain and nugatory, as being without the least shadow of 
 support. Instead of working, he is said to believe; "he 
 worketh not, but believeth." On this I observe, 
 
 2. That working and believing are here directly opposed 
 to each other, and the former is altogether excluded in jus- 
 tification : it is *' to him that worketh not, but believeth." 
 But if believing were a work, as Mr. Fuller affirms,* the 
 distinction and opposition would be lost ; and it would not 
 be true that he worketh not, or that he is justified by faith 
 without works ; but only that he is not justified by one 
 kind of works, though he is by another. To say, that 
 "though faith be a work, yet it does not justify as a work," 
 
 ♦ In the BiblicalMagazine for Jan. 1802, p. 34, Mr. Fuller cites 
 John vi. 29, to show that faith is expressly called a work. But it ifi 
 plain that our Lord does not term believing in him the work of God 
 with a view to represent faith as a W(irk, but merely to suit hi-s an- 
 swer to the words of the question put to him, from which this expres- 
 sion is taken. The Jews ask, " What shall we do, that we might 
 work the works or God 1 Jesus answered and said unto them, Thia 
 is the WORK OP God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." 
 Though Christ adopts their expression, yet he shows immediately 
 that he did not mean working by it, but believing on him. And they 
 appear to have understood hm^ln that sense ; for iheir next question 
 is, " What sign showest thou then, that we may see, and believe 
 theeI" ver. 30. Many instances can be produced of such accommo- 
 dated use of terms, wliich are not to be taken in a strict or proper 
 sense, far less as the ground of an argument. In this very chapter 
 our Lord takes occasion froin their mentioning the manna, to speak 
 of himself as ihe true bread that came down from heaven, answerable 
 to which he represents faith as eating his flfsh and drinking his blood; 
 but would it be right to understand this of proper eating and drink- 
 ing '? 
 
124 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 is a distinction only necessary for those who, having con- 
 verted faith into a work, wish to avoid saying that we are 
 justified by a work. The apostle did not use any such un- 
 intelligible distinction, because he did not consider faith as 
 a work, and therefore had no occasion for it. While he 
 sets before us the work of Christ as the only procuring 
 cause of justification, he does not scruple to say " that faith 
 was reckoned to Abraham for (or unto) righteousness," ver. 
 9, and to show at large that this faith wns his believing God, 
 ver. 18, 23, and that it is "with the heart man believeth un- 
 to righteousness," chap. x. 10. In all this he uses no cau- 
 tion or distinction, as if he were apprehensive that he might 
 be misunderstood as pleading for justification by works. 
 But if faith is really and properly a work, it unavoidably fol- 
 lows that we are justified by a work, so far as faith is con- 
 cerned in our justification. 
 
 3. Here we have a description of that faith whereby the 
 sinner believes unto righteousness, or receives justification: 
 " He worketh not, but believeth on him that justifi. 
 ETH THE UNGODLY." Eiiough has already been said on 
 the nature of faith. His believing on him that justifieth the 
 ungodly imports, 
 
 (1.) The view he has of his own character and state, 
 namely, that he is an ungodly sinner, an enemy of God, 
 and a transgressor of his holy, just and good law, both in 
 the state of his mind and course of his life ; that he has in. 
 curred and justly deserves the in^liclion of its dreadful pen- 
 alty ; that his case is altogether hopeless as to any thing he 
 can do for his own relief; and that, but for the sovereign 
 free mercy of God through Christ to the chief of sinners, 
 he must perish for ever. Without some suitable convictions 
 of this kind he cannot believe on him that justifieth the un- 
 godly ; because without this he is not cut ofi* from all hope 
 in himself, or his own endeavors; he does not see himself to 
 be absolutely ungodly, or as needing to be justified under 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OP THE UNGODLY. 125 
 
 that humiliating character. Believing on him that justift- 
 eth the ungodly imports, 
 
 (2.) The view he has of the character of God. This is 
 what is chiefly intended. He believes on God as possess- 
 ing the glorious character and prerogative of being the jus- 
 tifier of the ungodly. When Abraham believed God's pro- 
 mise, he saw no natural fitness in himself or in Sarah to have 
 a son ; but he believed in the supernatural power of God 
 who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things ihat be 
 not as though they were, ver. 17. Even so, when a sinner 
 believes unto righteousness, he sees no fitness in himself 
 to be justified in the natural way of works, but in all re- 
 spects the reverse; yet he believes in the supernatural grace 
 of God, whose prerogative it is to justify the ungodly, such 
 as he, through the obedience of another. This is his faith, 
 which is more fully described afterwards to be a "believing 
 on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who 
 was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our jus- 
 tification," ver. 24, 25. Here we see that his faith is a be- 
 lieving on God as having substituted his own Son in the 
 room of the guilty, delivered him up to death as an atone- 
 ment for their sins, and raised him again from the dead for 
 their justification, thereby demonstrating that he is fully 
 satisfied and well pleased in the sacrifice of his beloved Son, 
 and requires no more offering for sin. By the obedience 
 of Christ unto death he perceives the law magnified and 
 honored, sin expiated, justice fully satisfied, and pardon 
 and eternal life procured for lost sinners ; so that he now 
 sees how it is just in a holy and righteous God to justify 
 the ungodly such as he is, purely through the worthiness of 
 the Lamb that was slain. This, and this alone, gives peace 
 to his guilty conscience and rest to his soul. 
 
 This faith in its very nature is opposite to his working in 
 order to be justified ; for it is a belief that all his works in 
 that view are in vain and unavailable, Rom. iii. 20. It ia 
 
 11* 
 
126 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 a belief that all his works to that end are needless, because 
 he sees that the work which justifies the ungodly is already 
 completely finished and accepted without his concurrence, 
 and that nothing can be added to it asthj ground of accept- 
 ance, either in p )int of merit or moral fitness. Nay, it is 
 a belief that all works performed in this view are exceeding- 
 ly sinful, as frustrating the grace of God, and implying that 
 Christ hath died in vain, Gal. ii. 21. Whoever, therefore, 
 are working and laboring in order to be justified, have not 
 yet believed on God as the justifier of the ungodly. Such 
 a belief would have furnished them with other principles of 
 action, and have made all their works and exercises turn 
 upon a very different hings. But we i.iast remember that 
 this faith is a supernatural principle, opposite to our natural 
 bias and reasonings, and therefore requires the mighty pow- 
 er of God both to produce and sustain it. I observe, 
 
 (4.) That believing on him that justifieth the ungodly, is 
 here declared to be justifying faith. " To him that worketh 
 not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his 
 
 FAITH is COUNTED FOR (or UUto) RIGHTEOUSNESS." Count- 
 ing, reckoning, or imputing faith for righteousness, is not 
 the apostle's usual style on this subject. He uses it only 
 throughout this 4th chapter, where he is commenting upon 
 Gen. XV. 6, which leads him to adopt the phraseology of his 
 text : but at the. beginning of the next chapter he drops 
 this phraseology, and expresseth the same thing in his usual 
 manner by " being justified by faith ;" so that, to have faith 
 counted for righteousness, is to be justified by faith. But 
 as the words have been variously explained, I shall here give 
 the sense in which I understand them. 
 
 Faith here does not mean the olject of faith, as some 
 explain it, but a man's believing. Abraham's faith, which 
 was imputed to him unto righteousness, was his believing 
 God, ver. 3, — his believing in hope, ver. 18, — his being 
 strong in faith, ver. 20, and fully persuaded, ver. 21. It 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 127 
 
 is opposed to unbelief, staggering, or being weak in faith, 
 ver. 19, 20 ; and in this 5th verse it is described to be a per- 
 son's believing on him that jnstifieth the ungodly. This 
 sense is fixed down by the apostle when he says, " If thou 
 
 Shalt BELIEVE IN THINE HKART — FoR WITH THE HEART 
 
 Man believeth unto righteousness," Rom. x. 9, 10. 
 
 By righteousness here, many understand the righteous- 
 ness of Christ. This is, indeed, the only meritorious or 
 procuring cause of justification. It is by the righteousness 
 of one, or one righteousness, that the free gift comes upon 
 all men unto justification of life, chap. v. 18. It is by the 
 obedience of one that many shall be made righteous, v. 19. 
 God hath made him to he a sin-offering for us, that we 
 might 1)0 made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. v. 
 21. Hence he is said to be made of God unto us right- 
 eousness, 1 Cor. i. 30, and we are said to be justified by 
 his blood, Rom. v. 9. Yet I am of opinion that righteous- 
 ness in the passage under consideration signifies the bless- 
 ing of justification itself, which is received by faith in 
 Christ's righteousness. This, I apprehend, is the sense of 
 the word through the whole of this chapter and many other 
 places, such as Rom. ix, 30. ch. x. 4, 10. 2 Cor. iii. 9. 
 chap. V. 21. (jal. ii. 21. chap. iii. 21. For to be justified 
 through Christ's obedience is to be made or constituted 
 righteous, Rom. v. 19, or to be made the righteousness of 
 God in him, 2 Cor. v. 21. 
 
 But it will be asked, In what sense is a man's faith 
 counted to him for, or unto, righteousness or justification ? 
 I cannot better illustrate this than by referring to what is 
 said of the miraculous cures which Christ performed on 
 the bodies of men. He asks some of those who a})plied, 
 "Believe ye that I am able to do this?" Mat. ix. 28 ; and 
 to another he says, " Only believe ; all things are possible 
 to him that believeth," Mark v. 36. It was certainly 
 Christ's divine power alone that healed them; yet not with- 
 
128 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 out their believing that he was able to do it ; and when 
 they believed that, his power was exerted in healing them 
 according to their faith in it; " As thou hast believed, so 
 be it unto thee," Matt. viii. 13. "According to your faith 
 be it unto you," chap. ix. 29. And so he places their cure 
 to the account of their faith, or counts their faith to them 
 unto healing: "Thy faith hath saved thee," Luke xviii. 
 42. "Thy faith hath mads thee whole," Mat. ix. 22. 
 Christ's power was always the same, whether they believed 
 it or not ; but it was when it became the object of their be- 
 lief that it effected their cure. Nothing could be more gra- 
 tuitous and beyond the compass of human power than those 
 merciful cures ; so that the manner in which they were con- 
 ferred clearly illustrates the point in hand. Healing the 
 diseased, answers to the justifying the ungodly. Christ's 
 power effected the former ; his righteousness the latter ; yet 
 it was by believing that his power and righteousness are 
 alone sutficient for these purposes, that the benefit was ob- 
 tained, and so it is ascribed to faith. We may therefore 
 run the parallel thus. To him that worked not for his cure, 
 but believed on him that healed the diseased, his faith was 
 counted for, or unto, healing ; so, in like manner, " To 
 him that worketh not. but believeth on him that justifieth 
 the ungodly, his faith is counted for, or unto, righeousness,'* 
 i. e. justification : " For with the heart man believeth unto 
 righteousness," or to the obtaining of justification, Rom. 
 X. 10. 
 
 From the whole it appears to me, that God may as 
 properly be said to justify the ungodly, as to pardon the 
 guilty, reconcile enemies, heal the diseased, or quicken the 
 dead ; for certainly the character of ungodly applies to that 
 state wherein men are really such ; and if justification be 
 a taking them out of that state, how could it be better ex- 
 pressed than by justifying the ungodly? Indeed, none but 
 the ungodly are capable of being justified in the apostle's 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 129 
 
 sense of that word. For, though faith is necessary to justi- 
 fication ; yet as it is not the ground of it, but receives it 
 as a free gift, and as this reception cannot be shown to be 
 prior to it in order of time ; so it does not constitute a god- 
 ly character or state, previous to justification ; for there is 
 no unjustified godly person, nor is any person in a godly 
 state till he is justified : therefore justification must 
 respect the ungodly, and the apostle's expression is the 
 most correct that could be devised. It also appears that 
 justifying faith implies the person's conviction that he him- 
 self is ungodly, and has incurred the curse ; for he believeth 
 on him that justifieth the ungodly, which he would not 
 submit to but for such a conviction. Further, it is evident, 
 that by this faith he is justified, or receives pardon and ac- 
 ceptance with God ; for it is said, his faith is counted for 
 righteousness. Now, and not till now, his state is chang- 
 ed, and he is no longer ungodly, nor denominated such. 
 That faith by which he is justified is accompanied by true 
 repentance, purifies his heart, Avorks by love, and is pro- 
 ductive of obedience ; and though sin, to his grief, still re- 
 mains in him, of which he becomes more and more sensi- 
 ble as he grows in spirituality and the knowledge of him- 
 self ; yet it shall not have dominion over him, for he is 
 not under the law, but under grace. He lives by the 
 of the Son of God, and Christ lives in him. 
 
 None can believe in Christ for righteousness without a 
 conviction of sin and its consequences, for they can see no 
 need they have of him, nor any suitableness in him without 
 this. But many may have strong convictions of sin awakened 
 in them both by the word and providences of God ; their 
 minds may be filled with fear and distress, and an earnest 
 desire of deliverance at least from the punishment of sin, 
 and perhaps from sin itself as the means of obtaining that. 
 They may also be very busily engaged in establishing their 
 own righteousness in a variety of ways, and, among the 
 
130 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 rest, in fitting and qualifying themselves to be justified by 
 Ciirit-t's righteousness. Nay, they may be taught in theory 
 to renounce all this labor, as if they were doing nothing, 
 and to depend upon the merits of Christ alone for accept- 
 ance ; and so be engaged in doing and undoing, alter- 
 nately working, and, as it were, humbly reiioimcing all their 
 works ; while in all this exercise they have not the least no- 
 tion that they can obtain justification believing in the work 
 and worthiness of the Sou of God as alone sufficient to 
 justify the ungodly. 
 
 In the Commission, p. 84, 85, I mention the effect which 
 the doctrine I oppose must have upon the mind of an awa- 
 ke ed sinner. *' He who conceives that, in order to his 
 pardon and acceptance with God, he must first be possess- 
 ed of such good dispositions and holy affections as are 
 commonly included in the nature of faith, will find no im- 
 mediate relief from the gospel, nor any thing in it which 
 fully reaches his case, while he views himself merely as a 
 guilty sinner — He does not believe that Christ's death will 
 be of any benefit to him as a mere sinner," i. e. while he 
 views himself only as such ; " 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 
 and character. This sentiment, if he is really concerned 
 about the salvation of his soul, must set him upon attempts 
 to reform his heart, and to do something under t!ie notion 
 of acting faith," (but in reality to qualify himself for Christ) 
 "thai he may be justified ; and all his endeavois, prayers, 
 and religious exercises will be directed to that end." Thus, 
 he is working with respect to justification, instead of be- 
 lieving on him that jiistifieth the ungodly purely through the 
 work already finished by his beloved Son. 
 
 Mr. Fuller's method of answering this is by entirely 
 changing the case here Supposed, and then combating the 
 creature of his own imagination. 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 131 
 
 He first infers from it that I deny the necessity of ro. 
 pentance in order to forgiveness.* Yet the case supposed 
 is that of an awakened sinner, convinced of guilt, distress- 
 ed in his mind on account of it, really concerned about the 
 salvation of his soul, and not only earnestly desiring relief, 
 but diligently laboring to obtain it, according to the direc 
 tion given him, by the exercise of holy affections and dis- 
 positions. All this I admit may be previous to faith in 
 Christ and forgiveness through him. And will Mr. Ful. 
 ler deny that this is the repentance he pleads for in order to 
 forgiveness, and as prenriousto faith in Christ, and which he 
 thinks "a conviction of the being and attributes of God" 
 is sufficient to produce I J" Wherein, then, do we differ ? 
 Not as to the existence of the thing, but in our judgment 
 of its quality. He supposes that this previous repentance 
 is of a holy nature, including love to God. 1 do not ; for, 
 however much convictions of sin and a sense of need may 
 be necessary to make sinners prize the remedy; yet I have 
 no idea thit unbelievers, while such, have any holy affection 
 or true love to God. 
 
 Upon this he proceeds to deny that the case which I have 
 supposed, is consistent with itself. "It may be question, 
 ed," he says, " whether this account of things be consistent 
 with itself; or whether 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 favor, which no mere sinner ever possessed. ":j: 
 This is that part of the scheme whereby persons, previous to 
 their believing in Christ, are taught to extract comfort from 
 their convictions ; and some are so extravagant as to imagine 
 that, while in this situation, they have arrived at such a pitch 
 of holy affection as to love God disinterestedly, or without 
 any view to his mercy ; so that, according to this, the reve- 
 
 ♦ Page 189. f Page 173. t Page 190. 
 
132 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 latiou of his grace in the gospel must tend to contaminate 
 their pure aflection, and mix It with selfishness! This con- 
 ceit I consider to be the very pinnacle of self-righteous 
 pride. I am far from thinking that Mr. Fuller would car- 
 ry matters to this extravagant height : no ; I hope he is 
 better acquainted with his own heart ; but yet I apprehend 
 that his doctrine of antef.edent holiness, and of holy affec 
 tion to God being included in convictions of sin previous 
 to faith, (consequently without any true ground of hope in 
 his mercy) can stand upon no other principle but disinte- 
 rested love. I am, however, of %very different opinion. 
 I believe that a person may be so awakened and convicted 
 in his conscience as to view himself merely as a guilty sin- 
 ner, i. e. havinor no ri2;hteousness to recommend him to 
 the favor of God ; and that under such conviction his sense 
 of the evil of sin will not be confined to its ^nishment ; 
 but his conscience, or moral sense will tell him that he de- 
 serves punishment at the hands of a righteous God. Yet, 
 notwithstanding this conviction, if he knows not the ground 
 of hope in the mercy of God, or the way of relief, he will 
 neither truly fear nor love him ; but will either sink into 
 despair, or, if any hope remains, it must be founded on his 
 repentance and resolutions of amendment. And this last 
 is the case which I have supposed, in which the awakened 
 person is laboring to acquiie holy affections and good dis- 
 positions that he may be justified. 
 
 Now, because I do not admit that an awakened sinner, 
 however strong his convictions of sin and its desert, and 
 however earnestly he may desire relief, is possessed of true 
 holiness previous to faith ; therefore Mr. Fuller infers that 
 the case which I have stated must be that of a <' hard-heart- 
 ed enemy to true religion ;" who 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 honor, and who wishes not 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 133 
 
 to be saved from his sins, but to be saved in them. He al- 
 so affirms, that I suppose this hard-hearted sinner is to be 
 relieved by the assurance of pardon and acceptance with 
 God, and that this is to be derived directly from the atone- 
 ment ; by which, he says, I mean that the mere sinner is 
 pardoned without repentance or any holy affection to Christ 
 — that no mere sinner, in my sense of the term, ever de- 
 rived relief as a mere sinner directly from the atonement ; 
 but believing sinners only. That by my way of reasoning 
 it should seem as though impenitent and unhumbled sin- 
 ners not only derived their comfort in this way ; but as if 
 they were the only persons that did so."* By this, and a 
 good deal more in the same spirit and strain, he shows his 
 zeal for the holiness of unbelievers, and at the same time 
 beats off the self-condemned, who can find no holiness 
 in themselves, from looking directly to the atonement for 
 relief. 
 
 I have not the least idea that a hard-hearted enemy of 
 God, while such, can either receive or enjoy forgiveness ; 
 but I distinguish between such a state of mind, and that of 
 an awakened self-condemned sinner, and also between the 
 latter and a real convert who believes the Gospel, has tasted 
 that the Lord is gracious, and is possessed of holy affec- 
 tions.f* For strong convictions of sin have often taken 
 
 + See page 190—197. 
 
 t What is here said of a supposed difference between a hard-heart- 
 ed enemy of God and u self-condemned sinner, of convictions pre- 
 vious to faith and preparatory to it, is without the shadow of a found- 
 ation in the word of God ; and Mr. M'Lean is here certainly obnox- 
 ious to the charge of" building again the things which he destroyed." 
 No further comment upon it is necessary than that which he himself has 
 furnished in his description of the tenor and spirit of his address, who, 
 holding just such sentiments, should speak out plainly. " As for you, 
 the hard-hearted part of my hearers, I have no authority to preach 
 the gospel to you in your present state. To you the word of this 
 
 12 
 
134 WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 place, and been attended with various affections, emotions, 
 and resolutions, which yet have not issued in repentance 
 unto life, or a real change, and so cannot be properly term- 
 ed holy affections. Whether such convictions as issue in 
 conversion differ in kind from the former, I will not take 
 upon me to determine ; but I am certain of this, that it 
 would be very unsafe to build up any in an opinion of their 
 possessing holiness merely upon the ground of their convic- 
 tions, while they come short of a real change, and do not 
 believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. That conviction of sin 
 and its desert, which is subservient to faith in Christ, will 
 never lead a person to think that it is any part of his holi- 
 ness ; for such a thought would be as opposite to the na- 
 ture of his conviction, as his feeling a disease would be to 
 his thinking himself whole. 
 
 Mr. Fuller ought not to have treated the case of the 
 awakened sinner which I have stated above, and which de- 
 serves compassion, with such unfeeling contempt and un- 
 charitable invective ; for, whether I consider him as possess- 
 
 salvation is not as yet sent. You are not prepared or qualified for 
 it: you are nothing but mere sinners, and no sort of encouragement 
 or hope is held out in all the book of God to any sinner as surh con- 
 sidered. It is only to the penitent that the gospel is to be preached ; 
 for to such only does it hold out its golden sceptre. Let me therefore, 
 in the first instance, call your attention to a previous duty ; a duty 
 ■which you must perform before, and in order to believing," «&c. How 
 much more consistent would Mr. M'Lean have been with himself, to 
 say nothing of the word of God, had he here made the truth " the one 
 thing needful ;" had he centred all salvation, all desire in this ; had 
 he been persuaded that it contained all that is necessary to affect suit- 
 ably the hearts of those who hold it true, instead of dreaming of soften- 
 ing the hearts of the stout- hearted against God, by some previous pro- 
 cess preparatory to believing it ; — had he not supposed that any in igno- 
 rance of the truth could be less hard-hearted enemies of God than oth- 
 ers, and .-ought for no other fitness for the grace of the gospel than 
 man's guilt as a sinner, and his misery as an outcast from the favor 
 of God. Ed. 
 
AS THE JUSTiriER OF THE UNGODLY. 135 
 
 ed of real holiness or not, he certainly deserves no such 
 treatment from any, much less from Mr. Fuller, who ought 
 to have recognized his case as the genuine effect of his own 
 doctrine, and so have vindicated his holiness ; but, instead 
 of this, he gets rid of the case altogether, by changing it 
 into that of a hard-hearted enemy to true religion ; and in 
 this form he presents it to his readers, and combats it, as if 
 I had either stated or approved of such a case ! 
 
 But if he thinks the case which I have supposed not ap- 
 plicable, we shall take a real one, namely, that of the Phi- 
 lippian jailer, Acts xvi. in whom we may perceive a hard- 
 hearted enemy to God and true religion — an awakened sin- 
 ner — and a true convert ; and all this in the space of a few 
 hours. Mr. Fuller will certainly admit that he was a hard- 
 hearted enemy to true religion when he attempted to kill 
 himself, ver. 27. I suppose he will also admit that he was 
 a true convert when he rejoiced, believing in God, ver. 34. 
 It remains then to consider his intermediate case as an awak- 
 ened sinner, when he " came trembling, and fell down be- 
 fore Paul and Silas ; and brought them out, and said, Sirs, 
 what must I do to be saved!" ver. 29, 30. Their answer 
 to this was plain, direct, and pertinent, without any double 
 meaning or reserve, — " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and thou shalt be saved, and thy house," ver. 31. But as 
 they knew he could not believe till they told him what he 
 was to believe, '' they spake unto him the word of the Lord, 
 and to all that were in his house," ver. 32. The effect was, 
 he believed what they declared as the word of God, and was 
 immediately relieved, and made happy by it ; for he found 
 the gospel-remedy perfectly suited to his case, and reaching 
 him guilty as he stood ; so that he " rejoiced," or exulted 
 "believing in God." 
 
 Let us now suppose that an answer had been given to 
 this self-condemned jailer upon the principles which Mr. 
 Fuller has advanced. It must be something to the follow- 
 
13'j WHETHER JUSTIFYING FAITH RESPECTS GOD 
 
 ing effect: — "You ask what you must do to be saved; to 
 this I answer in general, that if you believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, you shall be saved. But 1 must inform you 
 that there are many things requisite to your believing in a 
 right manner: — You must first be regenerated without the 
 word, and have your heart effectually changed, and its bias 
 turned towards God, before you know anything of Christ. 
 You must also truly repent of all your sins, before you be- 
 lieve on him, and in order to it. And, with respect to this 
 repentance, you must observe, that it is not a mere convic- 
 tion of sin, and a dread of its just punishment, such as you 
 seem at present to possess ; but a holy affection towards 
 God, being chiefly concerned for the dishonor you have 
 done to his name, and reconciled to his justice, though he 
 should send you to hell. Then with respect to your believ- 
 ing in Christ, you must not understand this in the common 
 acceptation of that word, as if it meant simply your giving 
 credit to the gospel testimony concerning him ; for that 
 would be an unholy speculation, which would never carry 
 you to heaven. There is an important difference between 
 this and the ideas which you must attach to believing. It 
 is a grace of the Spirit, influenced by the moral state of 
 the heart, and partaking of it, and including in its nature 
 the exercise of holy affections and good dispositions. For 
 God does not justify the ungodly till they are possessed of 
 such antecedent holiness as I have described, nor perhaps 
 till they have been his friends and servants for a series of 
 years." Such an answer as this must either have driven 
 the poor trembling jailer into despair, or have set him upon 
 that kind of perplexing labor which 1 have described in the 
 former case ; but could never relieve his mind, or reconcile 
 his heart to God, as the apostle's docti'ine did. 
 
 Mr. Fuller thinks that his doctrine of antecedent holi- 
 ness, and of working for God, previous to justification, can 
 have no bad effect, because, " whatever necessity there may 
 
AS THE JUSTIFIER OF THE UNGODLY. 137 
 
 be for a writer, in vindication of the truth, to enumerate 
 these things, they are such as the subject of them thinks 
 nothing of at the time, especially as the ground of his accept- 
 ance with God."* But if the subject of these things thinks 
 nothing of them at the time, it is not Mr. Fuller's fault. 
 He has done what he can to make him both think and act 
 upon them, and that too with a view to be justified. And 
 does he imagine that, after all his pains, the thoughtlessness 
 or inattention of his readers will be a proper antidote against 
 the genuine influence of such doctrine ? Or does he in- 
 deed wish that this may be the case ? 
 
 To conclude : — As the clear and decisive reasoning of 
 the apostle Paul has not put an end to this controversy, 
 which has been agitated ever since, I am of opinion that it 
 is of such a nature that it can only be satisfyingly de- 
 cided in the conscience and experience of such indivi- 
 duals as are taught of God, and that it is part of that know- 
 ledge which no man can effectually teach his neighbor. 
 
 * Pa2:e 185. 
 
 THE END. 
 
6226 
 
 : i i 
 
 II^raimmtmlnnHiiiD^Hiffimnll 
 
 '""^ f|l!i llllil ill Ij IW'W:- 
 u|iu.n'.n,{Hiii|;jii.?)iiiliiiiii iii ill iliiiiiihJiihi};;;;! 
 
 
 iiUiii.ilMHlUliiU'iffili'l'iit ill!,'! 
 
 IlilllllliH! illiiiili! !!n!li!il!!lii!ll!lli:!!IHP:::!iH!l!l!!!i k...