THOUGHTS ON MEMORY.

THERE is a near relation between memory, reminiscence, and recollection. But what is the difference between them? Wherein do they differ from each other? Is not memory a natural faculty of the mind, which is exerted various ways? And does it not exert itself, sometimes in simply remembering, sometimes in reminiscence, or recollection? In simply remembering things, the mind of man appears to be rather passive than active. Whether we will or not, we remember many things which we have heard or seen, said or done: especially if they were attended with any remarkable pleasure or pain. But in reminiscence, or recalling what is past, the mind appears to be active. Most times, at least, we may or may not recall them as we please. Recollection seems to imply something more than simple reminiscence; even the studious collecting and gathering up together all the parts of a conversation or transaction, which had occurred before, but had in some measure escaped from the memory.

But there is one sort of memory, which it seems more difficult to understand than any other. You pronounce or hear a discourse, or copy of verses, which fixes upon your memory. Afterwards you can repeat, in your mind, the words you spoke or heard, without ever once opening your lips, or uttering any articulate sound. There is a kind of inward voice (so we may term it for want of a better expression) which, like an echo, not only repeats the same words without the least variation, but with exactly the same accent, and the same tone of voice. The same echo repeats any tune you have learned, without the least alteration. Now how is this done? By what faculty of the mind, or the body, or both conjointly? I am as sure of the fact, as I am that I am alive. But who is able to account for it?

O!

how shall we comprehend the ever-blessed God, when we cannot comprehend ourselves?

Yarmouth, Oct. 21, 1789.

A LETTER TO THE REV. MR. HERVEY.

Oct. 15, 1756.

DEAR SIR,

A CONSIDERABLE time since, I sent you a few hasty thoughts which occurred to me on reading the Dialogues between Theron and Aspasio. I have not been favoured with any answer. Yet upon ar other and a more careful perusal of them, I could not but set down some obvious reflections, which I would rather have communicated, before those dialogues were published.

In the first dialogue there are several just and strong observations, which may be of use to every serious reader. In the second, is not

the description often too laboured, the language too stiff and affected? Yet the Reflections on the Creation (in the 31st and following pages) make abundant amends for this. (I cite the pages according to the Dublin edition, having written the rough draught of what follows, in Ireland.)

P. 39. Is justification more or less, than God's pardoning and accepting a sinner through the merits of Christ? That God herein "reckons the righteousness and obedience which Christ performed as our own:" I allow, if by that ambiguous expression, you mean only as you here explain it yourself, "They are as effectual for obtaining our salvation, as if they were our own personal qualifications." p. 41.

P. 43. "We are not solicitous as to any particular set of phrases. Only let men be humbled, as repenting criminals at Christ's feet, let them rely as devoted pensioners on his merits, and they are undoubtedly in the way to a blissful immortality." Then for Christ's sake, and for the sake of the immortal souls which He has purchased with his blood, do not dispute for that particular phrase, The imputed righteousness of Christ. It is not scriptural; it is not necessary; men who scruple to use, men who never heard the expression, may yet "be humbled, as repenting criminals, at his feet, and rely as devoted pensioners on his merits." But it has done immense hurt. I have had abundant proof, that the frequent use of this unnecessary phrase, instead of "furthering men's progress in vital holiness," has made them satisfied without any holiness at all; yea, and encouraged them to work all uncleanness with greediness.

P. 45. To ascribe pardon to Christ's passive, eternal life to his active righteousness, is fanciful rather than judicious. His universal obedience from his birth to his death, is the one foundation of my hope."

This is unquestionably right. But if it be, there is no manner of need, to make the imputation of his active righteousness, a separate and laboured head of discourse. O that you had been content with this plain, scriptural account, and spared some of the dialogues and letters that follow!

The third and fourth dialogues contain an admirable illustration and confirmation of the great doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction. Yet even here I observe a few passages, which are liable to some exception.

P. 54. " Satisfaction was made to the divine law." I do not remember any such expression in Scripture. This way of speaking of the law as a person injured and to be satisfied, seems hardly defensible.

P. 74. "The death of Christ procured the pardon and acceptance of believers, even before he came in the flesh." Yea, and ever since. In this we all agree. And why should we contend for any thing more?

P. 120. "All the benefits of the new covenant, are the purchase of his blood." Surely they are. And after this has been fully proved, where is the need, where is the use, of contending so strenuously, for the imputation of his righteousness, as is done in the fifth and sixth dialogues?

VOL. 10.-R

P. 135. "If He was our Substitute as to penal sufferings, why not, as to justifying obedience ?"

The former is expressly asserted in Scripture. The latter is not expressly asserted there.

66

P. 145. As sin and misery have abounded through the first Adam, mercy and grace have much more abounded through the second. So that none can have any reason to complain." No, not if the second Adam died for all. Otherwise all for whom he did not die, have great reason to complain. For they inevitably fall by the first Adam, without any help from the second.

66

P. 148. The whole world of believers" is an expression which never occurs in Scripture: nor has it any countenance there: the world in the inspired writings being constantly taken either in a universal or in a bad sense: either for the whole of mankind, or for that part of them who know not God.

66

P. 149. “In the LORD shall all the house of Israel be justified." It ought unquestionably to be rendered, "By or through the LORD." This argument therefore proves nothing. Ye are complete in him." The words literally rendered are, Ye are filled with him. And the whole passage, as any unprejudiced reader may observe, relates to sanctification, not justification.

P. 150. They are accepted for Christ's sake: this is justification through imputed righteousness." That remains to be proved. Many allow the former, who cannot allow the latter.

THERON. "I see no occasion for such nice distinctions and metaphysical subtleties.

ASP. You oblige us to make use of them by confounding these very different ideas, that is, Christ's active and passive righteousness." I answer, We do not confound these: but neither do we separate Nor have we any authority from Scripture, for either thinking or speaking of one separate from the other. And this whole debate on one of them separate from the other, is a mere metaphysical subtlety.

66

P. 151. The righteousness which justifies us, is already wrought out."—A crude, unscriptural expression! "It was set on foot, carried on, completed." O vain philosophy! The plain truth is, Christ lived and tasted death for every man. And through the merits of his life and death, every believer is justified.

P. 152. " Whoever perverts so glorious a doctrine, shows he never believed." Not so. They who turn back as a dog to the vomit, had once escaped the pollutions of the world by the knowledge of Christ.

"

P. 153. The goodness of God leadeth to repentance." This is unquestionably true. But the nice, metaphysical doctrine of imputed righteousness, leads not to repentance, but to licentiousness.

P. 154. "The believer cannot but add to his faith, works of righteousness. During his first love, this is often true. But it is not true afterwards, as we know and feel by melancholy experience.

P. 155. "We no longer obey, in order to lay the foundation for our final acceptance." No: that foundation is already laid in the merits of Christ. Yet we obey, in order to our final acceptance

through his merits. And in this sense, by obeying we lay a good foundation, that we may attain eternal life.

P. 156. We establish the law: we provide for its honour, by the perfect obedience of Christ." Can you possibly think, St. Paul meant this? That such a thought ever entered into his mind? The plain meaning is, We establish both the true sense, and the effectual practice of it: we provide for its being both understood and practised in its full extent.

P. 157. On those who reject the atonement, just severity." Was it ever possible for them, not to reject it? If not, how is it just, to cast them into a lake of fire, for not doing what it was impossible they should do? Would it be just (make it your own case) to cast you into hell, for not touching heaven with your hand?

P. 159. "Justification is complete the first moment we believe, and is incapable of augmentation."

Not so: there may be as many degrees in the favour as in the image of God.

46

What can

P. 190. "St. Paul often mentions a righteousness imputed:" (not a righteousness; never once; but simply righteousness.) this be, but the righteousness of Christ?" He tells you himself, Rom. iv. 6, To him that believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, faith is imputed for righteousness. "Why is Christ styled Jehovah our Righteousness?" Because we are both justified and sanctified through him.

P. 191. "My death, the cause of their forgiveness; my righteousness, the ground of their acceptance."

How does this agree with p. 45, "To ascribe pardon to Christ's passive, eternal life to his active righteousness, is fanciful rather than judicious?"

P. 195. "He commends such kinds of beneficence only, as were exercised to a disciple as such." Is not this a slip of the pen? Will not our Lord then commend, and reward eternally, all kinds of beneficence, provided they flowed from a principle of loving faith? Yea, that which was exercised to a Samaritan, a Jew, a Turk, or a Heathen? Even these I would not term "transient bubbles," though they do not procure our justification.

P. 197. How must our righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees? Not only in being sincere, but in possessing a complete righteousness, even that of Christ." Did our Lord mean this? Nothing less. He specifies in the following parts of his sermon, the very instances wherein the righteousness of a Christian exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees.

P. 198. He brings this specious hypocrite to the test." How does it appear, that he was a hypocrite? Our Lord gives not the least intimation of it. Surely he loved him, not for his hypocrisy, but his sincerity!

Yet he loved the world, and therefore could not keep any of the commandments in their spiritual meaning. And the keeping of these is undoubtedly the way to, though not the cause of, eternal life.

P. 200. "By works his faith was made perfect: appeared to be true."

No: the natural sense of the words is, By the grace superadded while he wrought those works, his faith was literally made perfect. Ibid. "He that doeth righteousness is righteousmanifests the truth of his conversion." Nay; the plain meaning is, He alone is truly righteous, whose faith worketh by love.

P. 201. St. James speaks of the justification of our faith." Not unless you mean by that odd expression, our faith being made perfect : for so the Apostle explains his own meaning. Perhaps the word justified is once used by St. Paul for manifested. But that does not prove it is to be so understood here.

P. 202.

66

Whoso doeth these things shall never fall into total apostacy." How pleasing is this to flesh and blood! But David says no such thing. His meaning is, Whoso doeth these things to the end, shall never fall into hell.

The seventh dialogue is full of important truths. Yet some expressions in it I cannot commend.

66

P. 216. One thing thou lackest, the imputed righteousness of Christ." You cannot think, this is the meaning of the text. Certainly the one thing our Lord meant was, the love of God. This was the thing he lacked.

P. 222.

Is the obedience of Christ insufficient to accomplish our justification?" Rather I would ask, Is the death of Christ insufficient to purchase it?

66

P. 226. The saints in glory ascribe the whole of their salvation to the blood of the Lamb." So do I: and yet I believe he "obtained for all a possibility of salvation."

P. 227. "The terms of acceptance for fallen man were a full satisfaction to the Divine Justice, and a complete conformity to the Divine Law." This you take for granted, but I cannot allow.

The terms of acceptance for fallen man are repentance and faith. Repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Ibid. There are but two methods whereby any can be justified, either by a perfect obedience to the law, or because Christ hath kept the law in our stead." You should say, "Or by faith in Christ." I then answer, This is true. And fallen man is justified, not by perfect obedience, but by faith. What Christ has done is the foundation of our justification, not the term or condition of it.

In the eighth Dialogue likewise there are many great truths, and yet some things liable to exception.

Such

P. 253. "David, God himself dignifies with the most exalted of all characters." Far, very far from it. We have more exalted characters than David's, both in the Old Testament and the New. are those of Samuel, Daniel, yea, and Job, in the former; of St. Paul and St. John in the latter.

But God styles him a man after his own heart." This is the text which has caused many to mistake! for want of considering, first, That this is said of David in a particular respect, not with regard to his whole character: secondly, The time at which it was spoken. When was David a man after God's own heart? When God found him following the ewes great with young, when he took him from the