main care always be to guard against some supposed self-righteous use of them, till we have explained away their whole force and spirit, and so distinguished and refined upon them, as to make men more afraid to comply with them, than to reject them, lest they should be guilty of some exertion of mind or body, some good dispositon or motion towards Christ, which is supposed to be the highest wickedness, and a despising of the work of Christ" ?*

I can assure you that while I feel sorry to have mistaken Mr. M'Lean on this subject, I am not a little happy in being able to make such important extracts as the above from his writings. Yet when I think of some of the principles which he still avows, I feel concerned at,what appears to me, his inconsistency; and not merely his, but that of many others whom I sincerely esteem.

If, after what has passed, I could hope for a candid attention, I would intreat Mr. M'LEAN, and others like-minded with him, to consider whether that practical neglect of calls and invitations to the unconverted which is said to prevail wherever these sentiments are imbibed, and which he almost acknowledges to have attended his own ministry,t has not arisen from this

cause.

*

So long as he considers faith as some

Thoughts on Calls, &c. p. 36

His words are, "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 be cal led to repentance, and that in order to forgiveness." Reply, p. 36.

thing in which the will has no concern, instead of my being surprised at his feeling a difficulty in carrying the principles pleaded for in his Thoughts on the Calls of the gospel into execution, I should be much more surprised at the contrary. If he be able to exhort sinners to repent and believe the gospel, it is more than I should be with his professed principles. So far as I know myself I could not possibly call or invite any man to that in which his will had no concern, without feeling at the same time that I insulted him.

It may seem a little remarkable that this system and that of the high, or hyper-calvanists in England, which in almost all other things are opposite, should on this point be agreed. The one confines believing to the understanding, the other represents sinners, awakened sinners at least, as being willing to believe, but unable to do so, any more than to take wings and fly to heaven. Hence neither of them hold it consistent to call on sinners to believe in Christ; nor is it consistent with their principles; but how is it that they do not perceive, by the uniform practice of Christ and his apostles, that these principles are antiscriptural, I cannot otherwise account for than by ascribing it to the perverting influence of hypothesis.

Yours, &c.

61

LETTER IV.

On the faith of devils, and nominal christians.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

You are aware that the apostle James speaks of some whose faith" was dead being alone" and that, in answer to their boastings, he reminded them that "the devils also believed and trembled." From hence it has been generally thought there must be an essential difference between the nature of the faith of nominal christians and devils on the one hand, and that of true christians on the other. But this would overturn a leading principle of the Sandemanian system. Its advocates therefore have generally contended that "whosoever among men believes what devils do about the Son of God, are born of God, and shall be saved;" and that the design of the apostles was not to compare, but rather to contrast it with that of the nominal christian; the latter as having no effect upon the mind, the former as causing its subjects to tremble." It has also been commonly maintained on that side of the question, that the faith of which the apostle James speaks instead of being of a different nature from that of true christians, was in reality nothing but profession, or "saying I have faith." "The design of the apostle (it has been said) is to represent that

* ECKING's Essays, p. 107.

faith, whether it be on earth or in hell, if it really existed, and was not merely pretended or professed, was always productive of corresponding works."

As the whole argument seems to rest upon the question, whether the faith of nominal christians be here compared to that of devils, or contrasted with it, and as the solution of this question involves a fundamental principle of the system, it is worthy of a particular examination.

The words of the apostle are as follow:"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead." Chap. ii. 14-20.

If the design be to contrast the faith of devils with that of nominal christians, the apostle must undoubtedly mean to render the latter a nonentity, or a mere pretence, and to hold up the former as a reality; and, what is more, to represent the "trembling" of the falling spirits

as a species of good fruit, good at least in its nature, and wanting nothing to render it saving but the circumstantial interference of a more favourable situation.

To this view of the passage I have several objections:

First, The apostle does not treat the faith of nominal christians as a nonentity, but as something which existed, though void of life, as "a dead body without the spirit." On the principle here opposed there is no such thing as a dead faith; that which is so called being mere pretence. The party is indeed represented as saying he hath faith, but the same may be alleged of the true christian with respect to works, v. 18. If the faith of the one be from hence considered as a nonentity, the works of the other must be the same.

Secondly, The place in which the faith of devils is introduced proves that it is for the purpose of comparison and not of contrast. If it had been for the latter, it should have been introduced in verse 18, and classed with the operative belief of true christians, rather than in verse 19, where it is classed with that of nominal christians. The argument then would have been this: Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works: the devils believe and tremble; but thou believest and tremblest not: therefore thy faith is a mere pretence.'

Thirdly, The copulative particle "also" instead of the disjunctive, determines it to be a comparison and not a contrast. If it were the