our little human solicitude to preserve consistency of system)—think candidly and seriously what was conveyed and intended to be conveyed to the hearers or readers by the word repentance, or change of mind, in these passages:-think whether the word did not simply refer to the general ungodliness of mind in those whom He came to call to a new mind, and on whom He bestows it :-think whether we be not in these expressions called to see Jesus as the minister of that new covenant, of which the promise, as revealed by one of the prophets, ran-" A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you," &c. And however important it is to maintain that this is done wherever the gospel is believed, and nothing of it done where that gospel is disbelieved,-think whether there would not be more of theological hypercriticism than of scriptural accuracy, in denying that the reference in that promised change of mind is as comprehensive and general as the characters of ungodliness in our own minds. Just as I conceive the same thing expressed by the apostle, when he declares Jesus as sent to bless his people" in turning every one of them from their iniquities:"-or just as another apostle opposes that "renewing in the spirit of our minds," which we are taught, to the "old man which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts." Eph. iv. 22.

And here, I confess, I am a little jealous of your sentiments :-not at all (you will readily believe) as the evangelical world would be jealous of some Antinomian aspect in them; but on another point. Perhaps my meaning will be at once conveyed, and (I should hope) commended to your better judgment, by the following brief suggestion:-If I see myself called at this day to a continual renewal in the spirit of my mind, but in declaring the gospel to the greatest infidel, I thought it inconsistent to call him to the same newness of mind, in the same comprehensive sense, would there not be reason to suspect that I had one gospel for him and another for myself? or that I was pursuing some newness of mind different from that to which he would be brought, in merely believing the gospel? or that I was pursuing it in some other way than in holding fast that gospel which I call him to believe? Certainly my meaning is quite misunderstood by those who conceive that-in speaking of the new mind as consequent on faith, and yet not in the sense of subsequent to faith -I intend something following faith at a very short interval. The apostles, in preaching the gospel, call on their hearers to repent and "be converted," or turned to the Lord: and believers are exhorted, that with purpose of heart they should cleave unto the Lord. Now, if we be walking in Christ Jesus As we have received him, surely we shall see that either call is obeyed in believing the Word, which reveals the name of the Lord: that " a right spirit"-right towards God according to all the characters of the mind of Christ, can be "renewed within" us continually only in the same way in which it is first given to the man who never before believed the truth:-that we can cleave unto the Lord only in the same way in which a sinner can first turn to him. Yet, shall we say, that conversion or turning to the Lord refers exclusively to the judgment, understanding, discernment? Indeed I must say, that it refers to our natural character, as

not only ignorant of God, but estranged from him, and indisposed to him in the whole inclination and posture (so to speak) of our minds, just as much as the call in Is. lv. 6, 7. Nor am I afraid of having my orthodoxy questioned by you for saying this, unless there be some more real difference between us than I at present suspect.

But perhaps you say- Are there, then, no passages of scripture in which repentance is to be interpreted as referring exclusively to the change in the sinner's judgment, understanding, discernment, when he believes the truth?' O yes, decisively there are: and among them I reckon that passage-" if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;"—which you hesitated about adducing, for some reason that I cannot for the life of me comprehend. And I should be disposed to mark Acts xvii. 30. as another instance of that exclusive reference, on account of the immediate connexion in which the word there stands with-" the times of this ignorance," &c. And in several other passages, from a similar connexion either nearer or more remote, I should think it very fair to understand it in that exclusive reference for which you contend; while I own that in several even of these passages, I should have no quarrel with a brother merely for his interpreting the change of mind as referring more comprehensively to the general antecedent ungodliness of mind described in them. But I have, indeed, sadly failed of conveying my meaning, if you think that, in admitting ever so many passages, in which the word refers exclusively to the change in the sinner's judgment and understanding, I have admitted any thing inconsistent with what I have before urged; or inconsistent with the avowal that I do not think it was intended in the same exclusive reference in that summary of Christ's preaching-" repent and believe the gospel"—or in his words-" except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish"-or-" one sinner that repenteth," &c. &c. In these and other passages, I do conceive that the change of mind spoken of refers to all the ungodly characters of the mind of fallen man, as not only ignorant of God, but proudly rebellious against him and turned from him. At the same time, this is a point which I would not fight with you; being quite sure that any whose judgments or understandings were changed, or who believed the gospel, had all the repentance to which they were called. But I cannot see it equally unimportant to contend against your apparent idea of a new mind first given to a sinner, with which he then believes; and against your supposed priority of repentance to faith: for which I consider the mere order of the words in that passage-" repent and believe the gospel"-a very weak argument. When two phrases were employed, it was necessary that one should be expressed before the other and I should see strong objection to saying-believe the gospel and repent. It would be at best pleonastic, and would too much seem to intimate that some other change of mind was intended, than the belief of the gospel brings with it :—while the other order, I think, suitably intimates the present ungodly character of those to whom the call is addressed, and the joyful testimony of God sent to them as such, and calling them to turn to Him and live. As to what you say about "confounding the manifestations of the new mind with that

:

mind itself," you will be at no loss to answer it yourselves, if I have succeeded in conveying to you what I offered in the early part of this letter, on the meaning of the term mind. Of the MIND ITSELF, either old or new, we know literally nothing but its characters; and among the characters of the new mind certainly are those mentioned in the obnoxious parenthesis. I call them also characters, rather than (with you) manifestations. The new mind, or characters of the inward man, are manifested in the conduct of the outward man. Do you mean, by calling these mental characters manifestations of the new mind, that they manifest a believer's faith to himself? I should hope you would reject that meaning of the expression, and really I know not any other.

But

I think I have said as much on the general subject of your letter as ought to be needed. But let me add a few words on the parti.. cular passage in the "Brief Account" which you censure. I see nothing in the whole which, fairly interpreted, is open to just objection. when I define repentance to be "the new mind which the belief of the gospel produces," if any one should conceive that I mean either to exclude the belief of the gospel from its distinguishing features, or not to mark that as its leading feature, he would certainly much mistake my meaning. And I readily admit this mistake might be somewhat guarded against by substituting the words-" the change of mind which takes place in a sinner's believing the gospel." I do not, then, know any thing which I should wish to alter in the following paragraph, which seems to have most displeased you; unless that I would (if publishing it again) substitute subjection for devotedness; and instead of "the sole work of God," say-what I meant"the work solely of God"—or something to that effect. If you read that paragraph with a view to the general scope of it, you will see that, after having stated in the former paragraph the scriptural sense of faith and repentance, considered in themselves and independently of their divine Author, I then proceed to state that God is the sole giver and maintainer of them, and that his revealed word is the instrument by which he works them. There is nothing in the sentiment that I could honestly alter or retract. But now I say ultimately, if what I have offered fail of reconciling you to the little pamphlet, let it be called in. The copies in Dublin can easily be so, as they were sent over by brother C, and I shall buy up the copies in London from the bookseller whose property they are. Were it not that the pamphlet professes to be a statement of our sentiments as a body, I should not think myself warranted to call it in, on any objections that have been yet stated. My engaging in it did not originate in my own thought or wish. Indeed I was for some time very averse to it; and after I undertook it, I should have been right glad to have had an opportunity of submitting it to some of you previous to publication. Still I think it usefully calculated to suggest important points of scriptural truth to scattered disciples. But if we be not agreed in the sentiments which it contains,-(claiming only for the expression of them that candour of interpretation which every human composition needs)—it certainly ought not to remain before the public. I shall only add, that I pray God to make

you quick to discern, and able clearly to expose any thing which I may have said contrary to the purity of scriptural truth.

Yours, very dear Brethren,

Most affectionately for that truth's sake,

P.S. (May 27th.)-Well-I have just returned from our meeting: and right glad should I be, brethren, that without any interference on your side you could have heard what passed on the subject of your letter. I think you would have been ear witnesses of its most injurious tendency. I should particularly like you to have heard an old shrewd Scotsman-(who was the individual that last Sunday desired a week's delay, that the brethren might consider and try to understand your letter)—that you could have heard him to-day avowing that he understood your meaning very well, and proceeding to explain it. I did not wonder at all when he explained it in the broadest way, as a new mind first given by the Spirit, and then the sinner believing with this new mind. I could only assure him, from all my long and intimate knowledge of your sentiments, that this was not, could not be your real meaning: that I am persuaded you would be among the foremost to reject that sentiment with abhorrence. I should be glad to have seen in him more prompt and marked abhorrence of it. But I am sorry to say, that under this conception of your meaning, he had in the course of the week spoken of the difference between us as only verbal: I should consider it as going to the very root of the gospel. But though utterly unable otherwise to interpret that extraordinary paragraph, in which you speak of our not believing with our own minds, but with or according to a new mind, I shall not yet admit the fear but that you will explicitly disclaim all such notions. Dear brethren, might you not as well say that a believer does not himself believe, as that he does not believe with his own mind? Indeed, the former is the only intelligible sense of the latter; and that sense strikes me as very like nonsense. But let me not add to the length of this letter. The Church ultimately concurred unanimously in sending the reply which goes in their name. May it appear that they indeed hold fast the principles expressed in it! I have not yet read to them this private letter of my own. But I shall think it needful to do so: though, alas! it unavoidably involves them in considerations with which they ought to have nothing to do.

I need scarcely say, that I cannot be quite easy till I hear from you. May your next afford more satisfaction than your last! If you perceive the dangerous tendency which I have marked in your language, you will of course calculate some of your future communications-not merely for satisfying me-but for confirming the minds of young and weak disciples against the errors which you have seemed to countenance. And for a particular reason, I wish you to say very distinctly whether you concur or not with what is expressed in the sentence of the pamphlet, beginning, "Every thing called repentance," &c.

LXXXII.

TO A. M'I

June 12, 1821.

DEAR SIR, I should not have been so slow in replying to your letter of the 8th ult., but that I have been ill and much hurried in settling my family in a house which I have lately taken in London. At the same time, now that I take up my pen, I feel at a considerable loss how to address you. I find you have been reading different publications of mine; and the general approbation which you intimate of the sentiments they contain, is in some degree pleasing; but it is very indistinct. On the subject of church fellowship at least, you must greatly mistake my views, or you would not have thought it necessary to propose the question, whether I think you ought to join the Baptists in your place. You speak of having some time ago separated yourself from one of their societies; but you do not mention on what grounds you took that step.

If you take up and lay aside Christian fellowship as a matter of taste and individual fancy, it is of little consequence whom you join. I am rather surprised at your intimation that the Berean Baptists with you, agree with the doctrinal sentiments put forward in my late publications: for I have had a good deal of communication by letter with several individuals of that connexion in Edinburgh, who decidedly differ from me as to the fundamental truth. The idea that a man's own heart is as wholly evil, after his believing the gospel as before, they avow to be unintelligible to them: and they deride all attempt to distinguish between the good hope towards God, brought to a sinner directly by the testimony of his name in the gospel, and that confidence in which he builds himself up by the consideration that he is a believer. I have, therefore, every reason to fear that their boasted confidence rests on the latter sandy foundation. With respect to church order also, in which you say there is no difference between me and the two meetings in Cupar, there is such a great difference between me and the Berean Baptists of Edinburgh, that they do not come together on the first day of the week to break bread. But, indeed, they seem not to consider divine authority in the matter at all: and this may probably account for a considerable difference of practice in their different societies, without any interruption of the connexion which, I suppose, subsists between them all. If so, however, I think no better of the Bereans of Cupar than of the Bereans of Edinburgh. Your objection to them, "that they make Baptism the door of their church, because," &c. I think a weak objection. If their Baptism rested on scriptural grounds, they would do very right in not receiving a person who refused to be baptized. Do you think that a person, however professing to believe the Apostolic word, and desiring to be received into one of