I HAVE been told more than once that my not answering the piece written some years since, by Mr. A. M'LEAN, has been considered as a proof that I felt it unanswerable. But if so, I must have felt the productions of many other op ponents unanswerable as well as his, for I have seldom had the last word in a controversy. The truth is, I was not greatly inclined to answer Mr. M. I felt disgusted with the illiberality of his repeatedly arraigning my motives, his accusing me of intentional misrepresentation, and his insinuating as though I could “take either side of a question as I found occasion." I contented myself therefore with writing a small tract, called The great question answered, in which, while comply ing with the desire of a friend, I endeavoured to state my views without controversy, and as Mr. M

B

had given a caricature description of what my principles would amount to, if applied in the form of an address to the unconverted, I determined to reduce them to that form; hoping also that, with the blessing of God, they might prove of some use to the parties addressed.

Whether it was owing to this tract, or not, I have reason to believe that the friends of religion who attended to the subject, did me justice at the time, and that even those who favoured Mr. M's side of the question, thought he must have mistaken the drift of my reasoning, as well as have imputed motives to me of which I was innocent.

Whatever Mr. M. may think of me, I do not consider him as capable of either intentional misrepresentation, or taking either side of a question as he may find occasion. That my principles are misrepresented by him, and that in a great number of instances, I could easily prove: but the opinion that I have of his character, leads me to impute it to misunderstanding, and not to design.

I am not conscious of any unbrotherly feeling towards Mr. M.: in resuming the subject however, after such a lapse of time, I have no mind to write a particular answer to his performance, though I nay frequently notice his arguments. It is in consequence of observing the nature and tendency of the system, that I undertake to examine it. Such an examination will not only be more agreeable to my own feelings, but more edifying to the reader, than either an attack on an individual opponent, or a defence of myself against him.

In calling the sentiments I oppose Sandemanianism, I mean nothing invidious. The principles

taught by Messrs. GLASS and SANDEMAN, about half a century ago, did certainly give a new turn and character to almost every thing pertaining to the religion of Christ, as must appear to any one who reads and understands their publications. In the north it is the former of these authors who give name to the denomination: with us it is the latter, as being most known by his writings.

I have denominated Sandemanianism a system ; because it not only, as I have said, affects the whole of Christianity, but induces all who embrace it, to separate from other Christians. Mr. SANDEMAN manifestly desired that the societies which were connected with him, should be unconnected with all others, and that they should be considered as the only true churches of Christ. Such a view of things amounts to more than a difference on a few points of doctrine; it is a distinct species of religion, and requires for distinction's sake to have a name, and till some other is found by which it can be designated, it must be called after that of its author.

It is not my design to censure Sandemanianism in the gross. There are many things in the system which, in my judgment, are worthy of serious attention. If Mr. SANDEMAN, and his followers, had only taught that faith has revealed truth for its object, or that which is true antecedent to its being believed, and whether it be believed or not —that the finished work of Christ, exclusive of every act, exercise, or thought of the human mind, is that for the sake of which a sinner is justified before God-that no qualifications of any kind are necessary to warrant our believing in him

and that the first scriptural consolation received by the believer arises from the gospel and not from reflecting on the feelings of his own mind towards it, they would have deserved well of the church of Christ.

Whether those against whom Mr. S. inveighs, under the name of popular preachers, were so averse to these principles as he has represented them, is another question. I have no doubt however, but they, and many other preachers and writers of the present times, stand corrected by him and by other writers who have adopted his principles.

Mr. ECKING remarks on some passages in Mr. BOSTON's fourfold state with much propriety, particularly on such language as the following-"Do what you can; and it may be while you are doing what you can for yourselves, God will do for you what you cannot. Again, "Let us believe as we can, in obedience to God's command, and while we are doing so, although the act be at the beginning but natural, yet in the very act, promised and purchased grace strikes in and turns it into a supernatural act of believing." Essays, p. 33.

66

From

other parts of Mr. BOSTON's work, it appears that he did not consider grace as promised to any of the works of the unregenerate; but allowing him by promised grace" in this passage to mean that which was promised to Christ on behalf of those who were given him by the Father, yet the language is unscriptural and dangerous, as giving the sinner to understand that his inability is something that excuses him, and that in doing what he can while in enmity to God, he obeys the divine command, and is at least in a more hopeful way of ob