the unadulterated truth of the gospel, and according to the discernment of its glory, that all the characters of that mind, in which we are called to walk towards God and towards men, are produced and are maintained;-not by our willing or striving-but by God working in us both to will and to do;-and this in the same way from the beginning to the end;-at first giving the word of his grace entrance into the mind, and throughout the believer's course keeping the same word abiding in him.

We pray that He may bless all our communications to our mutual edification and to the glory of his name:-that He may at once keep us all vigilant and jealous for the purity of his truth, and at the same time keep us from departing from scriptural simplicity in the pursuit of unscriptural refinement:-that we may be all found speaking the same things, and with one heart and one mouth glorifying God for that mercy, which reigns through righteousness by Jesus Christ.

Signed in the name of the Church assembled in
Portsmouth-street, London.

VERY DEAR BRETHREN,-Were it not for the consideration that every circumstance is wisely and graciously ordered or controlled by Him who numbers the very hairs of our head, I should greatly regret that I was not present at the dealing you had, some time ago, with brother H; as it might have enabled me better to understand your meaning. But except a very general account of that occasion, and the quotation of some expressions of his, which obviously appeared to carry an unscriptural sense, I heard little or nothing of what passed. And yet I recollect that some of the few things I did hear, struck me once with a passing apprehension that there might have been on the other side something of an unscriptural refinement embodied with a just opposition to his language. Probably, I ought not then to have let this apprehension give way to that general confidence, which I am accustomed to repose in your scriptural judgment. And believe me that, on the present occasion, I have found myself in more danger of yielding an unwarrantable deference to that, than of lightly resisting you. I do not mean to say that I have not had to guard jealously against the latter also. After the closest examination of your letter, it is with great pain I say, that there seems to me something more of difference between us, than mere difference of expression. And, in order that we may get to the bottom of it, I must write with great plainness, and at some length. If I write on one point a little more metaphysically than there ought to be occasion for, you must attribute it to your

own launching into such considerations as that-with what mind we believe the Gospel. Ah! dear brethren, is such a vain and subtle question fit to be thrown before a church of young disciples? Your letter was read to them at our last meeting, and such an answer offered them, as I mentioned my intention of proposing. But it was justly observed that, before they agreed to send it, they ought to have an opportunity of more closely considering your letter, each for himself. That has been afforded them by the multiplication of copies passed from one to another during the week; and what the result may be at our next meeting, I know not yet. But, while I could not consistently deny the justice of affording them all that opportunity which one called for, I tell you candidly, that I think they have been very unprofitably and very dangerously employed. And, from the language which I hear that one of them has used of apparent acquiescence with you, in opposition to the sentence, commencing with "Every thing called repentance, but antecedent," &c. (See "A brief Account of the Separatists," &c. Vol. i. p. 558.) I am not without fears that he has been stumbled-probably mistaking you as well as the Scriptures. However, I look to Him who can turn into a blessing things apparently the most adverse.

But to the point. And I must commence with some remarks on the meaning of the expressions-the mind--and change of mind; because I think undigested views on that subject lie at the bottom of our difference. By the mind, I can understand nothing but the inward man in opposition to the outward: and by the inward man, I mean simply all that passes within us, comprising not only our thoughts and judgments, but our desires, affections, intentions, &c. And I mean this, in contradistinction to all idea of the substance of the mind, of which, I repeat it, that I know absolutely nothing-have no more notion of it, beyond these mental characters, than an infant. Accordingly, when a man is said to change his mind, it will import as various changes as the things in the inward man, to which a a reference is at different times made; but without ever importing any further change than a judgment, intention, desire, &c., different from what he had, before his mind was changed. For instance, suppose a man says-" I thought very ill of you once, but I have changed my mind:"-or-" I intended to ride to-day, but I have changed my mind:"-or again—" I was desirous to marry her, but I have changed my mind :"- -we have here three distinct references, according to which the phrase, change of mind, will convey a change either of opinion, or intention, or of wish and inclination. And does it, even in common language, convey any thing more? What would you say, for instance, to my proposing the question-" and with what mind is it, that you now think well of me?" &c. It is not, dear brethren, either for cavilling, or for parrying your censure of my language, (to which I shall come by and by)—that I wish to direct your attention most closely to that passage of your letter, where, in order to prove a change of mind (in one sense) antecedent to faith, you say "that it is not with our own minds we believe," &c. It is because that here, if any where, I think the real difference between us must lie. And I confess, that were I

not so well acquainted with your sentiments on the truth, I should, from that sentence, and the sentence beginning with-" We have no hesitation in saying, &c."-apprehend the existence of a most seriousdifference indeed. I should apprehend that the writers so conceive of the order of God in a sinner's conversion, as if there is first given him a certain spiritual mind—in opposition to the fleshly,-with which (when the sinner has it) he then believes, to the saving of his soul. And in this, I should see exactly the system of Fuller, and almost all the mass of evangelical professors. I have indeed no apprehension, but that you will reject with abhorrence all such ideas. Yet as we are continually prone to receive, both in our language and our thoughts, a tincture of every ungodly leaven-I would beseech you seriously to consider, whether there were not at bottom, in the language you have employed, some floating half-formed notions bordering on this.

The belief of any thing, brethren, is seated in the mind, or is one of the characters of the inward man: and in this sense alone I can understand the phrases-believing with the mind-or with the heart, in opposition to the mere outward profession of believing. Now, as we are all naturally ignorant of God, and at any moment, left to ourselves, would become blind to his glory, there must indeed be a change of mind, or a new mind, where any sinner believes that Gospel which reveals his name. There is a new character in the inward man-in his judgment, understanding, discernment. And greatly indeed do you mistake me, if you suppose that I consider not that change without reference to any other-repentance unto life :--so that, wherever that is, the sinner is alive unto God, and where that is not, the sinner is still dead in sins. The assertion of this is indeed embodied in our maintenance of the essential truth-that whosoever believeth shall be saved. And it is truly most important, that we should maintain the simplicity of the meaning of the word BELIEVING, without involving in it any reference to the fruits of faith. But passing this for the presentyou will observe the only sense in which I can admit that any change of mind goes before faith,―(while even in this sense the proposition is so dangerously ambiguous, that I should never think of so expressing myself)—namely that as we are all naturally ignorant of God, there must be a great change in our minds before we believe that God is. It would certainly be much more accurate, and less ambiguous, to saythat there must be a great change in the sinner's mind when he believes : and this I now mean, not in any reference to the influence which the knowledge of the truth has-not in reference to any other, though concomitant change in his mind,--but to the mere circumstance of his believing that which he before disbelieved;-in reference to his antecedent ignorance of God. And here, dear brethren, I do think that I express myself more correctly than you, when you write thus" to say that repentance precedes faith, only implies that, when God opens the eyes, we see his glory," &c. It does not (I conceive) immediately and truly imply any thing about the author of repentance-about its being a divine gift and work. But that passage in your letter might be so easily understood, as equivalent

with what I say myself, that I should not think of noticing any inaccuracy in it, but for its connexion with other passages. And that makes me fear, you might have had some floating notion of a divine work first opening the sinner's eyes-giving him a kind of new spiritual faculty,—and then giving him with the eye-sight he has got, to discern the truth. Yet I trust that, on reconsideration, you will acknowledge with me, that the only true and intelligible sense of your proposition-that repentance (or a change of mind) precedes faith-is in reference to the antecedent unbelief of the sinner who now believes. I hope, also, that you will see with me the great and serious danger of expressing even that meaning in any such language. But will you still maintain that "there is no sense in which faith can truly be said to go before repentance?" Is it not true that a sinner must believe the Gospel before he has any such change of mind as repentance unto life imports?-true in this sense -that till he believes the Gospel he has no such change of mind? I honestly declare that I think it essential to maintain this: nor do I doubt that you really maintain it along with me,-though I am wholly unable to interpret your language in consistency with this. But the longer I live, the more I see of the ambiguity of words, and of the mischief which it produces.

I pass now to what you conceive an error in my language about repentance. You think that the import of the word refers exclusively to the change in our judgment, understanding, discernment, when we are brought to the knowledge of God. I have long been accustomed to speak and write of it in a more comprehensive sense, as referring not only primarily to this fundamental character of the new inward man, but to all the other features of the new mind-the mind of the Spirit-consequent on faith: while I have long also been anxious to maintain (as well as I could) their inseparable connexion with faith-so as that it is not only in believing the truth they are first produced, but in continuing in the faith, as we first believed, that they are all maintained, and in our growth in the faith that they all grow. Now I confess that, after the closest review and consideration of my sentiments and language upon the subject, I see no reason from the scriptures to alter either,-bating that imperfectness with which I may have expressed my meaning, either in the passage on which you animadvert, or in various others which you might as well have selected. I have already noticed the comprehensive reference in which, in common language, we speak of changing our mind. And surely you will not deny, that the word rendered repentance has in its proper meaning a reference as comprehensive. You will not say that the proper meaning of the Greek word μravo refers exclusively or particularly to the judgment, understanding, discernment. This would be contradicted plainly by its use even in the New Testament scriptures. It would be sufficient to adduce against it Luke xvii. 3, 4. When the brother who has trespassed against you is described as turning again, saying, "I repent," it is evidently an avowal of a change-not merely of judgment and understanding, but of disposition towards you-a mind towards you opposite to that from which the wrong originated. But then you conceive that

whenever repentance towards God is spoken of in connexion with faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, it is to be understood in that exclusive reference. And why, dear brethren, should you think it important or right to narrow the general import of the word here? The self-same ministry of the gospel which the apostle expresses, as a testifying of "repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ," he elsewhere expresses as a beseeching of sinners to be" reconciled unto God." Writing to you, I am not solicitous to vindicate myself from the false ideas attached to the latter phrase by unbelieving religionists. But I must say, that it seems to me plainly to refer to men as of a mind-not merely without the knowledge of God, but ill-affected towards him, full of hatred of his name, as well as ignorance of it. Need I say, that among all the black features of our natural mind-the mind of the flesh-I admit, and I assert, that ignorance of God-or the power of darkness under which we lie-may well be (as it often is in scripture) preeminently and emphatically marked? because, from the nature of the gospel, when that is removed-when the knowledge of God is communicated-there is a new creation; all things are become new;" there is a mind opposite in all its features to the mind of the flesh. So that, without at all confounding faith with love, joy, &c. or involving in the import of faith the idea of any of its fruits,-I think it perfectly warrantable to speak of the mind of faith, as being the new mind of the spirit in all its characters of absolute dependence upon God, reverential rejoicing in him, and unreserved subjection to him because every one of these new mental characters is so inseparably connected with the belief of the truth, that every thing contrary to them springs from the mind of the flesh, or the mind of unbelief: much as we would say that the avaricious mind is a mind of selfishness, of hard-heartedness, &c. without at all involving any of these characters in the meaning of the word avarice. But I have somewhat digressed.

It is indeed very important, brethren, to express ourselves correctly, and (as far as we can) unambiguously, upon divine truth. But it would be a vain idea to expect, that by any precautions here, we can prevent the inconsistencies of misinterpretation which unbelieving men will fall into. And it would be a sore evil if, in pursuing our precautions, we kept back or concealed any parts of that truth, which is in itself one uniform and consistent whole. Now I do think that you are in some danger of falling into this evil, when you would insist on interpreting such passages as these-" I have come to call sinners to repentance"- "exalted a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance," &c.-as exclusively referring to a change in the sinner's judgment, understanding, discernment. If, indeed, this be the correct scriptural import of the word in such passages, no doubt you are quite right to insist upon it. But if it were, might we not rather have expected, in the former of the passages quoted, that the characters contrasted with the sinners, whom Jesus came to call to repentance, would have been designated, not as the righteous, but as the wise or the understanding? But I would rather say to you, think—(divesting yourselves, not so much in one sense of system, as of