Sir,

CORRESPONDENCE

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ECLECTIC REVIEW.

8, Camden Street, Camden Town, April 21st, 1823

A FEW days ago I met with the passage in the last number of your Review, in which you do me the honour of introducing me and my religious sentiments to the notice of the public. I met with it very accidentally; for I cannot declare myself A constant Reader' of your work and how often I may have similarly figured in your pages, I know not. You are pleased to amuse yourself and your readers with my "absurdities"-my "almost facetious reasoning"my "Hibernian Logic," &c. &c. I confess I do not consider it altogether fair to let off merely such incidental squibs against one, who has been for so many years publishing his sentiments on scriptural subjects. If you think-as no doubt you do that my sentiments are false, and that you can refute them, why do you not directly review any of my publications in which they are asserted? I send you copies of two or three of them, that you may not plead ignorance of their existence. Meanwhile I trust that your feelings, as professedly a gentleman and a man of letters,-to say nothing more, will lead you to give a place to the following brief remarks on the passage, in which you hold me up to the laughter of your readers.

It is rather unfair either to adduce a quotation from my writings, without referring to the work in which it is to be found; or to mark as a quotation from my writings, words which are no where to be found in them. That you have done this, I am sure: though I readily admit that an argument substantially similar to that which you form for me, does occur in some of my theological pieces :-I cannot now exactly say in which.-But, passing this, I come to the reasoning which you mark as absurd, as Hibernian logic, jesuitry, &c. And pardon me, as a blundering Hibernian, for avowing my unaltered conviction that the reasoning is most simple, clear, and conclusive.

I have long contended-with those that you term Sandemanians, and against the popular divines that the scriptural meaning of faith in Christ is merely believing the testimony contained in the Scriptures concerning Christ;-in that simple sense of the word believing which supersedes all further inquiry into the import of the term faith, while it leaves open the grand inquiry into the divine testimony which is sent into the world" for the obedience of faith." I have maintained this in opposition to all the views, which represent faith as some mysterious work, act, or exercise of the mind, which a sinner yet unbelieving is called to perform-instructed how to perform-and exhorted to exert himself for its due performance. And I admit, Sir, that I have been so absurd as to argue, that those who maintain any such views of faith as the latter, are but deceiving themselves and others in asserting-(as they often do)—that a sinner is not justified by works, or by something that he does; inasmuch as, for the life of me, I cannot distinguish between a work done--and an

act done by the sinner:-such is the habitude of my Hibernian intellect. Indeed the only difference between you, for instance, and the grossest advocates for justification by works, appears to me plainly to be this; that you conceive the thing to be done for justification in the sight of God, is a mental act, while they conceive it to be what is called in common parlance-an outward good life.

Now, Sir, it is very easy for an anonymous writer in a Review to assert that this simple reasoning is "almost facetious"-" meant to turn the whole subject of justification by faith to ridicule❞—that it "hardly deserves a serious answer," &c. &c. But let me observe to you, that such assertions are no argument; though perhaps the most successful way of opposing truth. The more absurd my reasoning is, the more easily may it be exposed by fair reasoning. I invite you to the attempt, but I suspect you will find it too hard for you.

I am the more confirmed in this suspicion, when I look at the little scrap of Eclectic logic,-(I will not call it English: for I would leave the illiberality of such national sneers to the privileged order of writers who assume the office of Reviewers)-which you condescend to employ against my "Hibernian logic." "the reasoner would hardly deny that hearing...is an act of the You say mind." It must amuse you greatly to be told, that I do seriously deny it. In hearing there is an impression made on my bodily organs, and conveyed to my mind: but in receiving that impression, I have learned from Mr. Locke-(who I suppose was of Irish extraction)that I am perfectly passive; that I cannot help receiving the impression, and cannot alter or modify it. Your logic may have taught you otherwise. But pardon me for requesting that you will forbear the exercise of your active powers, the first time a pistol is fired off by your ear, and try not to hear it. You seem indeed to have had some misgiving about the assertion that hearing is an act of the mind; for you immediately subjoin the term listening, as if the two things were equivalent. In listening, Sir, the man is active, in so far as he endeavours to dispose his organs so as to catch the sound. Yet even then, in hearing the sound, I do assert, that the mind does nothing. Probably you may perceive in this distinction materials for a very fine popular sermon on the nature of the thing to be done by a sinner in order to justification.

One word on my meaning "to turn the doctrine of justification by faith into ridicule." What is commonly put forward under that name by the class of divines called evangelical, I view as a doctrine at once wicked and absurd :—most wicked, as an insidious corruption of the most important scriptural truth; and most absurd, as outraging every principle of right reason, and as utterly inconsistent with various principles which they themselves verbally acknowledge. I therefore consider myself not only bound to expose its contrariety with the word of God, but at full liberty to mark its ridiculous absurdity. This however is a very different thing from turning the blessed doctrine of justification by faith into ridicule.

As to the Rev. James Carlile's remarks on my sentiments, though you vouch for their justice, it would be very easy to expose the so

phistry and misrepresentation, on which they proceed: and perhaps I may sometime or another take occasion to do so. But I confess I have never yet looked at his book; though I was informed on its first appearance that he had done me the honour of attacking me. I am, Sir,

Yours, &c. &c.

JOHN WALKER.

It will not be necessary for us to comment at any length upon this Letter. The representation given of Mr. Walker's sentiments in the article referred to, was founded on a passage cited by Mr. Carlile, in his Notes, from "Remarks on certain Questions proposed to the serious Consideration of the Disciples of Christ connected with the Congregational Churches in Scotland, &c. By John Walker." It occurs in note 11 to that tract. Mr. Walker's admission, that an argument substantially similar does occur in some of his pieces, though he cannot recollect in which, is a sufficient verification of the citation.

It is but too evident from Mr. Walker's letter, that Mr. Carlile did not misunderstand his language. He admits that, in listening, the man is active; then, listening is, by his own shewing, an act done;' and an act, he says, is 'a work.' If justification follows upon a person's listening to the gospel, therefore, he is justified, it seems, by a work. We would not willingly draw down upon our heads a second epistle from our correspondent; but this, so far as we can understand him, is his notion: That the doctrine of justification by free grace, is absolutely nullified, if faith be consequent on a man's endeavouring to dispose his organs so as to catch the sound' of the Gospel. We certainly do not feel it necessary to undertake the refutation of this opinion.

That the Scriptural meaning of faith in Christ, is, merely believing the testimony contained in the Scriptures concerning Christ,' is a position which Mr. Walker is strangely mistaken in supposing peculiar to the Sandemanians. The Reviewer maintains the same thing. Were this all that Mr Walker contended for, he would speedily find himself in the mortifying predicament of not having an opponent to contend with among the popular divines. But, unfortunately for himself, to this point he does not confine his polemical zeal.

Mr. Walker may deem the only difference' between us and the grossest advocates for justification by works, a very slight and unimportant one; since he recognises no distinction between a meritorious cause and a necessary condition. To most persons, this difference will appear in another light. And here we are content that the matter should rest. A writer who, while professing himself a Protestant Christian, has no milder epithets to bestow on the doctrine of ⚫the class of divines called evangelical' than wicked' and ' absurd,’ is not a man to be reasoned with upon ordinary principles.

GENERAL INDEX.

VOL. XIX. NEW SERIES.