I ADVISE every theologian to acquaint himself with Halyburton. I have great sympathy with his mind. He neither understates nor overstates the value of the Law to the Gospel, and the necessity of the Gospel to the Law. I like his view of a man’s acceptance of the Gospel as a cordial approbation of God’s way of recovering man. The steps upon which he travelled on the side of the Gospel were these, as brought out in his self-examination—(1) Have I a cordial approbation of the Gospel? Am I perfectly satisfied that it both perfectly satisfies God’s attributes and is perfectly adequate to my needs? (2) In all my darkness and doubt I never wished for another way different from that which is appointed. (3) I am resolved for ever to cling to this, with the expectation—sometimes more and sometimes less vivid—of a good issue. Then, on the side of the Law—(1) I do not wish the Law altered in any particular; (2) and that even when it runs most counter to my inclinations. So thoroughly did he go on and into this question of the Law, as it were upon himself, that he brought himself to this position, that he wished no alteration in the Divine procedure towards him, but only that he himself should be changed. It may seem a very simple attainment; but if I may judge from my own experience, it is not so easy to consent unto the whole law that it is good—when that means not merely an intellectual assent, but also a moral consent, the “Amen” of the will. Witsius and Halyburton were, I should say, Owenians; yet they were not so great as Owen. They were minor men; yet we get nearer to them somehow.—Dr John Duncan.