which the trembling sinner seems to hear, "be not afraid, only believe." It is enough. He comes, he looks, he believes; he does not merely admit the truth of the propositions before him, and accredit the record of God concerning his Son. This is already done. The soul answers to it as saving truth, not the intellect merely; the mind embraces and confides in its promises; the MAN accepts, puts on, or to use the appropriate and striking language of the apostle, submits himself to the righteousness of God; the SINNER, ready to perish, returns to his offended Parent, and, stripped of every other plea, and driven from every other refuge, commits, by a positive act, to which, if I may so speak, power and faculty is a party, both his error and himself to the great and glorious Redeemer, that he may be forgiven, accepted, justified, and saved. This error if I mistake not, is the faith that is attended with justification. Then, and not till then, peace ensues, gratitude springs up, love arises; the sorrow of the heart for sin often becomes more deep and poignant, but the joy attendant on the transition is sometimes unspeakable and full of glory. This faith, which stands connected with a variety of holy and delightful emotions, continues to work especially by love, purifying the heart, and forming the man in the image of Christ

It would have been satisfactory to have fortified these views by several quotations; I must content myself, however, by referring the reader to a "Discourse of the Nature of Faith;" London, 1700, by Mr. N. Taylor; to a "Treatise on precious Faith," by E. Polhill, Esq.; to President Edwards's Works, vol. 8, p. 536.

It only remains for me to show, that the difficulties which press on Dr. Payne's Theory of Faith, and on those which he successfully opposes, do not lie against the views here given.

1. A principal reason of Dr. P.'s preference of the scheme which he has adopted is evidently its supposed simplicity. The different constitution of different minds is truly singular. To me, I confess, it has no charms on this account; and I would rather be inclined to suspect any theory of mental science, whose claims rested on its alleged simplicity. Not that there is not something very beautiful in simplicity; but the passion for it easily blinds the mind, and may lead us to the adoption of views, which are at variance with truth; whilst the idea of faith, as the consenting, fiducial act of the guilty but penitent sinner, appears to me even more simple and intelligible, because more natural and obvious, than that contended for by him.

2. The Doctor thinks that the views which he advocates are of great importance, in giving right directions to the inquiring sinner. He says, the tendency of telling a man that he does not believe the gospel aright, is to lead him to look to himself; whilst to tell him he does not believe the gospel, is to lead him to re-examine that gospel and to illustrate this statement, he again employs a defective analogy. "As well might a man attempt to invigorate his physical system by watching the process of digestion, instead of taking food." p. 293. True, and I suppose the schools of medicine will soon be closed, and the profession of physic even become a sinecure without pay, as it

is no longer necessary, however deranged may be the functions of digestion, to get them corrected; the right sort of food, taken morning, noon, and night, will cure even schirrus itself. Again," In looking at an object, you are not thinking of the manner of seeing it, but of the thing seen." p. 295. But suppose there happens to be a fog, why you wait till the sun shines and dispels it; or suppose it appears yellow instead of white; six inches or two in diameter instead of four. You ask, "what is the matter with my eyes?" and go to the oculist or optician at once. "We cannot dwell," says Mr. Russell, quoted p. 295," on thoughts of the mode in which we see an object, without forgetting in a measure the object itself," &c. Admitted, and who ever dreamt of directing the sinner to inquire into the MODE of believing? But surely no one will deny the importance of asking, does he believe at all; if he does, is his faith that of devils, who believe and tremble; is it the faith of the mere professor, which is holy neither in itself nor in its fruits; or is it the faith which saves the sinner and sanctifies the heart?

When a man, as supposed by Mr. Erskine, p. 295,"who has never questioned the divine authority of the Scriptures, and who can reason well on its doctrines, finds that the state of his mind and the tenor of his life, do not agree with Scripture rule; and concluding that there must be an error somewhere," comes to the minister of the gospel to ask advice; two things are obviously necessary: 1st. To ascertain whether it is the gospel of the Scriptures, or a gospel of his own that he believes; "whether there is not something in the very essentials of christian doctrine, which he has never thoroughly understood." 2ndly. Whether, if he is right so far, he truly believes; or whether, in consequence of some sin which he retains-some passion he cherishes-some truth his pride resists-some idol of the fancy, the imagination, or the heart, to which he cleaves, his faith is partial and defective. I do not mean that he is to go and study the laws of his mind; but I do mean, that he must examine its state: I do not want him to turn his attention to the mental process, or to ascertain the quidmodos and quomodos of its operations; but I insist upon it, that though he have the knowledge of an angel, if he neglect to inquire into the existence, and reality, and integrity of his faith, he may perish for ever.

The Doctor and Mr. Russell have evidently had to do with persons who have mistaken the nature of the gospel, and to whom they have had to explain and reiterate its first doctrines, but in vain; and I know well that the ruin of myriads is to be ascribed to the blindness of their minds :-but did it never happen to them to meet with a man whose case required such an address as the following:-" Your views, Sir, are accurate, and your knowledge extensive; you have right perceptions of the evil and danger of sin; of your own guilt and condemnation, and of the way of deliverance by faith in the death and mediation of Jesus Christ; your deficiency is not here, yet it is obviousin the gospel which you so far believe you do not acquiesce; no, Sir, and the reason is this;-you are joined to idols; there is a lust by which you are enthralled; you are under the dominion of the world or the fear of man; you are the slave of pride; you therefore have

not submitted, you cannot submit yourself to Christ Jesus the Lord: here lies the defect; the soul, my friend, must surrender itself by an act of faith to him, and his righteousness; or a holy and righteous God cannot blot out your transgressions.'

3. This view of justifying faith is not exposed to the objections urged by Dr. P. against those who err by defect. Is it affected by his strictures on those who err by excess? Let us see. I do not include in faith conviction of sin, fear, remorse, sorrow, contrition, &c.; these are the antecedents or attendants on faith; and each has its proper basis to rest upon. Nor do I include gratitude, love, hope, joy, &c., these are its concomitants or effects; and have also their appropriate exciting causes. If the charge of error in excess therefore lies, it is because I include trust and confidence; and assert that a hearty consent to the gospel, a fiducial surrender of the soul to Christ Jesus the Lord, enters into its very nature. This act, or if you will, these acts, which go to make up the complex act of faith, but the simple act of the returning sinner in believing, have likewise a solid foundation. The excellence of the gospel may form a part of that foundation; and it does, for I contend that faith is not produced by its evidence merely, as Dr. Payne seems to think; nor even by its truth apart from its excellence. The excellence, the suitableness, the efficiency, the divine wisdom and power of the gospel, appeal in the first instance to the mind; they are proper considerations to address to our faith; no man will apply for pardon who does not perceive them; nor can a person be saved by any thing which he may call faith, which does not embrace them. The charge of excess, therefore, is set aside. The sacrifice of Christ is a suitable and sufficient offering for sin, and therefore claims the confidence of the rebel; he who presented it is, as a Saviour, mighty to deliver, and willing to pardon; and deserves the entire trust, the unhesitating submission of the sinner to himself; he that exercises that trust, and yields that submission, is justified by his faith, and has peace with God.

Once more, the views here contended for do not interfere with the doctrine of gratuitous justification. That salvation is of grace, is a truth of such vital importance, and so fully stated in the Scriptures, that the previous reasonings, whatever force they might seem to possess, if they could be fairly shown to oppose it, must be at once abandoned. An error so pernicious admits of no quarter. But let it be remembered, that the most dangerous error lies very near the most important truth:—yet the integrity of that truth must not be violated, because the obstinacy of man may pervert it. There is so much in Dr. P.'s book, which, in my opinion, amounts to a concession of the point in dispute, that I verily believe if it had not been for the fear of this consequence, he would not have defined faith as he has. This fear seems literally to haunt him, but in the present case, surely without reason. For whilst he fully admits that wherever the faith that justifies exists, there is acquiescence of heart-that it is an act of obedience-an act of voluntary and holy obedience— nay more, that as an act of obedience only, it can become the medium of interest in Christ; he yet labours with all his might to reduce

these qualities to the lowest possible degree, that it may not be viewed as justifying by its intrinsic excellence. I cannot sympathize with this alarm. I am not careful so to square my views on this or any other point of christian doctrine, that the deceitful heart cannot turn them into a ground of presumption or licentiousness. The scriptural view of the case I judge to be this:-"That primary operation of the Spirit of God upon the mind" by which it is created anew, and which is necessary to the very existence of faith, is of GRACE: the principle and exercises of faith itself, though it is we who believe are the product of the Spirit's power, and must likewise be of grace; whilst the sole consideration on account of which those that believe are pardoned and justified, is the work of Christ, which also is entirely of grace. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? nay, but by the law of faith. If men will mistake this they must. I cannot meet them farther.

Nor is it necessary; for I can confidently use Mr. Russell's language, and say, "Faith (in the sense I attach to it) is an exercise of mind, to which we never, in common life, attach any idea of merit." My friend, who had basely betrayed me, comes as a humbled pauper to my door, asks an alms, and accepts the relief I offer. The prodigal child returns to his father, and says, Father I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son, make me as one of thine hired servants; he puts on the robe that is tendered him, and sits down in peace at his father's board. A few of a band of condemned rebels, on hearing the gracious proclamation of their sovereign, approach his throne, fall at his feet, submit themselves unto him, and obtain his forgiveness. There is much more here than belief in Dr. P.'s sense. Yet who would ever dream of attaching any idea of merit to the act of any of the parties, although acts of propriety and duty.

I know that these, like all such analogies, may be considered defective; but were they not defective, they would give great additional strength to our argument; for, both on the part of God in receiving the prodigal and justifying the rebel, and in the plan of redemption itself by which his mercy is rendered possible; there is immeasurably more of grace than on the part of the benefactors in the cases supposed, and consequently immeasurably less room for those that receive his mercy to attach any idea of merit to the act which is the occasion of its bestowment: whilst there is this additional consideration to humble the sinner, and keep him from regarding his faith as righteousness, that that faith itself is the inspiration of the Spirit. I cannot therefore think it wise, or safe, or needful, to strip the idea of faith of that vital part of it which consists in the entire resignation of the soul, the sinner, the man, to Christ as the end of the law for righteousness, and to his vicarious sacrifice as constituted by God, the procuring cause of justification, in order to convince the sinner that pardon and eternal life are bestowed upon him, not as the reward of his faith, but entirely and exclusively as the recompense of the Saviour's work.

I should have been disposed to add a few remarks on the question, "How faith justifies ?" but the unreasonable length of this

N. S. VOL. IV.

P

paper forbids it. I think, with Dr. Wardlaw, that "the connexion between faith and justification arises not from any mere appointment or will that it should be so ;" that it is arbitrary no farther than as the original constitution of the human mind was arbitrary; and that, that being such as it is, the necessity of faith arises out of the nature of the case.

Dr. Payne's explanation, that "faith justifies by bringing an individual into that body, to every individual of which the blessing of justification is promised," does not appear adequate what is deficient, however, is suggested by some remarks which occur, pp. 308, 309: "though Jehovah is a sovereign," he says, "he does not abandon the character and relation of moral governor.... if we are justified solely by the ground of the perfect work of Christ, there is nothing to prevent the justification of all men, without a single thought or act on their part, but the rectoral character and relation of Jehovah." In these remarks I agree; but then they prove nothing, if they do not prove that the act required must be one which shall be suitable on account of its moral fitness;-an act which, "whilst it is one of" entire "subjection to divine authority, cannot be confounded with the fulfilling of the law." I have inserted the word entire; I hope I shall not be misunderstood; I do not mean perfect; I merely mean an act, which is the real, sincere, and true subjection of the man to God, in his own way; and perhaps unreserved would be better. Now for this reason I cannot coincide with the Doctor in saying, that any requisition would secure the object required by the principles of divine government, or that any act of obedience might have been made the medium of interest in Christ, if it had not been that they might have made it appear as if justification had been by works. In love, e. g. there is subjection, there is obedience, doubtless; but it may be partial, imperfect; it is an exercise of the affections, merely, and as such, could not meet what the "rectoral character of God requires." But faith is an exercise, not of intellect, not of will, not of heart alone; it is an act of the soul. It is the sinner, the rebel, invited, coming back to God, and it is the only act which does thus fully express his submission. This I imagine may be one reason, at least, of the appointment of faith. And faith thus exercised, whilst it brings pardon and peace to the sinner, through the blood of the cross, glorifies the grace of God, honours him in his rectoral character, exalts his moral government, commends his wisdom and his love, and magnifies his word above all his name. And I cannot help thinking, that if in Dr. Payne's four chapters on the subject, this view were substituted for that which he has advocated, every error against which he is so anxious to guard, whether of Sandeman or Barclay, Mr. Carlile or Dr. Dwight, would be effectually avoided; every important truth would continue impregnable, and all his great points remain intact and secure.

I regret to find myself differing from a man whom I so highly honour as Dr. Payne; I hope that no expression has escaped me, at variance with christian courtesy and love, and should any such appear, I beg him to be assured it has been suffered to remain through inadvertence merely, and not by design.

T.