quately acquainted with certain facts respecting himself, he may never be brought to confide, or rely on Christ, solely for salvation. There is, indeed, ‹ striking difference between the intellectual operation of believing propositions, and the recumbent posture of the soul in confiding in the love, mercy, power, and presence of the Lord Jesus-committing itself to him for time, and for eternity.

But again, it is asked, why be solicitous about the application of the word faith to this confidence in Christ, seeing it is admitted by those who regard faith as a simple belief of the truth, that this belief, where it is genuine, will necessarily produce such confidence. I answer that, when we speak of that which lies at the very hinging point of the salvation of the soul-the means by which salvation is effected, we cannot be too guarded in our language. Love, and joy, and obedience, are also the necessary fruits or effects of believing the gospel; but would these reviewers consent to this language, "we are saved by means of

our love, or joy, or obedience?" They complain of my metaphysical distinctions, and yet they do not seem to me to be aware that they are splitting that which the scripture expresses by one word-faith--into two parts, and making the one the fruit or consequence of the other. "The difference," says the Scottish reviewer, "seems to be reduced to a mere question of classification.” Doubtless it, in some degree, is so; but it is a classification of very high importance. Would he, for example, consent that that belief of the truth, by which he conceives sinners are saved, should be classed among their good works, or that it should be regarded as procuring our justification, in virtue of its being an act of obedience. Classification in a case of this kind is of vital importance; and I am fully persuaded, that one who views faith as being conversant solely about propositions, and not directed to Christ himself, and who views confidence or reliance on Christ, not as faith, but the fruit of it, in the same sense in which love, joy, peace, and obedience,

are fruits of it, can never have a just practical conception of the gospel plan of redemption.

I am confirmed in my persuasion of the importance of this question, by observing its practical effects. Writers who have adopted the modern view of faith, are strikingly defective in devotional spirit--in that unction which so much distinguished the writers of the "olden time." Mr. Erskine breathes more of the genuine spirit of Christianity, than any of them that I have met with; and yet it is instructive to observe, that all the directions which he gives for correcting defects in faith, are of an intellectual kind. "Let the reader pause,' says he, in one passage, (page 80) "and ask himself how far his faith is conversant with words, and how far with things. If these effects (peace and conformity to the will of God) do not result from your faith, look again at the gospel, for you have not yet come in contact with it." And again, "we hear the gospel with carelessness and indifference, perhaps with scorn and indignation: or, we are

indolent in the enjoyment of it. There is no other mode of recovery for a mind in that state, than the contemplation of the proper objects;" that is, the doctrines of the gospel. Now I will venture to say, that the most pious of our older divines would have treated the matter differently; and, I conceive, more scripturally. They would have viewed a man labouring under this spiritual darkness and insensibility, as the apostles would have viewed the blind and paralytic persons in 'Judea, while our blessed Lord was among them. They would have indeed told him the truth respecting Jesus; they would have assured him of his mercy, his compassion, his power, his willingness to open the eyes of the blind; but the object of all their efforts would have been to persuade him to apply to Jesus himself personally by earnest believing prayer; not merely to bring his mind in contact with the truth, but his heart with Jesus. And if he still complained of his blindness and insensibility, they might indeed have cautioned him against erroneous views

of Christ; but still the burden of their exhortations would have been, continue in prayer, go to him again and again, keep by him, wait his time, and they would have assured him of being heard and answered at last. And when they saw him thus looking to Jesus, praying to him, trusting in him, waiting on him, they would say, not that he was enjoying the fruits of his faith, but that he was exercising, or as they sometimes expressed themselves, acting faith on Christ and when, in answer to his faith and prayers, they saw him advancing in spiritual light, and peace, and comfort, they would then have said, "now are you enjoying the fruit of your faith."

Nor is this the only aberration from sound theology, into which I conceive Mr. Erskine has been led by his view of faith. For example, he says, (page 134) "what is the meaning of such a sentence as this- A man is justified by faith without works ?' " In such affirmations, the expression "by faith," means simply, the gratuitousness of the gift of par