1

Again, you observe that we live in a day of great profession; this, Sir, is a truth; but is a mere profession calculated to ease a troubled mind, or give the least solid comfort to a poor tempted sinner? I think you will cordially agree with me, when I say, I know it will not; I have had a long experience of this; six years did I sit under what thousands call gospel, five years in church fellowship, and we were supplied by a variety of ministers, some few from the country, and a number from the academy; but never did I hear any one in an experimental way describe what the bondage of the law is, or what a poor sinner feels when arraigned at the bar of divine justice; and if they knew nothing of this, you may be sure that they knew nothing experimentally what the liberty of the everlasting gospel is-if they knew nothing of being killed by the law, it is impossible for them to know any thing of what it is to be made alive-if they knew nothing of being wounded, they could not know any thing of the healing virtue which the gospel affords to those who are brought to feel the need of it. What I suffered in soul affliction those six years, no tongue can fully express. The limits of this paper will not allow me to enlarge.

Great Waking.

With every sentiment of regard,

I am, dear Sir, your's,

(For the Spiritual Magazine.)

W. WP.

THE PRECIOUS FAITH OF GOD'S ELECT, IN ANSWER TO W. N.'S REPLY TO DENIZEN.

I was not a little surprised in finding my antagonist had done me the unkindness of so misrepresenting my language as to make it appear like the language of an infidel,' &c. I hope, by a little explanation, to be enabled to make it appear that I am no infidel, and that infidelity is not the sentiment I advocate;-while I bless God that, through the communication of power from on high, I can say, with a dear brother who is now in glory, "None of these things move me," Acts xx. 24. One thing consoles me, "The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his,” (2 Tim. ii. 19.) and he well knows who hath a faith like a corpse, and who has the precious faith of God's elect, which is of his own operation. Whether my friend, in opposing his first hypothesis, namely, duty-faith,' thinks he opposes me, I know not; it is unknown to me if I have any where given him to understand such a thing. How far I advocate his second hypothesis, and how far oppose, will appear in this paper. If my quoting W. N.'s own words be at all unfair, I know not what is fair, unless it be to follow the method he has taken in his reply, namely, gross misrepresentation. What W. N. calls an unfair and incorrect quotation is the following. W. N. says, the faith of God's elect bears the appellation of the new man, the new creature.' Now I would ask if this be an unfair quota

The

tion, and whether it is not as plainly stated in W. N.'s first paper as words can express it? But if W. N. is ashamed of the sentiment, one may conclude he no longer would advocate it. But W. N. goes on to say, that he was there attempting to shew the distinction between the principle of faith and the actings thereof: by the principle I understand the ground, or foundation, or life, or substance, as the apostle says.' And introduces Heb. xi. 1. to prove his idea to be correct; how W. N. can learn from this that there is any such thing as the substance or principle of faith, I am at an entire loss to know. passage indeed plainly states that "faith is the substance (confidence, or assurance) of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -Here is not a word about the principle of faith. If this passage is the only ground or foundation of this sentiment of W. N.'s, it is a foundation that will not bear the smallest pressure, unless the original meaning of the passage is very different to our translation. If my antagonist cannot find one passage of holy writ in proof of his opinion, without perversion, I think it very unfair in him to treat me so unkindly, because I cannot see eye to eye with him.

W.N. says, 'that principle is drawn forth in acts of faith, love,' &c. The scriptures state that faith is a fruit of the Spirit, Gal. v. 22. and not that the principle or substance of faith is drawn forth in acts of faith, love, &c.-although none act faith but regenerate persons, in whom alone is the Spirit of faith, 2 Cor. iv. 13. which produces the fruit of faith, at which time, and at which time only, the favoured person can believe. That the work of regeneration is an implantation, communication, or infusion of life by the divine Spirit, I believe, although the again quoted passage, Heb. xi. 1. is misplaced, and the judicious reader must know does not apply to regeneration: and I see not what part of W. N.'s sentiments, as opposed to mine, can be proved or confirmed by John iv. That to believe on him whom the Father hath sent is the work of God, is a well founded truth, it being the work God requires of his children, and a work he enables them to perform when he pleaseth. But this goes no way to prove that the faith of God's elect is an imparted principle, neither that it is subject to degrees. That every true believer is the subject of a new and heavenly birth is a truth too well established to require arguments, and the effects or fruits of the new birth are undoubtedly conspicuous. Without comment, I leave the reader to judge for himself how liable to fall is the edifice of the degrees of the actings of faith,' that is supported only by these three choice passages- Eph. iv. 7-13.-1 Cor. xii. 6. -Col. ii. 12.' in which is not a word about the subject. Well might my friend hasten to another source for argument-but does he find it? Indeed he appeals to the experience of the people of God,' by asking are they, generally speaking, free from doubts and fears?' but my friend need not ask me this, when I have already declared they are often doubting and fearing. Was it asked me why a child of God doubted his interest in Jesus, I should not say, it is because the fruit of the Spirit of faith is defective, and that the Spirit's operation is not

6

sufficient to dissipate the cloud of unbelief, but because at such a season the Spirit does not bear witness, or does not operate as the Spirit of faith; and therefore they have not the ground, substance, assurance, or certainty of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, and that is faith, Heb. xi. 1. How can a person doubt of that which he is certain? it is my opinion that this plain and decided passage sufficiently proves that the christian having faith doubts not, and we have therefore every needful reason to assert, that having doubts proves he has not faith. It may do my friend no harm considerately to notice the following portions of scripture-John xx. 27. "Be not faithless, but believing." In this passage it is plainly shewn that unbelief and faithlessness is the same thing. And it appears it was in consequence of doubt in his disciples, that Jesus said unto them, "how is it that ye have NO faith ?" Mark iv. 40. and implies that faith and doubt must give place to each other, and cannot exist together. Again, "If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed," Matt. xvii. 20. (see also xxi. 21.) If they had any faith one would think it could not be smaller than the smallest of all seeds, Luke xvii. 6. I wish my friend to know that I do not suppose this to mean the precious faith of God's elect, although I have the same reason to argue from such passages that the true disciples of Christ are destitute of faith, as he has from the same to argue that there is a little faith and a great faith of God's elect. I introduce this to show that our royal Master does not favour the idea of believing and doubting the same thing at the same time, and that there is no faith without belief. And if this be the case in the faith of miracles, I cannot, without scripture authority, think so meanly of the precious faith of God's elect, (2 Pet. i. 1.) as to suppose that that will admit of doubt. Allow me to observe, that when I say the christian is faithless, I do not mean he is lifeless, as the life given in regeneration is eternal, therefore never to be extinguished in the present or future state. But faith is not regeneration, nor is regeneration faith. I beg my friend to read the conversion of the woman of Canaan, Matt. xv. and if he can fairly prove that our Lord meant the faith of God's elect was that in which she was great, I will admit that W. N. has a passage in his favour; but it is plain enough to me it only referred to her faith in Christ's ability to perform the miracle of casting the devil out of her daughter. Abraham was strong and not weak in faith; but has my friend any reason to believe he had a greater assurance of his own salvation than another believer? if so, let him make it appear; and until this be done allow me to hold that I believe he was great in the faith of miracles-great indeed was the miracle the Lord had promised to perform, and great faith was required in Abraham to give credit, and great faith was granted him for the purpose. Now W. N. brings forward the irrefragable proof that the graces of the Spirit (or I suppose he means the fruits of the Spirit) are all little and great in the account of Mary Magdalene, Luke vii. 47. "Wherefore I say unto thee, her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little."

If there be any little sinners saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation, my first paper informs you that I oppose not the idea of a little faith; but I am of opinion that one saved sinner will have as much glory to ascribe to the Lamb who hath saved him as another. But if W. N.'s parity be as I understand it, Abraham was a great sinner, whilst Jesus' disciples were little sinners, because great faith is attributed to him, and little or no faith to them.-Is this quite consistent ?

W. N. says, not that the substance of faith is thus fluctuating:' no, blessed be God, the gifts and callings of God are without repentance. Does my friend mean that the substance of faith (as he calls it) and faith that is of the operation of God, or the fruits of the Spirit, are two separable things?—if so, I wish he would make it appear, as I cannot learn it by scripture; and if it cannot be shown, why so often introduce it? That faith is not fluctuating, is a sentiment for which I so earnestly contend; but if I can believe at one time and cannot believe at another, (which is my experience) and yet have always faith, how can I, with any degree of consistency say, that my fath is not fluctuating? I hope I shall always be desirous of standing in defence of scripture, consequently in defence of this quoted passageRom. xi. 29. "The gifts and callings of God are without repentance." There is nothing in this passage that by any means counteracts my sentiments; at the same time, it appears to have nothing to do with the fluctuation of the substance of faith. If a kind father, as a token of his affection, bestows a gift on his child, though he suffers not his child at all times and on all occasions to keep the said gift in his own hands, to make use of it at pleasure, though against the child's wish to be so restrained, it goes no way to prove that the father repents he bestowed the gift. So of the Lord's bestowing the gift of precious faith. He eternally bestowed this, with other gifts, on his church and to each of its members for their use, (Eph. i. 3.) and in time he is pleased to give them the enjoyment of the use of this gift. Unto them. it is given to believe on Christ, (Phil. i. 29.) but experience teacheth that all christians do not always believe; but this doth not prove that the Lord repents of his gifts; for, as he worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, so of faith which he hath given to and which abideth in the church, (1 Cor. xiii. 13.) yet there are seasons when individuals are destitute of faith, as a proof thereof, they doubt their interest in the great salvation. I know there are many that can by no means allow that the Lord bestows the gift of precious faith, and takes it away again, or withholds it from his children; but I ask any such persons, is assurance a gift bestowed on the Lord's children? Surely you will say it is and you must also allow that this gift is often withheld from them. Then wherein can a greater inconsistency appear, in saying the gift of faith is withheld, or the gift of assurance? which to me is the same thing. At one time he gives his children to behold the glorious shine of his countenance, in which light they walk cheerfully; (Psalm lxxxix. 15.) at other times this is withheld from them, VOL. VII.-No. 75.

G

and they exclaim, "thou hidest thy face, and I am troubled." Though he does not repent, it is the good pleasure of an unchangeable Jehovah that these changes should take place in the experience of the objects of his love, in this changeable state. He gave his Son to redeem his church from hell; but when he took him home, he did not repent that he gave him; he was given for the very purpose which he accomplished, and then was taken home to glory. So precious faith is a free gift bestowed, though it is preserved in the hands of the Spirit, who enables his children to act faith when it is needful; and they have nothing of their own whereof to glory, as without him they can do nothing. If we believe not (being faithless), he abideth faithful.

W. N. goes on to say, Hoping I have now expressed myself so as to be understood; and if my first paper was not sufficiently explicit, but left room for any to suppose that my meaning was, that doubts and fears are a constituent part of faith, or that the actings of faith and regeneration is one and the same thing; and that there are many unintelligibles, it would be matter of great regret; but am not convinced at present it is unexpressed, and it seems surprizing that such a thought should be entertained.' Indeed, I think the ground of my friend's hopes, and that of his sentiments, appears to me about equal, as he has brought forward no fresh explanation, and no clear proof from holy writ; therefore I conceive he has made a world of haste, but little speed ;' nor do I see the least cause for surprize that such a thought should be entertained as I have expressed. I again beg that my friend would endeavour to shew what we may understand by faith. He seems fond of writing about the principle or substance of faith, and the actings of faith; but I want to know what I am to understand by faith itself: certainly it hath some meaning. W. N. proceeds by saying, This new man, or new creature, (I believe. he means faith-it is difficult to know) must have life and breath; it must act; it must see, handle, taste, and feel, in a spiritual sense.' Certainly the spiritual man hath spiritual life and spiritual faculties; but I no where read in scripture that faith is either the spiritual man, or the faculties of the spiritual man; and therefore I am by no means bound to believe it. W. N. says that the apostle begins the eleventh of Hebrews with the substance of faith; if that is truth, the passage must be read thus: Now things hoped for is the substance of faith. Whereas, in my Testament, it reads, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for." And surely I would prefer my reading to W. N.'s, because it is to be understood. And to correspond with W. N.'s reading of the first part of the verse, the second part appears to be, Things unseen is the evidence. Surely this cannot be quite consistent -an invisible evidence must be an obscure evidence. Now to the applicable metaphors. Through faith we understand: this, says W. N. is something like the understanding being enlightened, or illuminated; but to me it appears not only something like, but really implies our belief of the fact recorded in the holy scriptures. Abraham looked for a city: says W. N. how could he look without spi