draw on many to read, who otherwise never might have taken the pains to inquire into these important articles of the Christian faith; and it is a pleasing circumstance to me that a clergyman of the church of England should be willing and able so well to defend those doctrines, which, though fully and clearly expressed in the articles of that church, and solemnly subscribed by all its clergy, are rejected by almost all the clergy and laity of that communion in this land, and if not disowned, yet neglected by the writers of that denomination at home. And, indeed, for some reason or other, these doctrines, zealously professed in former ages, and the truth of them sealed by the blood of thousands, have, at this day, but very few able advocates publicly to espouse their cause, while their adversaries are triumphing as having demonstrated them to be most absurd and blasphemous.

Is it not a pity that Mr. Hervey so peremptorily declines this noble and important combat for the future? When strength and skill are so much wanted, is it not to be lamented that so able a combatant should leave the field? Where shall we find a man to supply his place? Must we not hope and pray that, if Mr. Hervey's resolution has been too sudden, the great Head of the Church will lead him as resolutely to reverse it? And as his declining state of health is mentioned as the principal reason for his withdrawing his pen from the further public defence of these precious and important doctrines, you will, I trust, join with me in praying for his restoration to health, and the lengthening out of his precious life. And I have at present something further to wish to pray for; even that, wherein Mr. Hervey and your friend are not of the same mind, God would reveal even this unto us. (Phil. iii. 15.) For I am not so happy as to agree with him in every article; yea, I must beg leave, till I can have further light, to dissent from him in a very important one. I cannot approve of his definition of faith, and of much that he says in illustrating and proving it to be proper and genuine. If I had opportunity of representing the difficulties in my mind against that particular, to the author, who appears to be possessed of such an uncommon state of sagacity, meekness, candor, and love of the truth, I should hope to give or receive that light which might be satisfactory. But as this privilege is denied to an obscure American, I have presumed to reply to you, reverend sir, and with leave to represent my difficulties and offer my objections to you, desiring, that if you find that I misunderstand this ingenious and justly-esteemed author, or that my objections have no weight, you would be so good as to show me wherein my mistake lies.

Mr. Hervey's definition of faith you will find in his third volume, Letter 10, p. 217, and it is repeated in Dialogue 16, and is as follows: "Faith is a real persuasion that the blessed Jesus has shed his blood for me, and fulfilled all righteousness in my stead; that, through this great atonement and meritorious obedience, he has purchased, even for my sinful soul, reconciliation with God, sanctifying grace, and every spiritual blessing."

I have the following objections in my mind against this definition of faith:

I. I do not see what ground or foundation there is for such a faith in divine revelation. I do not find it any where revealed in the Bible that Christ died for me, etc. I find no such declaration or proposition there; and, therefore, I do not see what ground I have to believe this proposition from any thing revealed in the Bible. The gospel declares that Christ died to save sinners; that all that accept of him and rely upon him for salvation are interested in all the benefits of his death. This, therefore, I have reason to believe; but how shall I believe that I have an interest in his death, that my sins are pardoned, etc., unless I am conscious that I comply with the condition on which all this is offered and promised in the gospel? The invitations and promises of the gospel are a sufficient ground for my believing that Christ is an allsufficient Savior; that he, with all his benefits, is freely offered to every sinner that will accept of him and trust in him; that, therefore, I am invited to come to him, and trust in him for salvation; that the invitation is made to me, and the promises are all mine, if I do comply with the invitation. But if I do not, none of the promises belong to me, and I have no interest in the saving benefits of Christ. Therefore, while I do not accept of, or comply with, the invitation, I have no ground to believe that any of the promises and benefits of the gospel are mine, or belong to me; but on the contrary, I have reason to believe and be assured that eternal life does not belong to me, but that I am pointed out as one on whom the wrath of God abideth. I can, therefore, have no further reason to believe that Christ died for me, that my sins are pardoned, etc., than I have evidence that I am willing to receive these blessings as they are offered; for it is by my thus receiving them that they become mine. If, therefore, I believe they are mine, unconditionally, my faith (if it can be called such) is wholly without any foundation from divine revelation; yea, is contrary to the express declaration of Scripture, and must be, therefore, a mere delusion.

This objection is made by Theron, p. 279; but I conceive it

is by no means taken off by what Aspasio says in answer to it, viz., that, though salvation by Christ is not promised to any one of us, and made ours by name, yet our character being pointed out, and it being declared that Christ came to save such, we have as much warrant to believe this salvation ours as if we were named.

If it was declared in the gospel that Christ came into the world to save sinners, so as all of this character are actually in a state of salvation, are actually pardoned, etc., then nothing further would be wanting but knowing that this character belongs to us, in order to our having sufficient ground of believing and being assured that Christ died for us, etc. Then sinners, wherever the gospel comes, might be assured that they were in a state of salvation, and might be called upon to believe that they were so. But then, by the way, this could not be called justifying, saving faith, because it is supposed that they are justified and in a state of salvation previous to their believing themselves to be so, otherwise they would have no reason to believe so. But this will be considered by and by. If it should be said that they are not in a state of salvation previous to their believing they are so, but Christ becomes their Savior by their believing that he is so, I think this is as much as to say that Christ becomes our Savior by our believing a falsehood; for whatever is necessary in order to Christ's being my Savior, must first take place before he can be so; and his being my Savior depends upon and comes in as a consequence of that, and follows it in order of nature and time. Therefore, according to this supposition, he is not mine until I have believed he is so, but he becomes mine in consequence of, and so after my believing he is mine already; which proposition is, by the supposition, false.

For example, if a rich man had, upon his decease, willed a hundred pounds to each poor man in a parish, so that every one of them that believed himself to have a title to it should actually share in the legacy, while those that did not believe it to be theirs should never have any share in it, or be the better for it, in this case, in order to have a title to this legacy, each poor man must believe a proposition to be true which is not true, that, by his believing it while it is false, it may be afterwards true. This, absurd and contradictory in all cases, is, " Crede quod habes, et habes." Whatever is offered on such a condition, is offered on an impossible one; I mean a condition which cannot possibly be complied with, unless a person is under such a delusion as to believe that to be true which is absolutely false, and is supposed to be so in the proposal. It hence follows, that, if any thing whatsoever is offered upon

such a condition, though a person may be so deceived as to comply with it, and really believe it belongs to him before it does, yet the belief cannot be attended with any degree of assurance, unless a man can be assured that a proposition is true at the same time that it is not so. (See III.) But this I suppose none will believe to be the case; for then every sinner would, no doubt, be saved. Christ came into the world to save sinners; to sinners this salvation is brought and offered, and every sinner is promised a share in it, if he will accept of it as it is offered. But this surely gives the sinner no title to, no share in it, until he accepts of it. Therefore he cannot truly say, "This salvation is mine," until he has heartily accepted of it, or is willing to have it on the terms on which it is offered; and has no further ground to believe it belongs to him than he has evidence that he heartily accepts of it. By finding myself to be a sinner, I may be assured that salvation by Christ is freely offered to me; that I am invited to come to Christ, to take it and live forever. But as many sinners to whom this salvation is offered have no share in it, and never will have, I can from hence have no ground to believe that it belongs to me. I must first have evidence that I accept of it, before I can have any ground to believe that I have any interest in it. I think, therefore, Theron's objection stands good yet, and shows that the preceding similitude is not to Aspasio's purpose. I find nothing in the Bible that gives sinners in general any assurance or any reason to believe that their sins are forgiven; and, therefore, no sinner has any reason to believe this privilege belongs to him, unless he finds something peculiar in his own character by which he is distinguished from sinners in general, and to which the promise of forgiveness of sin is made; which, surely, is nothing less than a willingness to receive this at the hands of Christ as it is offered. And if this is really his character, salvation belongs to him, and his sins are pardoned, whether he believes this to be his happy case or not. Hence I conclude that such a persuasion cannot be saving faith, as it cannot be built upon any divine promise or declaration.

Perhaps it will be said that a willingness to receive offered mercy, or a hearty acceptance of it, as it is offered, is implied in a person's believing or being persuaded that Christ died for him, that his sins are forgiven, etc.

II. It seems to me that this definition of saving faith implies a contradiction, or supposes that, in order to a person's being entitled to salvation, he must believe or be persuaded of the truth of a proposition which at the same time is supposed to be false. Saving faith, I suppose all will grant, is that by which

men are entitled to salvation. By this, sinners pass from death to life, and are entitled to all the blessings of the covenant of grace. The sinner has no interest in Christ's righteousness before he believes. With the heart he believeth unto righteousness. (Rom. x. 10.) Now, if this faith is a persuasion that Christ died for me, that thereby reconciliation with God is granted for my sinful soul, etc., I think it must be a real persuasion of the truth of a proposition which at the same time is supposed to be, and really must be, absolutely false.

III. If the former objections were not in the way of my ap proving of this definition of faith, there is yet another difficulty in my mind.

I think, according to this definition, faith is not a holy act or exercise, nor does it imply any holy or virtuous exercise of heart at all. Neither can I see that holiness is the necessary or natural attendant or consequence of such a faith.

I do not see that the persuasion of the truth of this proposition, that Jesus Christ died for me, etc., implies any gracious or holy exercise of heart. The most unholy man may give as strong an assent to, and be as confident of, the truth of this proposition, as if he was never so holy. There is, I think, nothing in this proposition contrary to the taste and inclination of an unholy heart; and the firm belief of it appears to me no more difficult to a man wholly under the power of sin, than to the most holy man. It was equally true concerning both. Matter of fact, I think, renders this indisputable. What multitudes of evidently unholy persons in the Christian world, who are confident beyond all doubt that Christ is their Savior! Such a persuasion is alike common to the holy and unholy.

Now it appears to me unreasonable to suppose that that should be made a condition on which all the benefits of the covenant of grace are suspended, and should give a title to eternal life, which is neither in itself a holy exercise, nor implies any thing truly virtuous or holy. It would hence follow, I think, that justifying, saving faith is no more out of the reach of a person wholly under the power of sin, or no more above his present moral power, than any act of sin whatsoever, which is contrary to what Mr. Hervey supposes, and contrary to many express declarations of Scripture. Moreover, if this is true of saving faith, I do not see how it can be said to be a principle of holiness, or to purify the heart; (Acts xv. 9;) to be necessarily attended with or evidenced by good works, which is abundantly asserted in Scripture, and much insisted on by Mr. Hervey. I do not remember that he any where says that saving faith is itself a holy act or exercise. He says, indeed, pp. 171, 172, "Wherever He (the Almighty) works this true faith, He