ritual eyes?' the apostle tells you it was by faith. I would ask W. N. what eyes Abraham made use of when he came into the city for which he was looking?—was faith his eyes? I trow not. It is my opinion that every spiritual man has the same spiritual faculties in this life as he will have in heaven, and the same in heaven he has here. I therefore conclude, faith is very improperly called the eye or eyes of the spiritual man. Every man who is born from above, is born for above; the heavenly birth, though a work on earth, is a birth for heaven ;heaven is the true element of the heaven-born, consequently there is a continual striving for heavenly things, which will continue till the heaven-born is conducted to the mansions of bliss, or into the city for which Abraham and all the regenerate are looking, and which they will at length behold, without the help of faith. Suppose W. N. was to take the best telescope that could be procured, and view those heavenly bodies in the starry heavens which are beyond his natural sight; were I to declare that the telescope were his eyes, I should not wonder at his saying, it is to be lamented that Denizen does not know better.' And so of precious faith, through and by which we are said to look, seek, behold, &c. I at present see it as inconsistent to call it an eye or eyes, as to call a telescope an eye or eyes. What is it that receives the impression or image ?-surely not the telescope naturally, nor faith spiritually, but the eye naturally, and the understanding spiritually, (Eph. i. 18.) whatever medium it may pass through, the eye alone sees the object. As with Abraham, who looked, so with Moses, who "endured as seeing him who is invisible," and all those who died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off," i. e. the Messiah, and salvation wrought out by him,) the gospel dispensation was believed by them, though they did not live in this world to see the actual fulfilment of those predictions they were privy to. Also Abel offered an acceptable sacrifice, and (W. Ñ. says) I presume it was by the hand of faith, figuratively considered.' I really believe some writers are more fond of making plain things mysterious, than they are of making mysterious things appear plain. It appears to me that this passage simply implies, that Abel offered this sacrifice with his understanding directed to the Lamb of God, which his sacrifice prefigured; at the same time believing it would be accepted by God, to whom he offered it. Others diligently sought him, which (says my friend) proves that faith hath feet.' Indeed I cannot forbear smiling while I read this inference-others seeking him proves that faith has feet! It is not said that faith sought him, but others, i. e. other persons; and therefore, if seeking proves the being of feet, rather than concluding that faith has feet, I would conclude, that those who sought him had feet--feet belong to persons, not to faith-a fruit of the Spirit-a shield, (Eph. vi. 16.)—a breast-plate, (1 Thess. v. 8.)-an evidence, (Heb. xi. 1.) However allowable these metaphors may be considered by many divines, and scriptural to W. N. I am of opinion they are full of inconsistency, as they exclude the real nature and meaning

of faith, by making it appear what it is not, it also makes the spiritual man destitute of spiritual faculties, by attributing them all to faith.

Now, says W. N. what follows is shocking; and you must know, reader, what follows in W. N.'s paper, is a most shocking misrepresentation of Denizen, which may be proved by referring to my first paper, in which I have left my antagonist no reason to ask, 'what is it that induces the sensible, or rather the insensible sinner, to look to Jesus?' as I there express, it is in consequence of the Spirit's mysterious work of regeneration. What I object to, is the holy principle in the believer having to do with the blood of Jesus for the pardon of sin, seeing holiness cannot need cleansing. I insist upon it, it is the wounded sinner that applies for the balm of Gilead-the filthy that applies for blood to wash away filth. He that sinneth shall die, (Ezek. xviii. 4.) and he that believeth, though he were dead, yet shall he live, (John xi. 25.) It is therefore the sinner that has to do with the blood of Jesus, and not the holy principle. W. N. might have saved himself the time wasted in asking such foolish questions Is it sin which hath the dominion ?-is it the carnality of his nature?-the enmity of his mind? yea, I will ask, is it the guilt of his conscience which induces him to look to Jesus?' I would ask W. N. is an holy principle an insensible sinner? if not, which has to do with the blood of Jesus for the pardon of sin? surely the unholy sinner, and not the holy principle. I have no where wrote of an insensible sinner applying for blood; and I never knew that an insensible sinner was sensible of his real need of Jesu's blood and righteousness. If W. N. wrote this misrepresentation wilfully, I know not of what his conscience is composed; but if ignorantly, he is to be pitied and forgiven.

I now attempt to shew wherein I differ from my friend in the following section. The divine Teacher directs his faith through the medium of his enlightened understanding, &c. to look to Jesus.' It appears to me that W. N. puts one thing in the place of another; instead of faith being directed through the medium of the understanding, certainly it is the understanding directed through the medium faith. It is the eyes of the understanding that look, and not faith: the understanding is part of the man, so is not faith. Faith may well be called the medium through which a knowledge of salvation comes to the soul; the soul receives the good news through faith. W. N. says, this looking to Jesus is not without the operations of unbelief.' And Denizen will say, whoever looks without being favoured by the Holy Spirit with the medium faith, unbelief will surely prevail; but in case he is favoured with faith, unbelief must give place; if I may so speak, there is not room in the soul of a christian for faith and unbelief at the same time. That certain, tried, (1 Pet. i. 7.) victorious, (1 John v. 4.) invaluable shield, (Eph. vi. 16.) wards off every dart the enemy throws, yea, quenches them, at the same rate the smallest sparks are quenched when cast into the sea. If by the faith of miracles the disciples of our Lord could "say to this mountain, be thou removed and cast into the sea, and it should be done," surely if

the child of God has the precious faith of God's elect, he shall say to the mountain of unbelief, be thou removed, it shall be done. If my friend will not favour me with a statement of the gradations of faith, I must bear the denial; and if my supposition be wrong, I humbly beg pardon, though I thought, and still think, it may fairly be inferred from his pieces that my supposition is not far from his former opinion, if not his present; and it appears, though he will not say in plain words, it is his opinion; his determination not to decide the point shews he will not say he does not think it correct. I consider myself justified in feeling astonished that, after many years observation,' W. N. should be daunted at a shadow; and was he to give himself a few hours, and, I should think, a few minutes time in thoughts on my shady section, it may be a means of his discovering the outlines of that part of the picture, and by the Spirit's assistance, may be a means of informing him a little respecting the subject of our controversy; and if it is indeed sophistical, as it appears to W. N. it certainly becomes him to shew wherein it is so. W. N. now objects to my saying, in the act of believing there can be no degrees; and then says, if Denizen means in the sense I explain it, then I say, in his own words, I wonder at his positive way of expressing himself,' &c. Now, for my part, I cannot find that W. N. has, in all his writing, explained himself; but, as I have before observed, what I can learn from his writing, the christian acts faith and doubt at the same time, and the nearer he is to assurance, the greater is his faith. If W. N. will tell us what he means else, I am willing to listen; but if he will not speak in plain language, who is to be blamed?

it

Now to the many other censurable expressions examined with W. N.'s hands by the touchstone of divine truth, as, faith revering divine revelation, and blessing God for his revealed will;' W. N. is at a loss to know why Denizen should consider this sentence as highly deserving censure. My reason for so considering it is, because it is putting faith in the true place of the possessor of faith. It is not faith that reveres divine revelation, but the christian: it is not faith that blesses God for his revealed will, but the christian. W. N. takes another view of the subject, and goes from faith to a man. But I have not yet said, neither am I inclined to say, that a man who has faith does not revere divine revelation, and bless God for his revealed will; therefore it would well become my friend to take greater care in what he writes, and to keep his standing, and not take fresh views of the subject, and in so doing make his antagonist, who is defending truth and opposing error, appear to be opposing truth and defending error. Inventing abominable errors to make the public believe that Denizen is an unbeliever, an enemy, and even an infidel.' Faith,' says W. N. must have something to live on.' Here he comes back again to his old view of the subject; and nothing short of the oath and promise of God will satisfy faith. That the life of St. Paul was a life of faith I read, and that nothing will satisfy the christian short of the oath and promise of God I

6

know; and that to them who believe he is precious I have learnt by sweet experience. Nor does Denizen require reconsideration to decide the point; but W. N. hath no scripture to prove that the apostle and his faith were one and the same thing, neither that his expression does not highly deserve censure.

The next censurable expression is, faith loving a preached gospel.' W. N. is pleased to explain himself here in his new view of the subject, by going from faith to the Lord's family; what in one sentence he refers to faith, in another he refers to individuals who have faith; in his old view of the subject, his quoted passage should have been, instead of we are ready to exclaim, faith is ready to exclaim, "how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of them that bringeth good tidings." W. N. then asserts, let Denizen say what he will, faith hath many actings and many sweet morsels there; and Denizen will also say, the christian frequently acts faith, and hath many sweet morsels there.' Now to what faith is desiring and looking for in this time state, and that which is to come is, to glorify God. The language of God to his children is, "thou shalt glorify me." And surely it highly becomes the Lord's people to glorify him, and that they will freely do in this time state, and in that which is to come. But agreeable to the old view of the subject, faith is all and in all, and does all, and leaves nothing for the possessor to do, neither requires him to do any thing, either in this time state, or in that which is to come. I hope W. N. will in future make some little distinction between faith, and the faithful; in so doing he will save himself and his antagonist much time, and not be so liable to mislead the unwary. And does W. N. believe that faith desires to glorify God in the state which is to come? Will faith be needed in heaven? Will it enter the realms of bliss? Will our heavenly life be a life of faith? If so I am deceived. Then if faith desires to glorify God in heaven, and is not admitted there, how great will be the disappointment. And again, if faith is the principal faculty of the heaven-born, how defective they will be when they have lost this faculty. I am afraid that I have already occupied too much room, or I can assure W. N. that I should have enlarged a little more on some parts, had Inot an eye to the inconvenience of long pieces in a periodical work.* I beg to add, with a view to W. N.'s concluding lines, that I have no reason, nor does it become me to charge him with a dead faith, nor do I say he is not guarded by the shield of precious faith; but it is clear to me that it has not effectually preserved him from the charge he brings against me, though my own words, it is that of getting into confused notions of faith.' What he means by losing himself in the confusion, I suppose to be dropping into perdition. I do by no means suppose my friend is in danger of such an awful doom, and I

* Should any reply be forwarded, we must request the writers to be concise, or we cannot insert their communications.-EDITORS.

thank my covenant God that I know in whom I have believed, and am persuaded he will keep that which I have committed to his sole care, against the day I shall leave this lower station to mount and dwell where Jesus is. There I hope to meet my friend W. N. with all the ransomed church, and see him face to face, whom we unseen adore.

April, 1830.

(For the Spiritual Magazine.)

DENIZEN.

A FEW THOUGHTS ON SUPRALAPSARIAN GRACE. IN offering my thoughts on supralapsarian grace, or grace above the consideration of the fall of man by Adam in paradise, I am well aware I shall differ from many of God's dear saints who disapprove of the doctrine, and confine their ideas to sublapsarian grace, or grace bestowed on sinners as fallen. Neither supralapsarian or sublapsarian can be found in the bible, nor yet the word trinity, were we to search from Genesis to Revelations, yet the doctrine of the triune God is plentifully revealed in holy writ, to warrant our faith in it. We mean that there are three distinct personalities in the divine essence, or God the Father-God the Son-God the Holy Ghost. That this trinity of personalities necessarily exist, not by will, or choice, but by nature. Not that the Father is the first, the Son the second, and the Holy Ghost the third person in the trinity, (personally considered) this would, in my humble opinion, deny the doctrine altogether. The eternal God, or abstract Deity, cannot be behind, or in the middle, separately so, for one is neither before or after another, in the modus of existence, though in point of manifestation agreeable to the infinite plan of God's eternal decrees, in saving an elect world, the Father is revealed as sending the Son, and the Son as sending the Spirit, but only in accordance with the economy of human redemption; so that what some good men assert, that God the Father begat God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost proceedeth from Father and Son, as to personality is absurd, or very God of very God, is very nonsense of very nonsense, as I lately heard a minister say.

But what I understand more particularly of supralapsarian grace, is this; that the Eternal Jehovah, Father, Son, and Spirit, (which are covenant names or appellations, eternally taken up in the divine mind, before any act of divine power was put forth, in creation, either of angels, or men, or worlds, or systems) in order to manifest their own perfections, and that to the glory alone of divine attributes, determined to create intelligences, and to make known to that creation, as far as possible creative powers could receive, the will of the eternal God. To this end, the names were taken up; what is more likely then, that this beginning of the creation of God, (Rev. iii. 14.) should be the human nature of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus