tion, &c. and they will be found to convey only half-ideas. To make the affirmation respecting them intelligible, or correct, an ellipsis must be supplied: e. g. Faith is not a mere assent to, but an appropriating persuasion or particular application of And the ellipsis being supplied, we might dispense with some of these words, and say: By justifying faith we understand, not only the belief of the articles of religion as abstract propositions, but, the belief of our own personal need of an interest in Christ, and of the promises of the Gospel. That faith consists in a mere assent, as the Sandemanians maintain, may either be conceded or denied, according as we understand what it is to which it is an assent. To make it consist in an assent to any abstract proposition, is to contradict common sense, and to subvert the Gospel. If it be understood as implying a cordial assent to the whole Gospel, we cannot dispute that this faith must justify the believer; but we object to what we consider as a highly injudicious choice of expressions. The words assent, persuasion, belief, reliance, all mean the same thing-believing; but they in strict accuracy apply to different objects: we assent to a request, a proposal, or a statement; we are persuaded, by argument or by reflection, of certain conclusions; we believe in a report; and we rely on an engagement or promise. The belief that Jesus is the Son of God can be called with no propriety an assent, unless we view it as an abstract proposition of the same nature as, Mahommed was the son of Abd'allah. An assent to all that the words are meant to convey, does constitute, in fact, a saving faith; but the word assent is improperly applied to such a truth, inasmuch as it does not express the operation of mind which the fact, if received, must excite. It is an inadequate, an almost irreverent mode of expression, far beneath the dignity of the subject, inapplicable to the object of belief. What should we think, if we heard it said, that a man, on being told that his house was on fire, assented to it, gave his assent to the fact? or that a criminal, on being told that his reprieve was issued, assented to it? No one can assent to the whole Gospel as truth, who is not persuaded of its authority, does not believe in all the Divine declarations, and does not personally rely on the word of the Saviour.

But then comes the word assurance-another cabalistic phrase, which has puzzled and alarmed many a timid Christian, like the handwriting on the wall of the Babylonian palace. The Apostle has spoken of " the full assurance of faith." That there are degrees of faith, no one can question; but to suppose that the assurance of faith, or an assured faith, can ela te to a different object from that to which faith in its

simplest exercise, relates, is a notion to which Scripture yields no support. On this point, there are some excellent remarks of Dr. Thomas Goodwin's. Some,' he says, Some,' he says, have held, that faith is a sensible assurance, and others have held the 'contrary. There is a double mistake in the point. I shall shew it in a word. First, It must be granted, that in all faith 'there is assurance, but of what? Of the truth of the promise. If a man doubt, if he waver, as St. James saith, in the truth ⚫ of the promise, he will never act (exercise) his faith. But the question here is about the assurance of a man's interest; that is not always in faith. Again, all faith is an application of Christ, but how? It is not an application that Christ is 'mine actually, but is a laying hold upon Christ to be mine. It is not a logical application, in way of a proposition, that I may say Christ is mine; but it is a real one: I put him on, I take him to be mine; and that is the better of the two.'

Those of our readers who are conversant with the theological writings of the last century, will appreciate the admirable good sense displayed in this passage. It presents a striking contrast to the language of Boston, and some other popular divines. The former begins his definition of faith with these words: Be verily persuaded in your heart, that Jesus Christ is yours.' This, we must consider as unauthorized and pernicious language. It is not in these terms that the proclamation of the Gospel runs; and that is the truth to which faith is to be directed. The persuasion which the believer is entitled to cherish, that is to say, the hope shed abroad in his heart as the fruit of faith, is with no propriety confounded with the belief which the hearer of the Gospel is commanded to exercise. And even with the regard to the Christian who has "received "the Atonement," we much prefer the Scriptural statement of his assurance, that he is Christ's, to that which represents Christ to be his. After all, our objection lies more against Boston's expressions, than against what we judge to have been his meaning; for, in another place, he thus unobjectionably expresses himself: Make no doubt of the pardon offered, or of the proclamation, bearing that every one of us may safely return to Christ; but thereupon draw near to him in full assurance of faith.' To do justice to a writer, and even to understand him, we must know what error he is combating, what was the prevailing heresy, real or supposed, of his day. The Protestant, in opposing the Romish theologian, (on this same subject of assurance for instance,) the Calvinist in combating the Pelagian, the opponent of Sandemanian error on the one hand, or of Antinomianism on the error, will be found occasionally employing a language true and even unobjection

able in reference to the opinions they are combating, but not absolutely true in reference to the opposite errors which their words may seem to favour. With regard to such writers as Boston, the Erskines, and others of the old school, we may have occasion to find fault with some of their statements, but never with their real drift and main object; which is more than can be said of their opponents.

We have had occasion to quarrel with Mr. Carlile's metaphysics, but we cordially approve of his theology; and there is one sentence in his tenth sermon, which admirably expresses all that we have been contending for with respect to the nature of faith. Faith,' he says, derives its efficacy from its introducing truth into the soul.' This is in strict accordance with the language of St. James: "Of his own will begot "he us with the word of truth." Truth is in every instance the instrument of regeneration, as it is the means also of sanctification and comfort. The only way of strengthening faith, where it exists, is by bringing the mind into closer contact with the truth. Mr. Carlile very justly remarks, that ' repentance always depends on some change of views.' There is in every such case, new light introduced into the understanding, new apprehensions of truth, and this as the result of faith. The genuineness or evangelical character of repentance, will depend on the measure of truth introduced into the mind, with regard to the character and claims of God. There is much barren knowledge, which goes under the general name of belief, but is, in fact, derived from reason, more than from the Divine testimony in the Scriptures, and implies no direct operation of faith. Yet still, it is knowledge, or truth brought into contact with the mind, which in every case operates the change on the heart and character. "For this is life eternal, "to know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom "he has sent."

We regret that, after giving this just view of the subject, Mr. Carlile should, in his third sermon, attempt to make out a distinction between faith and belief. We put faith,' he says, in a man's skill, integrity, and ability to discharge his debts; but we can use belief only in respect to his testimony, or some testimony respecting him.' To put faith' in a man's skill, is at least an unusual expression: it would be quite as correct to say, that we put faith in his testimony: If his testimony relates to any thing which concerns us, and our conduct turns upon its truth, and we believe his testimony, we confide in his testimony, or we confide so far in his competency and veracity. It is but a varied way of expressing precisely the same thing. But it is a mistake to say, that

belief can be applied only to testimony: we believe a man's promise, which is, to be sure, his testimony of what he can or will do, but it is not usual to consider a promise as a testimony. These are verbal refinements unfit for the pulpit, even were they accurately drawn. Scripture doctrine cannot depend upon the etymology of a word. Mr. Carlile admits, that faith is sometimes equivalent to belief.' It would be strange, indeed, if it were not always so. How can we believe any fact, the knowledge of which is derived purely from testimony, without believing in the testimony on which it rests, and exercising confidence in the testifier? Unbelief, through all its modifications, involves the rejection of some part of the Divine testimony. We transcribe with much satisfaction, the following remarks.

It is this reluctancy to believe the testimony of God, which induces men to adopt those endless shifts and expedients observable among them, for the purpose of evading those peculiar doctrines of Scripture which rest entirely on the credit of God's declarations. When a doctrine can, in any degree, be established by a process of reasoning, they are not so averse to it; because they can rest their belief on the results of philosophical investigation; by which means they not only avoid submitting implicitly to the testimony of God, but, at the same time, gratify the pride of their own understandings. But they shew an unconquerable aversion to those doctrines which are purely subjects of Revelation; so that, when they are brought up to them, they recoil and give back, and cannot be persuaded seriously and heartily to receive them. They dare not, indeed, avowedly discredit what they acknowledge God to have revealed. They have been driven out of the bare faced effrontery of charging God with falsehood; but still their indwelling sin, their deep-rooted enmity to God, rises against an unequivocal, explicit submission to his testimony they start aside from it, and fall upon a thousand expedients to evade such an act of homage to his moral character. Many say in their hearts, and some even with their lips, that there is no God. Some contrive to remain in profound ignorance of what God has revealed, and by this means avoid believing it. They take their views of Revelation from teachers after their own hearts, and thus, instead of putting faith in God's veracity, they put faith in their teachers, or in their own imaginations. Others introduce philosophical reasonings among the truths of revelation, as they say to explain them, but which in fact supersede them. Others detach portions of Scripture from their connexion with the context, and build theories upon them, which they give out as the dictates of Revelation. Some even pretend, that to believe literally what is declared in Scripture, would be dishonourable to the character of God; and thus, on pretence of concern for his honour, they would compliment him out of his veracity, and treat him as one who had spoken unadvisedly. Others get rid of the matter at once, by

denying the plenary and literal inspiration of Scripture; thus leaving no testimony of God to be believed.'

We have been particularly pleased with Mr. Carlile's sixth sermon, on the connexion between repentance and faith; but the length to which this article has already extended, forbids our making further citations. It is followed by two sermons on the present imperfection of the knowledge of believers, and on the effects of the perfect vision of God. Justification by faith is the subject of sermons ix. and x. In the succeeding two, the doctrine is vindicated in its bearing on the interests of morality. The active exertion of man in working out his salvation, is the subject of sermon xiii.; and one on the privileges of a life of faith, completes the series. The volume, on the whole, is highly creditable to the Author, and, with the single exception of some of the statements respecting the nature of faith, has our warm approbation.

There are a few other questions connected with the subject of faith, into which we have not room, and others into which we have no inclination to enter. The writings of Andrew Fuller and Thomas Scott have, we trust, put to rest the discussions respecting the warrant of faith. As to those who affect to raise a doubt whether it is the duty of every man to believe in the Divine testimony, we are afraid that we should not have the requisite patience to deal with such Bedlam theology.

Art. IV. Love, a Poem, in Three Parts. To which is added, the Giaour, a Satirical Poem. By E. Elliott. 8vo. pp. 180. London. 1823.

AS

S the former productions of Mr. Elliott have escaped our attention, we deem it but due to him to take this early notice of his present volume. An author who ventures upon the publication of a third volume, must either have found some favour in the eyes of the public, or must have a self-upholding confidence which generally leads to success at last. Whether this volume succeed or not, we have little hesitation in saying, that its Author is capable of producing what will live. He is unquestionably a man of genius; and though genius is in itself no valid passport to fame, but must be countersigned, it is at least the means of obtaining it.

But alas! for the man who stakes his peace on the chances of this Lottery! How many accidents must conspire to bring a man of merit into immediate notoriety, and to fasten his name on the treacherous recollection of the public! And if it be only to enjoy a moment's popularity, and then become