servation, that those, whose statements in this respect have been the highest, have often, in their controversies, assumed towards their opponents a tone of bitterness and contempt, most unbecoming the Christian character. This looks like self-righteousness, and seems to mark that they are trusting rather in their own faith, which elevates them, than in the cross of Christ, which would humble them.

In like manner, the second of these classes charge the other with antinomianism, though they themselves are liable to the same charge. They hate the name of antinomianism, and they wish to escape from it, as far as possible, but they mistake the way. They are so much occupied with the Christian character, that they forget the doctrine of free grace, by the influence of which doctrine alone, that character can, be formed. They endeavour to become holy by sheer effort. Now this will never do. They can never love God by merely trying to love him, nor can they hate sin by merely trying to hate it. The belief of the love of God to sinners-and of the evil of sin as manifested in the cross of Christ,

can alone accomplish this change within them. Those who substitute effort for the Gospel, preach antinomianism; because they preach a doctrine which can never, in the nature of things, lead to the fulfilment of the law.

I shall have occasion to illustrate these: topics farther in the conclusion of the Essay; and, in the meantime, let us consider how, and, to what extent, the introduction of scholastic metaphysics into religion has obscured and perplexed the subject of faith.

Theological writers have distinguished and described different kinds of faith, as speculative and practical,-historical, saving and realizing faith. It would be of little consequence what names we gave to faith, or to any thing else, provided these names did not interfere with the distinctness of our ideas of the things to which they are attached; but as we must be sensible that they do very much interfere with these ideas, we ought to be on our guard against any false impressions which may be received from an incorrect use of them. Is it not evident that this way of speaking has a natural tendency to draw the attention

away from the thing to be believed, and to engage it in a fruitless examination of the mental operation of believing? And yet is it not true, that we see and hear of more anxiety amongst religious people, about their faith being of the right kind, than about their believing the right things? A sincere man, who has never questioned the Divine authority of the Scripture, and who can converse and reason well on its doctrines, yet finds perhaps that the state of his mind and the tenor of his life do not agree with the Scripture rule. He is very sensible that there is an error somewhere, but instead of suspecting that there is something in the very essentials of Christian doctrine which he has never yet understood thoroughly, the probability is that he, and his advisers if he ask advice, come to the conclusion that his faith is of a wrong kind, that it is speculative or historical, and not true saving faith. Of course this conclusion sends him not to the study of the Bible, but to the investigation of his own feelings, or rather of the laws of his own mind. He leaves that truth which God has revealed and blessed as the medicine of our natures,

and bewilders himself in a metaphysical labyrinth.

The Bible is throughout a practical book, and never, in all the multitude of cases which it sets before us for our instruction, does it suppose it possible for a man to be ignorant, or in doubt whether he really believes or not. It speaks indeed of faith unfeigned, in opposition to a hypocritical pretence and it speaks of a dead faith when it denies the existence of faith altogether. We deny the existence of benevolence, argues the Apostle, when fair words are given instead of good offices; even so we may deny the existence of faith when it produces no fruit, and merely vents itself in professions, in such a case faith is departed, it is no more, it is dead-there is a carcass to be sure to be seen, but the spirit is gone. In the place to which I am now referring, viz. in the second chapter of James, the writer gives another account of dead faith, which is very important; it occurs in the 19th verse. This faith he calls dead, because it relates to an object which, when taken alone, can produce no effect upon our minds: "Thou believest that there is one

"God, thou dost well, the devils also be"lieve and tremble." Now the mere belief of the unity of the godhead, however important when connected with other truths, cannot of itself make a man either better or happier. What feeling or act is there, which springs directly from a belief of the unity of the godhead? When connected with other things, it does produce effects; thus the devils connect it with a belief in the avenging justice of God, and hence they tremble, because there is no other God, no other power to appeal to. to appeal to. Christians connect it with a belief in the love of God through the Redeemer, and hence they have. good hope, for none can pluck them out of His hands. But the abstract belief that there is one God, leads to nothing. Since the Epistle of St. James has been thus introduced, it may appear proper that some explanation should be given of the appa rent discrepancy between his doctrine and that of St. Paul. The two Apostles are speaking evidently of two different things -St. Paul is speaking of the way in which a sinner may approach God-St. James is speaking of the way in which the Christian