me in remarking, that I think he has treated my expressions, active, passive, and neuter, somewhat too harshly. Viewing them as purely metaphysical, they certainly sound ridiculously enough; but occurring as they do, at the conclusion of a grammatical disquisition, they were entitled to receive quarter. Had Schleusner's lexicon occurred to him, instead of Thomas Aquinas, he would not have been so much surprised with them. I acknowledge, however, that in looking over the "conclusions," I have too much lost sight of the language of philology, and have slid into that of metaphysics, and therefore I must submit to the castigation with becoming humility. The truth is, the observation was not so much intended to assist in fixing the meaning of the word, as to show that a form of expression, used frequently by the older writers, such as acts of faith, acting faith, &c. on account of which Mr. Sandeman, and his followers, treat them with so much severity and contempt, is justified by a scripture use of the word. For what

ever dispute there may be respecting the activity or passiveness of the mind in believing, and no one feels less interest in such disputes than I do, it cannot be questioned, that to commit any thing in trust to another, implies an act of the mind.

To return to my Scottish friend, he observes, in answer to another fact stated in the essay, that although faith may have such qualities as wisdom or goodness for its object, this may be resolved into belief that such qualities exist, and are worthy of dependence; but that the person who is actually depending on them, is enjoying the fruit of faith. This, however, is merely begging the question. He has no right to invent two propositions respecting these qualities, and assert, without a shadow of proof, that the words, when applied directly to them, is to be applied to these propositions respecting them.

One of the propositions which he supposes, namely, that the qualities in question are worthy of dependance, shews that he cannot get rid of the idea of

dependance; for, if dependance or trust be not conveyed by the word faith, where does he get this proposition? He surely cannot mean to say that actual dependance on any person or quality, re-. solves itself into believing that the person or quality exists, and is worthy of dependance; when he himself tells us immediately, that actual dependance is the fruit or consequence of believing these propositions. Can a thing be resolved into that which is so different from itself, as to be the cause of it? Can the shadow of a tree be resolved into the tree itself? Besides, where in all the scripture will he find trusting, or confiding, or relying, treated as a fruit of faith? When Peter found himself sinking, and cried out to Jesus to save him, he was exercising and expressing trust or confidence in Jesus; but surely his enjoying the fruit of his faith consisted in his being preserved, and in the banishment of his fears, and the satisfaction resulting from his preservation. When the apostle and his companion said to the Philippian jailer, "Believe on

the Lord Jesus Christ," are we to understand that they exhorted him merely to believe that such a person existed? Does the reviewer add, and is worthy of confidence? I ask him where he gets the idea of confidence, if it be not in the word believe? How much more clear and forcible, and appropriate to the circumstances of the agitated despairing sinner, is it to view the apostle as exhorting him to confide in, trust to, or rely upon, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is true he was ignorant of the just grounds of that reliance: but the exhortation and assurance added to it, "thou shalt be saved and thy house," informed him on the testimony of the apostles who had just given him striking evidence of their integrity, that Jesus Christ could and would save him if he trusted to him, and that was sufficient in the mean time to open a ray of hope, and to stay his purpose of self-destruction, till they had time to tell him how worthy Jesus was of his confidence.

751595

In the essay, I mentioned that and Tieuw are never, except in one instance,

employed to express even belief of any proposition which is not, in its own nature, fitted to excite confidence in God, or in Christ Jesus. In answer to this fact, the reviewer says, "the advocates for the more limited definition of faith would say, that if it is a fact that, in the scripture, faith has always for its object something calculated to excite confidence in God, this can only be because there is nothing mentioned in scripture that does not tend to excite such confidence." They might, no doubt, say so; but they would make a very shallow and false assertion if they did; for, as I observed in the essay, (and the reviewer ought to have attended to it,) the scripture mentions many things that are not in themselves calculated to excite confidence in God; such as his vengeance, his wrath, the punishment of his enemies, our own guilt, and condemnation. Now the word is never, in πις εύω any stance, used to express belief of any such doctrines. The inspired writers had different words which they applied to such subjects. Thus when our Lord

in