3. On principles analogous to those which have now been stated, we must, in my judgment, set aside from the ground of this knowledge, what has, in certain systems of theology, been denominated the appropriating act of faith. If this phrase signified no more than that every sinner, in believing the gospel, must believe it for himself, it would, no doubt, signify what was true; but it would signify, at the same time, what had very little title surely to have a phrase invented to express it. It would signify a truism so silly, as not to be worth putting in words at all. The act of appropriation, as it is termed, signifles something quite different from this. It means, that saving faith is the belief that Christ is mine. I keep by this one phrase, because some others, (such, for example, as that Christ died for me,) although amounting to the same thing in the theological nomenclature of the systematic divines referred to, would lead us, were we to take time to explain them, into too wide a digression. The doctrine of appropriation, then, is that every sinner, when called to believe the gospel, is called to believe that Christ is his. Now, the ground on which we demur to this representation is the same as in the former case-that what the sinner is thus called to believe forms no part of what is written; inasmuch as it is nowhere written, in reference to any sinner individually, that Christ is his. The following observations will, I hope, set this in a clear light:

First. I assume it as a first principle, that saying faith must be the belief of something written-something revealed in the divine word, and which will remain true, whether sinners believe it or not;something that is true, antecedently to any call to the belief of it. But this is not the case with the proposition, in regard to any sinner individually, that Christ is his : and should any, who are invited

to believe this, live and die in unbelief, it follows that they have been invited to believe what turns out a falsehood:-for there is unspeakable, I had almost said infinite, absurdity in the fancy, (which has, however, been gravely propounded amongst the enigmas of a mystical theology,) that a thing which was not true before may be rendered true by a man's believing it.

Secondly. To believe that Christ is mine must be the same thing as believing that I am justified. But in scripture sinners are uniformly represented as justified by faith. According to this view, therefore, I am justified by believing that I am justified; —that is, by believing what must, of course, at the time of my believing it, be false. But,

Thirdly. Sinners are usually told, by those who hold the sentiment under consideration, that Christ is theirs in offer theirs in the Gospel grant. Now this, I confess, has always appeared to me little better than a mere playing with words. That in the Gospel Testimony, Christ is, by the authority of God, held forth, with all the blessings of his salvation, for the free and immediate acceptance of every sinner to whom the testimony comes, be his condition and character what they may-is a glorious and blessed truth. But surely this does not render Christ theirs before they receive him-the blessings of salvation theirs before they accept them. The mere offer of a property does not render that property actually mine, if I do not choose to accept of it:-and if I am called upon to believe that it is mine, because it is mine in offer-what is meant? If it be meant that I should believe the fact of its being offered to me, and of its being at my option whether to receive it or not, and of its being mine if I choose to receive it-that I can understand. But if any thing more is meant, we

are in the regions of mysticism :—we walk in darkness, and have no light.

The truth is, the persuasion that Christ is mine, is a persuasion consequent upon the belief of what is testified in the word-the belief of the "faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ. Jesus came into the world to save sinners." "He that hath the Son," says John," hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." There is then a having the Son, and a not having the Son. Whence arises the distinction? Christ, in the testimony and offer of the Gospel, is set before all alike. Must not the cause of the distinction, then, be, that by some he is received, and by others he is not received? How, indeed, can Christ be ours, but as he is received by us? And how is he received? How, but by the belief of the testimony which reveals him? "He came unto his own, and his own received him not;—but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them who believed on his name.' Sinners, then, receive Christ, when they "believe in his name." It is then that he becomes theirs. They then" have the Son, and have life." "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you," says Moses to ancient Israel," that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; -wherefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." Their having the life and the blessing, then, depended upon their choosing them. They could not be theirs otherwise. If I am told that they were theirs in offer, I answer-true, and so were the death and the curse theirs in threatening. Were the one theirs any more than the other? They were both alike set before them, and which

John i. 11, 12.

+ Deut. xxx. 10.

should be theirs depended upon their own choice: "Choose ye the life, that ye may live;” that is, that the life may be yours.

I am not going to enter at present on the doctrine of universal pardon; as it is my intention to make it the subject of separate discussion. But I cannot help noticing here the fallacious comparison (as it appears to me) used by Mr. Erskine in his introductory Essay to "Extracts of Letters to a Christian Friend, by a Lady," recently published :-" The offer of the Gospel," says he, " does not refer to the pardon, but to the enjoyment of the pardon. This is an important distinction. A friend leaves me a legacy of a thousand pounds. If I believe the information, I have the enjoyment of it; if I do not believe it, I have not the enjoyment of it; but the fact remains unaffected by my beliefor unbelief. If I am told, You are offered a legacy, and you shall have it if you believe in it;' I should ask, What is it that I am to believe? Am I to make a fact by believing it? Or am I to get the legacy as a reward for believing what is not true? for it is not supposed to be mine until I believe in it.' ”*—Now, in this comparison, there appears, first of all, to be an overlooking of the difference in the nature of the things compared. Does the enjoyment of the legacy, and the enjoyment of the pardon, mean no more than the present pleasure arising from the belief that they are ours? In that case, there may be some parallelism between the two. But if by enjoyment be meant the actual possession of the objects, and the benefits resulting from them respectively,then the parallelism ceases. A legacy cannot be enjoyed till it comes into a man's hands, and is in actual use; and no man of common honesty could

Introd. Essay, pp. xvi. and xvii.

ever have the enjoyment of the legacy in this sense, without first believing it to be his. But a pardon is, in this respect, a very different thing. A pardon is the unconditional remission of the punishment due to my trespasses. There is nothing here to be received and used, in order to the actual enjoyment of it. It is enough that it exists. I have the enjoyment of it in the non-endurance of the punishment. I can fancy no other enjoyment of a pardon thau this; and this is independent (as the pardon itself is supposed to be) of my believing in its existence. The legacy I must believe to be mine, and get into my hands, before I can enjoy it; inasmuch as I cannot enjoy it but in using it; and before 1 can use it, I must have it. But if I am actually pardoned, if my sins are so cancelled that none of them can ever affect me in the way of punishment, my believing this is not necessary to my enjoying it, nor can it make the enjoyment of it any greater,— that enjoyment consisting in my actual deliverance from all the penal consequences of my sins. To make enjoyment signify no more than the mere present pleasure to the mind from the belief that either the legacy or the pardon is mine, is to reduce the result of believing to a very small fraction of the blessing. The true parallel to the case of a sinner and the offers of the gospel is this. A real friend, whom, however, I have falsely and injuriously regarded as my enemy, offers me a donation, or (for in principle it is the same thing) bequeaths me a legacy, of great value. But such is the pride of my heart, that I cannot brook the thought of being indebted to him. Under the influence of this unworthy principle, and the misapprehension of his character which gives rise to it, I scornfully refuse to accept the donation or the legacy. In these circumstances it could not be mine, surely, without my accepting of it. By refusing, I wilfully forfeit it.