1. That it is contrary to the reason of mankind, to suppose different effects, without any difference in the cause. It has ever been counted to be good reasoning from the effect to the cause; and it is a way of reasoning that common sense leads mankind to. But if, from a different effect, there is no arguing any difference in the cause, this way of reasoning must be given up. If there be a difference in the effect, that does not arise from some difference in the cause, then there is something in the effect that proceeds not from its cause, viz., that diversity; because there is no diversity in the cause to answer it: therefore, that diversity must arise from nothing, and consequently there is no effect of any thing; which is contrary to the supposition. So this hypothesis is at once reduced to a contradiction. If there be a difference in the effect, that difference must arise from something; and that which it arises from, let it be what it will, must be the cause of it. And if faith be the cause of this diversity in the effect, as is supposed, then I would ask, what is there in faith, that can be the cause of this diversity, seeing there is no diversity in the faith to answer it? To say that the diversity of the effect arises from likeness or sameness in the cause, is a gross and palpable absurdity; and is as much as to say, that difference is produced by no difference: which is the same thing as to say, that nothing produces something.

2. If there were a difference in the effects of faith, but no difference in the faith itself, then no difference of faith could be showed by the effects. But that is contrary to Scripture, and particularly to James ii. 18: "Yea a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works." The apostle can mean nothing else by this, than that I will show thee by my works that I have a right sort of faith. I will show thee that my faith is a better faith than that of those who have no works. I will show thee the difference of the causes, by the difference of the effect. This the apostle thought good arguing. Christ thought it was good arguing to argue the difference of the tree from the difference of the fruits; Matt. xii. 33, "A tree is known by its fruit." How can this be, when there is no difference in the tree? When the nature of the tree is the same, and when, indeed, though there be a difference of the effects, there is no difference at all in the faith that is the cause? An if there is no difference in the faith that is the cause, then certainly no difference can be shown by the effects. When we see two human bodies, and see actions performed and works produced by the one, and not by the other, we determine that there is an internal difference in the bodies themselves: we conclude that one is alive, and the other dead; that one has an operative nature, an active spirit in it, and that the other has none; which is a very essential difference in the causes themselves. Just so we argue an essential difference between a saving and common faith, by the works or effects produced; as the apostle in that context observes, in the last verse of the chapter: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith with out works is dead also."

I come now, in the second place, to show wherein saving faith differs essentially from common faith and shall endeavor to prove what I lay down from the Scripture, which will give further evidence to the truth of the doctrine.

There is in the nature and essence of saving faith, a receiving of the object of faith, not only in the assent of the judgment, but with the heart, or with the inclination and will of the soul. There is in saving faith, a receiving of the truth, not only with the assent of the mind, but with the consent of the heart; as is evident by 2 Thess. ii. 10: "Received not the love of the truth that they might be saved." And the apostle, describing the nature of saving faith, from

the example of the ancient patriarchs, Heb. xi., describes their faith thus, verse 13: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises; but, having seen them afar off, were persuaded of them, and embraced them." And so the Evangelist John calls faith a receiving of Christ; John i. 12, " But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name." Here the apostle expressly declares, that he whom he means by a receiver, was the same with a believer on Christ, or one that has saving faith. And what else can be meant by receiving Christ, or accepting him, than an accepting him in heart? It is not a taking him with the hand, or any external taking or accepting him, but the acceptance of the mind. The acceptance of the mind is the act of the mind towards an object as acceptable, but that in a special manner, as the act of the inclination or will. And it is farther evident, that saving faith has its seat not only in the speculative understanding or judgment, but in the heart or will; because otherwise, it is not properly of the nature of a virtue, or any part of the moral goodness of the mind: for virtue has its special and immediate seat in the will; and that qualification, that is not at all seated there, though it be a cause of virtue, or an effect of it, yet is not properly any virtue of the mind, nor can properly be in itself a moral qualification, or any fulfilment of a moral rule. But it is evident, that saving faith is one of the chief virtues of a saint, one of the greatest virtues prescribed in the moral law of God. Matth. xxiii. 23, " Wo unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; for ye pay tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." It is a principal duty that God required: John vi. 28, 29, " Then said they unto him, What shall we do that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom God hath sent." 1 John iii. 23, “And this is his commandment, that ye believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." And therefore it is called most holy faith, Jude 20. But if it be not seated in the will, it is no more a holy faith, than the faith of devils. That it is most holy, implies, that it is one thing wherein Christian holiness does principally consist.

An objection may be raised against this last particular, viz., that the words faith and believing, in common language, signify no more than the assent of the understanding.

Answer 1. It is not at all strange, that in matters of divinity and of the gospel of Christ, which are so exceedingly diverse from the common concerns of life, and so much above them, some words should be used in somewhat of a peculiar sense. The languages used among the nations of the world, were not first framed to express the spiritual and supernatural things of the gospel of Christ, but the coinmon concernments of human life. Hence it comes to pass, that language in its common use, is not exactly adapted to express things of this nature; so that there is a necessity, that when the phrases of common speech are adopted into the gospel of Christ, they should some of them be used in a sense somewhat diverse from the most ordinary use of them in temporal concerns. Words were first devised to signify the more ordinary concerns of life hence, men find a necessity, even in order to express many things in human arts and sciences, to use words in something of a peculiar sense; the sense being somewhat varied from their more ordinary use; and the very same words, as terms of art, do not signify exactly the same thing that they do in common speech. This is well known to be the case in innumerable instances;

because the concerns of the arts and sciences are so diverse from the commo. concerns of life, that unless some phrases were adopted out of common language, and their signification something varied, there would be no words at all to be found to signify such and such things pertaining to those arts. But the things of the gospel of Christ are vastly more diverse from the common concerns of life, than the things of human arts and sciences: those things being heavenly things, and of the most spiritual and sublime nature possible, and most diverse from earthly things. Hence the use of words in common language, must not be looked upon as a universal rule to determine the signification of words in the gospel: but the rule is the use of words in Scripture language. What is found in fact to be the use of words in the Bible, by comparing one place with another, that must determine the sense in which we must understand them.

Answer 2. The words in the original, translated faith and believing, such as πίστις, πιστεύω. πείθω, and πεποιθησις, as often used in common language, implied more than the mere assent of the understanding they were often used to signify affiance or trusting; which implies an act of the will, as well as of the understanding it implies, that the thing believed is received as good and agreeable, as well as true. For trusting always relates to some good sought and aimed at in our trust; and therefore evermore implies the acceptance of the heart, and the embracing of the inclination, and desire of the soul. And therefore, trusting in Christ for salvation implies, that he and his redemption, and those things wherein his salvation consists, are agreeable and acceptable to us.

Or

Answer 3. Supposing saving faith to be what Calvinistical divines have ordinarily supposed it to be, there seems to be no one word in common language, so fit to express it, as faith, 71671s, as it most commonly is in the original. thodox divines, in the definitions of faith, do not all use exactly the same terms, but they generally come to the same thing. Their distinctions generally signify as much as a person's receiving Christ and his salvation as revealed in the gospel, with his whole soul; acquiescing in what is exhibited as true, excellent and sufficient for him. And to express this complex act of the mind, I apprehend no word can be found more significant than faith, which signifies both assenting and consenting because the object of the act is wholly supernatural, and above the reach of mere reason, and therefore exhibited only by revelation and divine testimony and the person to be believed in, is exhibited and offered in that revelation, especially under the character of a Saviour, and so, as an object of trust: and the benefits are all spiritual, invisible, wonderful and future. If this be the true account of faith, beware how you entertain any such doctrine, as that there is no essential difference between common and saving faith; and that both consist in a mere assent of the understanding to the doctrines of religion. That this doctrine is false, appears by what has been said; and if it be false, it must needs be exceedingly dangerous. Saving faith, as you well know, is abundantly insisted on in the Bible, as in a peculiar manner the condition of salvation; being the thing by which we are justified. How much is that doctrine insisted on in the New Testament! We are said to be "justified by faith, and by faith alone: By faith we are saved; and this is the work of God, that we believe on him whom he hath sent: The just shall live by faith: We are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ: He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." Therefore, doubtless, saving faith, whatsoever that be, is the grand condition of interest in Christ, and his great salvation. And if it be so, of what vast importance is it, that we should have right notions of what it is? For certainly no one thing whatever, nothing in religion is of ⚫ greater importance, than that which teaches us how we may be saved. If