and scattered through his other works; of which the leading idea is an entire committing of the soul in Christ, and resting only upon his righteousness, for deliverance from despair, and gui't, and death, and for the obtaining of holiness and eternal happiness. In the same manner, there appears reason for understanding the language of appropriation used by Calvin, in his Institutes and his Catechism, as chiefly intended to impress the necessity of personally realizing and applying the blessings of the gospel, in opposition to the spurious faith of mere orthodox opinions. A little. reflection may convince any man that this is a very different idea from that of making the first and formal act of faith to consist in a man's believing that he is ALREADY saved. The same reason for the explication which I have ventured to propose, is supported in the Synopsis Purioris Theologia, by four of the most eminent reformed divines, p. 380, Leyden, 1642. So says F. Burmann, "the proper act of faith is fleeing to the Saviour, and it entirely consists in the reliance of the soul upon him;" and he immediately goes on to show that the assurance of one's own salvation is an effect of faith. (Synopsis Theol. vol. ii. p. 185, Utrecht, 1672.) To adduce no more, out of this article, that faith alone without any works justifies before God, shall stand and remain, in spite of the Romish Emperor, the Turkish Emperor, the Tartar Emperor, the Persian Emperor, the Pope, all the Cardinals, Bishops, Parsons, Monks, Nuns, Kings, Princes, Lords, and all the world with all the devils too; and hellfire shall they have upon their heads into the bargain, and no thanks to them," &c. &c.-Lutheri Opera, tom. v. fol. 298, Jena, 1556; or in Melch, Adami Vita Germ. Theol. p. 144, Francof. 1653.--This extraordinary paper is given, but translated from a Latin version. which loses the raciness of Luther's vernacular phrase, and with some omissions, by the Rev. John Scott, in his ably executed and welcome continuation of Milner's Hist, of the Church of Christ, p. 98, the multitude of valuable authors of this class, I beg to refer the reader to Witsius and Benedict Pictet, both of whom most expressly vindicate and urge this distinction; to Vitringa, to Van Mastricht, and to Stapfer, of Berne, a divine who was one of the glories of Switzerland, and to the diligent study of whose writings I would take the liberty of most respectfully and earnestly recommending the young ministers who have recently come forth on the Lord's side, in that interesting country. His definition of faith I must be allowed to transcribe:-"It is that act of a regenerate person, whereby, out of a holy assent to the testimony of God upon the salvation wrought out by Christ, he renounces all self-dependence, and cordially gives up himself to the Lord Jesus for salvation." I have enlarged so much (though greatly restraining myself) upon the sentiments of the foreign divines, because some of our friends have an exaggerated idea of the extent to which what is called the appropriation-scheme has been current among them. In further confirmation of the solution which is here supported, I would refer to various very strong and decisive passages in Fisher's Marrow of Modern Divinity, and the notes of the Scottish editor. For example,-"True faith is not ordinarily begun, increased, and finished all in a moment; but groweth by degrees. Though you have had, and have still, much peace and joy, yet that is no infallible sign that your faith is true; for a man may have great raptures, yea, he may have great joy, as if he were lifted up into the third heaven,. and have a great and strong persuasion that his state is good; and yet be but a hypocrite after all. Therefore I beseech you, in the words of the apostle, Examine yourself whether you be in the faith,” p. 124, edit. 1726. "The author useth not the word assurance or assured in his definition; nor will any thing contained in it amount to the idea now commonly affixed to that word, or to what is, in our days, commonly understood by assurance. He doth not here teach that assurance of faith whereby believers are certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, the which is founded upon the EVIDENCE of grace." Note in p. 161. III. The remaining reason to account for the fact, that Christian divines of so distinguished excellence, have sanctioned an error "of wide-spread efficacy in deceiving men's souls, and in bringing in a loose superficial gospel, to the unspeakable dishonour of the Christian religion," (Letters, &c. of the late Rev. Thomus Scott, p. 201.) I have derived from the judicious and holy writer, whose words I have just borrowed. That reason is thus stated in his own perspicuous manner. "When believers, in the warmth of their affections, feel the humbling, melting, endearing, and sanctifying effects of contemplating the glory of the cross, and the love of CHRIST in dying for sinners; and consider themselves as the special objects of that inexpressible compassion and kindness; they are apt to conclude that the belief of the propositions that Christ loves them and died for them,' and that God is reconciled to them,' produces the change by its own influence, and would affect the most carnal hearts in the same manner, could men be persuaded to embrace it. Hence very lively and affectionate Christians have been prone to sanction the unscriptural tenet, that the justifying act of faith consists in assuredly believing that Christ died for ME in particular, and that God loves ME; and to consider this appropriation as preceding repentance, and every other gracious disposition, and as, in some sense, the cause of. regeneration, winning the heart to love God, and to rejoice in him, and in obeying his commandments. From this doctrine others have inferred that if all men believed the love of God to them, and his purpose at length to make them happy, they would be won over from rebellion against him." (Mr.. Scott's Notes on Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. 12mo. edit. p. 296, or the valuable collection of Letters and Papers, published by the Rev. John Scott, p. 205. See also Mr. Scott's Es says, 12mo. edit. p. 300.) As a proper close to this letter, I beg to cite another paragraph from the same author. "Did the gospel require men confidently to believe that their sins are already pardoned, and that all the blessings of salvation are already their's, though they are destitute of every gracious disposition, (as some have incautiously advanced,) no scheme could better suit the pride and carnality of an impenitent heart. This, however, is not the true gospel of Christ, but another gospel,' which must be opposed, even though preached by an angel from heaven.' All are bound to believe, that God will forgive the vilest of sinners who repent and believe in Christ; otherwise they make God a liar, [i. e. impiously and falsely contradict him,] for he hath attested it. When, by scriptural evidence, (even by holy dispositions produced, and holy actions performed,) I am sure that my faith is living, and my repentance genuine; I may be humbly sure that my sins are forgiven, and that I am a child of God and an heir of glory; but not before. That I shall be welcome, if I come aright, I may be sure before I come. That I have come aright, and am accepted, I can only be assured by the effects of which I am conscious, and the fruits of righteousness produced." (Discourse on Repentance. 12mo. edit. p. 18.) I must request admittance for a third and last letter on this important subject, in your next mumber, and am, &c. J. P. S. Nov. 18, 1826. REMARKS ON MR. ORME'S WORK "ON THE LORD'S SUPPER.' (To the Editors.) GENTLEMEN-I have lately read with great pleasure, and I trust with no small degree of spiritual profit, a treatise on "the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper," by the Rev. W. Orme. From the reported connexion of its respected author with your publication, it might be imagined that there would be some difficulty in obtaining the insertion of the follow ing remarks; but I think that, without presumption, I need indulge no apprehension on that ground. The confidence I cherish in his candour and good sense assures me, that he would wish every position in his interesting and instructive work to be thoroughly examined, and nothing received but what has upon it the undoubted image and superscription" of truth. Mr. Orme, supported by the authorities of Mede, Peirce, and Waterland, considers the Lord's Supper as a service in which God is put in remembrance" of the death of his Son. While he admits that the ordinance is commemorative, and therefore designed to keep in our minds a remembrance of the Redeemer, he contends that the words of our Lord, in the institution of the Eucharist, "Do this in remembrance of me," were principally designed to convey the idea, that the object of the sacred rite is, "a putting of God in mind, and not a bare remembering or putting ourselves in mind only." The literal rendering of the words, TÕUTO Totêtre eis Thy eμnv áváμvnov, is, "This do for my memorial;" which either mean, that you may remember me," or that I may be "put in mind of you."-" Many," Many," Mr. Pierce, cited by Mr.Orme says with approbation, "leave out this, which I am persuaded is at least N. S. No. 24. " may the principal thing intended in the injunction, and thereby they seem to me to lose, in a great measure, the right notion of the Lord's Supper. That such kind of expres sions are used concerning God, will be questioned by none who are tolerably versed in their Bibles. And this interpretation is very agreeable to the nature of that solemn action. God is thereby put in remembrance of the precious sacrifice of his own Son, the virtue of which is pleaded before him, for pardon, acceptance, and the communication of his Spirit." pp. 93, 94. I confess that, in a figurative sense, the observance of the Lord's Supper may be considered as 66 putting God in remembrance," on the same principle on which prayers and intercessions are so represented; but the words of Christ, in the institution of this ordinance, appear to me to convey only that one specific and definitive sense which our translation has so distinctly expressed. The term memorial is not, I apprehend, the exact equivalent of the term ἀνάμνησις. A memorial is that "which is designed to bring to memory," which is intended to remind another of what it may be necessary to be remembered; and in this view of the word it may be property applied to a religious rite, the very nature of which renders it strictly commemorative. But the word corresponding with this idea, which is generally employed, is not ἀνάμνησις, but μνημοσυνον. The former means the act of remembering, the process of recollection: hence it is rendered, in Latin, either by "memoria," or "recollectio," or "recordatio." The latter is employed to denote that, which is done in order to assist or secure the act of remembrance. From the relation of these ideas to each other, it is not surprising that, in 4 N memorial viewed as a permanent is true that these words are sometimes, though very infrequently, rendered, by the LXX, ȧváμrnois; but it appears that, in each case, the process of remembering, rather than the idea of an instituted memorial, seems to be conveyed by its application. In Numbers v. 15. the participle of the verb from which it is derived is so connected with the other word as to illustrate this distinction. esi yap θυσία μνημοσυνε, ἀναμιμνήσκεσα ȧuapriav: "it is an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance." In Numbers x. 10. it is said of the sacrifices of the peaceofferings, they shall be for a memorial before your God." Here" they showed that God had them the Septuagint has rendered it ἐται ὑμῖν ἀνάμνησις εναντι το θέα vuv. The observance of the law, in this case, was undoubtedly a "memorial," and the translators might have retained the ordinary word, almost universally used in such connexion; but they seem to have fixed rather upon the mental operation, than on the commemorative institute. 66 But without insisting on this distinction, I would further remark, that if the word used in reference to the Lord's Supper had ben it would not have μνημόσυνον, supported the idea sanctioned by the esteemed author of the work to which I have alluded. In every use of the words, whether it be the *Exod. iii. 15; xii. 14; xiii. 9; xvii. 14; xxviii. 29. Lev. ii, 2. 9. 16. Numb. v. 15. &c. &c. still in remembrance; for had they been blotted out, and therefore forgotten by God, the sacrifices would have ceased to be offered." Now, it is worthy of remark, that in this passage the word áráavnog is used, and evidently conveys the idea of the act of recollection. This was necessary under the law, because of the inadequate nature of the typical sacrifices. Their constant repetition was therefore enjoined to denote that inadequacy, and to serve as a constant remembrancer to the people of their iniquities, and of the future sacrifice by which alone their guilt could be actually taken away. This appears to be the most natural meaning of the text. When Jehovah calls his name "my memorial," (1, TTO μ esperor,) the language may be considered as illustrative of the words of Christ, eig Thy eμǹv åváμvnoir; and my last objection to the opinion of Mr. Orme is founded on the pronoun. Had it been general and indefinite, as a memorial or remembrancer,' there might have been some plausibility in the view given by Mede: on the other hand, if our Lord had used the Hebrew language, no phraseology could have been more literally significant of his meaning than . It is obvious, that if or 66 .זכרי the Lord's Supper be a service in which we "put God in mind," our Lord would have used a very different form of expression. If the avaμvnois be a memorializing, putting another in remembrance," rather than ourselves remembering, then it is Christ himself who is memorialized; a construction which, I presume, would not be admitted by any one. If "God" be intended, and the pronoun merely denote the authority by which the institute was appointed, then it is not easily to be reconciled with the assurance, that the Intercessor, "having obtained or secured the everlasting redemption," "appeareth in the presence of God for us." It is more natural to consider the Eucharist as our remembrancer of the Redeemer, and his appearance before the throne as the continual memorial in heaven on his part, who "ever liveth to make intercession." I cannot close these observations without renewing the expression of my grateful acknowledg-. ments to the author of the work on the Lord's Supper, for the high satisfaction I have enjoyed in the perusal of his volume. The chapter on the " symbolical and commemorative" character of the institution is one of peculiar interest; and I would respectfully suggest to the author, that if the more practical and devotional parts OUR Lord admonishes us, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.". Matthew xii, 36. A few remarks may perhaps remove some difficulties from this passage, and set it in a light in which it has not usually appeared. 1. To give account, ought not to be considered as synonymous with, to be condemned. When informed that we shall have to give an account, we are admonished of our responsibility; but not certainly of our criminality, respecting the matter contemplated. The faithful pastor watches for souls, as one that must give account, and hopes to do it with joy, Heb. xiii. 17. Every one of us shall give account of himself unto God," Rom. xiv. 12; yet to many, it is hoped, the great audit will issue in, "Well done good and faithful servant." Matt. xxv. 19-23. The account, therefore, to be given respecting what is here rendered an idle word, may, so far as this expression is con cerned, be honourable and happy for the individual by whom it is rendered. 2. The word apyos, rendered idle, does not of itself express |