A writer--"Omega"--says of the place of faith in the gospel scheme, Harbinger, 1861, page 209 [sic]:

      "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." The faithful preacher presents the sublime facts of the gospel, and, along with the facts, the proofs that they are facts. The intelligent hearer appropriately employs his understanding in carefully weighing, and rigorously reasoning upon the data, and the result is belief, faith, which, when carefully analyzed, at this stage, is neither more nor less than the affirmative conclusion of the understanding, in the whole premises, that Jesus is the Christ--THAT CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE. Of course, the intelligent reader will not understand me as intending to convey the idea, that there is necessarily a marked pause between this, the intellectual stage, and the next in order--that before passing beyond this stage, the influence of the Truth pauses during an interval that might be measured. As well speak of measuring the interval between the introduction of light into the room, and the light's becoming visible--though it is evident the light must be introduced into the room before it becomes visible. Such is the relation God has established between the human understanding and the human heart; and such the relation of this grand proposition to our moral nature, when its sublime import is clearly apprehended; that, in the case of every right-minded hearer, the influence of the Truth it envelops, passes from the intellect to the heart, and the moral feelings are stirred to their profoundest depths--just as the announcement that your dearest friend is no more, is first heard, then believed, and them felt, with a depth of emotion suited to the relation, and all occurring with so much rapidity that the several stages may not have been noted. (Indeed, it is of the very nature of intense feeling, not to concern itself with the analysis of the co-existing mental states.) The effect, in both cases, is due to the relations God has himself established between the senses, the intellect, and the heart; and to the relations between the several classes of truth, and the human mind, to which all truth is addressed.

      The system of gospel truth, then--affirmed by the understanding to be true--embraces elements that most powerfully appeal to man's moral nature; and the influence of these elements passes as naturally from the understanding to the, heart, as from the ear to the understanding. It is worthy to be repeated again and again, that all this comes legitimately of the divinely appointed relation between the intellect and the moral nature, the harmony between the system of divine truth and the human mind to which it is addressed, as a revelation, and a means of salvation.

      Thus far, then, we have the word preached, heard, understood, believed; and then, in the chain of natural sequence, passing to and [13] influencing the heart. That the truth should influence the heart unless first believed, would be absurd, simply. In some sense, then, faith necessarily precedes repentance, defined as an exercise of the moral feelings, and embracing a sincere sorrow for sin, an honest determination to forsake it, and an actual forsaking of it. But whether that should be called "saving faith" which precedes and leads to repentance, as thus defined, must be admitted to be a matter of human definition, since the phrase is not, strictly, a Bible phrase. It is certainly essential to salvation, as none can be saved without it--though "faith alone" saves no one. We are commanded to repent. It is, therefore, our duty to repent. Of necessity, then, repentance has a voluntary element in it. Otherwise, we could not repent as moral agents. Viewed in this light, we perform this condition of salvation, as a means to an end. Before using the means, we look (by faith) to the end. Without faith, confidence, trust, we would not use the means, or take even the first additional step, repentance, then, considered as a duty commanded by God, as one of the conditions of pardon, and performed by us as an act of duty, and as a means to an end (salvation). Repentance, I say necessarily implies trust as precedent. Faith, in the sense of trust, precedes true, spiritual repentance.

      We claim to have shown, indisputably, that faith, in the sense of trust, PRECEDES repentance--the only question in dispute between the parties to this controversy. It deserves to be stated prominently, however, that this new school of Reformers make it the burden of their efforts, through their organ, the Christian Freeman, to prove that "repentance precedes faith" in the gospel order. They are very fond of quoting certain "texts" which answer their purpose, and equally fond of "letting alone" the "texts" that do not. They assume the very point in dispute, namely, that in the "texts" quoted, the inspired penman intended to indicate the order of faith and repentance--in the face of Acts ii. 38, which admits of only one rational construction: when the Jews, on the day of Pentecost, asked Peter, "What shall we do?" they were, already, believers; and, with full confidence that Peter would make known the conditions of this great salvation; with an honest determination to comply with them when made known; and with an unwavering faith in God, that he would save them upon their doing what should be required of them; they propounded the most momentous question ever propounded by mortal man--What shall we do?--as rational, accountable creatures. We desire salvation. To this end, contemplated by faith, before being instructed to repent and be baptized, we earnestly DESIRE to do all that may be required of us; and we NOW have the fullest confidence that the end will be attained by the means that may be prescribed. [14]

      Again, Rom. x. 9, 10: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made." In v. 9 we have one order; in v. 10 the order is directly reversed. Which does Paul intend to indicate as the natural order? Must we first "confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus," and afterwards "believe in the heart that God hath raised him from the dead," in order to salvation? or, with v. 10, say, "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made"? Evidently, the latter; but we do not so decide on the authority of either of these conflicting passages, but on the authority of common sense, which, by the way, is not a very common thing! It is clear that Paul did not intend to teach the order in either verse. Nor did the inspired penman intend to teach the order in the passages relied upon by the corresponding editor of the Freeman. But, while, in the sense very carefully defined, faith precedes and leads to, it does not terminate in, repentance. It accompanies and co-exists with all the subsequent conditions, and becomes modified at each successive step in the complete process of becoming a Christian. It is, indeed, a most interesting psychological inquiry, how faith becomes thus modified. As we proceed with the investigation, let the intelligent reader interrogate his own consciousness, with a view to eliciting the utterance of his own common sense.

      Subjectively considered, an intelligent faith contemplates the whole scheme of salvation as originating with God, and accepts it (salvation) as a free gift. Salvation is of grace, but it is nevertheless offered and accepted under conditions, to be performed by the sinner himself, as a rational being, looking to the end from the beginning of his obedience. Salvation, as a personal matter, being thus suspended upon conditions, we must know what these conditions are, before we can intelligently perform them as a means to salvation as the end; and we must know when they have been complied with, in order that we may intelligently enjoy the assurance that we are entitled to the salvation suspended upon the conditions prescribed. We are commanded to believe the gospel, and we actually believe only as we know that we believe--the fact of believing being given us in our consciousness in the very act of believing. We are commanded to repent, and we actually repent only as we know that we repent--this fact, too, being given us in our consciousness in the very act of repenting. We are commanded to be baptized, and we are Scripturally baptized only as we know that we submit to this ordinance as penitent believers. The assurance that our sins are pardoned, and we saved, is enjoyed only as we know that we have compiled with all the conditions upon which God has suspended the blessing. [15]

      The grand scheme of redemption, then, is embraced by maxi, through an intelligent, comprehensive faith, as the first step. Faith is followed by repentance, as the second step. Then comes baptism, as the third step. This assurance of remission of sins, follows baptism as the fourth stage--this assurance being based upon all the conditions precedent. Faith, however, accompanies all these conditions--co-exists with all these stage's, subsequent to the first, at which it stands related to repentance and baptism as unperformed conditions; and to remission of sins as an unrealized blessing, standing beyond both of these unperformed conditions. After repentance, faith stands related to repentance as a condition already complied with, and to remission of sins as a blessing brought nearer by one additional step, but as still lying beyond baptism, as the remaining unperformed condition. After baptism, faith stands related to all the conditions, as having been fully complied with, and accepts and rejoices in the assurance, the conviction, that, upon complying with the last of the conditions upon which the remission of sins was suspended, the sinner was cleansed from all his past sins, (of course through the blood of Christ, made available for personal salvation through these divinely appointed means).

      It may be added, that, at each successive stage, faith stands related to itself at the preceding and subsequent stage's, in its corresponding modifications--as manhood stands related to youth, etc. It is also apparent that at this (the fourth) stage, as well as at each of the preceding, it stands related to the whore future Christian warfare, and to the eternal salvation that is to be attained only by a "faithful continuance in well doing." In a word, the principle underlying the whole of this analysis, is, that each element is to be regarded in its relations to every other element, and to the one great whole, if we would have a just view of the grand system made up by all the elements combined.

      From this standpoint it must clearly appear to be purely arbitrary to take faith as a standing between repentance and baptism, and stereotype it just here, as "saving faith." There is no warrant for it, whether in reason or revelation. I repeat it, if we are to call it "saving faith" at any one stage, let it be so called when it comes into play with vital energy enough to lead to the prompt and cheerful performance of all that God commands. It is here that we find the grand turning-point in the career of the sinner. If this phrase must be used, and if some other point must be selected, to receive the name of "saving faith," let it not be that assigned by T. J. M., but, rather, let it be thus defined as connecting with the very act of baptism, as the last of the conditions of pardon, since only at this stage is it the full assurance, to its subject, of the actual salvation involved in the remission of all past sins. This last view is greatly more in harmony with the psychological [16] facts, than the following language, quoted from the same (September) number of the Freeman: "It is faith that saves us, but obedience strengthens the faith that saves, so that it is still faith that secures justification, and not baptism as a procuring cause of remission, in addition to faith. Baptism, indeed, is faith in action." Query. If "faith saves," and "obedience strengthens the faith that saves," would faith be strong enough to save, without the strengthening influence of obedience? If not, what is the propriety of making so much ado about "saving faith," more than about saving obedience? This same editor says, "We deprecate an excessive prominence being given to baptism. This is done by using the phrase, "baptism for the remission of sins," though so nearly the very words used by Peter himself. As a people, we have always "deprecated an excessive prominence being given to" any one of the conditions of salvation. "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder," say we in relation to the conditions of salvation. Let all the conditions he prescribes, be promptly and cheerfully complied with, in the spirit of true rational obedience, worthy of the object of the divine compassion; and God will assuredly perform all that he promises. If we have "faith as a grain of mustard seed," we can, with the fullest "trust," fall into the path of duty, and pursue it steadily to the end--doing our part, without torturing our brains to settle points he has not chosen to reveal, for the simple reason that they are in no way essential to salvation, or happiness here or hereafter. Of each of the conditions of salvation, we say, then, as the editor of the Freeman says of baptism: "Let this ordinance retain its proper position in the gospel order, and not overshadow those vital conditions of salvation that stand beside it, namely, repentance and faith." After all, this is making quite enough of baptism. "Repentance and faith," as "vital conditions," "stand beside it" (baptism)!

      To sum up the whole matter: Sinners are commanded to believe the gospel, to repent, and to be baptized; and after pointing out to them God's way, let us be content to exhort them to do all that He requires. Let us no longer squander our time and energies upon questions that "gender strifes," but "edify not." In a most important sense, to believe and to repent, are acts of obedience, as truly as baptism. In baptism the subject is, physically, purely PASSIVE, while both believing and repenting are active mental states. It is almost an abuse of language to represent the "act" of being baptized, which is so purely passive, as more an act of obedience, on the part of the subject, than believing and repenting. In the same sense in which baptism is said to be faith "in action," every other duty, subsequent to the faith that leads to the performance of God's will, is but an exhibition of "faith in action," up to the very end of the Christian warfare. [17]

      This new school of Reformers are especially fond of metaphysical discussions, and we accept the issue pressed upon us, to show how utterly groundless and false, is their philosophy, and how rickety their much vaunted logic.

      In conclusion, I may be permitted to add, that a more barren effort has never fallen under my eye, than is made in the article specially under review--including, also, the editorial in the same number, to which reference has been made--to undermine the system of faith for which we have been pleading for the last thirty years.

OMEGA.      

[MHA2 13-18]