of conduct, I would ask him, Are you conscious of an internal warfare; and upon examination, day by day, do you find the new principle of holiness gaining ground within you? Are you making progress against your corruptions? Are your spiritual graces (your faith, your love, your humility, your deadness to the world, your devotedness to Gad) becoming stronger and brighter? For these are the sure marks of inward piety, as it respects either ourselves or others, and make up a most essential and indispensable part of a godly life.

"And it is further to be observed, that, in this part of the Confession, there is a clear line of distinction made between our suing for pardon, and the holy fruits of obedience. They are not mingled together as the common divinity now in vogue attempts to mingle them. It is not said, 'Have mercy upon us, O Lord, because we are endeavouring to live a godly, righteous, and sober life.' But, have mercy upon us, according to thy promises declared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord.' This we are taught first to implore. We must come as miserable sinners and confess our grievous sius, and beg for God to have mercy on us, and spare, and restore us, through his mere goodness and grace in Christ Jesus. And then, we must beg for strength that we may hereafter live a holy life. We are not pardoned because we have feared and obeyed God, but being first pardoned by his free mercy, we then are hereafter to live a godly life to the glory of his holy Name. In

deed, the whole Confession is in direct contrast to the confessions which many now-a-days would teach us to make. Only hear their sermons, and their way of describing repentance and the doctrine of justification, and you will soon perceive how far they are from the true spirit of the Reformers. The confession they would make before Almighty God would be of some failings and infirmities only-not of having wandered from God as lost sheep. They would acknowledge generally that they had yielded to many temptations and follies-not that they had followed the devices and desires of their own hearts, and that there was no health in them. They would plead their obedience and fulfilment of the Christian covenant for becoming intitled to pardon through the merits of Christ-not confess themselves miserable offenders and plead God's mercy only in Christ Jesus. They would make their good living the cause and meritorious condition of forgiveness-not the fruit and evidence of that forgiveness.

"Thus this short prayer to my mind is a summary of religion. It guards us against a proud and selfsufficient spirit, and lays us really low before God as sinners; and yet, on the other hand, it leaves out all niceties and abstruse speculations, and keeps to the simple broad truths and statements of Scripture. have frequently brought forward this matter to persons who were prejudiced against the true views of religion, and I never met one who could answer the plain solid argument drawn from this confession of our church."

I

It may perhaps be interesting to the readers of the above renarks, to know that the Dean has bequeathed his own papers relating to religion, to his nephew, the Rev. Joseph Milner, and the papers in the hand-writing of his late brother, to the Rev. Mr. Fawcett of Carlisle, with a direction to

him to use them in the way which he may think most conducive" to the glory of God, and the good of mankind."

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. WANT of time and bodily indisposition compel me to a hasty reply, In noticing the observations of your correspondent P. (contained in your April Number), in reference to my Letter to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, on the subject of certain Doctrines of our Church termed Evangelical.

I would respectfully assure him, that it was my most earnest wish and endeavour, in commenting upon the sentiments of Mr. Burrow, not only to give a "literal," but a " liberal" and candid representation of his doctrine; and I would appeal on this point to the doubts which I then expressed, and with sincerity, whether I had interpreted his expressions aright or not.

Whoever reads Mr. Burrow's own words, will, I think, be struck with their obscurity, as to the ground of our justification before God; and I beg leave to assure your correspondent, that if it had been mere matter of criticism whether the sentence might be better expressed, I should not have ventured upon the office of a critic. The force of my humble abilities was directed to what appeared to me fundamental errors in doctrine -actual dissent from the Articles of the Church of England.

On a review of the passage, I am still constrained to say, that I cannot put any other meaning upon it than this; namely, that Mr. Burrow expresses his firm reliance for justification before God "in the great day of account," upon his own endeavours, his own good works (defective-that is, sinful-as he feels them to be), being mercifully accepted through the mediation of Christ. In other words, that he regards himself under the covenant of works in part-and that the CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 222.

merits and inediation of Christ are to supply (to those works) what conscience testifies to be defiled and defective.

If this be the fair construction that it is not the doctrine of the of the passage, I would maintain Church of England.

The correctness of the interpretation, however, seems to rest upon this point; namely, Mr. Burrow's real meaning by the word" acceptance." Your correspondent will do me the justice to admit, that in my quotation I gave the whole passage, beginning with the "salvation purchased by the blood of the Lamb." Yet when Mr. Burrow proceeds to speak of the ground of his hope for future blessednesswhen he alludes to "the main anchor of his soul"-he refers for this to his own endeavours (that is, works or deservings), if they be sincere, and founded on the proper motive, &c. &c.-" These my endeavours," says he, "to perform those conditions upon which the provisional promise of eternal happiness depends, however imperfect [I transpose the context], will meet with acceptance through the mediation of Jesus Christ, if they be sincere, &c. &c."

I would here remark, that I am not discussing the point of our imperfect works being graciously accepted-being pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, as our Article expresses it: but I would clearly and unequivocally contend, that these our endeavours to please God, even if sincere, cannot have any part or share whatever in OUR ACCEPTANCE, by which I mean our pardon our justification our being, either now or hereafter, accounted righteous in the sight of God-and intitled to the blessedness of eternal life.

Our pardon, our acceptance, our "main anchor," rests upon the truth contained in the Eleventh Article of our church; namely, "We are accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord Jesus 3 B

Christ, by faith, and NOT FOR OUR OWN WORKS OR DESERVINGS." Your correspondent regards Mr. Burrow's sentiments as in unison with the Article of our church on Good Works; yet he will, I am sure, readily perceive that these works are not said to procure OUR ACCEPTANCE: on the contrary, they are declared incapable of enduring the severity of God's judgment—that is, his inflexible justice and unsullied holiness. Neither are we said to be accepted by these our works being rendered available through the mediation of Christ. The expression is, "Yet are they (that is, the works) pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ." I must leave your readers to decide whether P.'s statement mine is correct; but I think it will appear evident, that if such very opposite conclusions can be fairly drawn from the language in question," the delicacy which can hardly brook that the term Good Works should stand in the same sentence with the term Faith," which your correspondent regards as so

or

dangerous," will prove a very great safeguard. At least, when we see the blood of the Lamb and our own works so obscurely blended together, that it is not easy to say whether the author relies solely on the merits of Christ, or partly also on his own works or deservings, that it is hard to say whether he means his own acceptance and justification, or merely God's gracious acceptance of those good works which proceed from a justified and pardoned sinner-it appears the duty of a member of that church, whose peculiar doctrine is JUSTIFICATION BY THE MERITS OF CHRIST ONLY, to use his efforts, however feeble, to point out the danger of the heresy so likely to be insinuated into the minds of the unwary, so congenial with the natural pride of our hearts, which anxiously desire to find something in us worthy of acceptance, forgetting that in the

I would assure your correspondent, that if he interprets my remarks as designed to make light of a sober, righteous, and godly life, he misunderstands me. I will go any lengths with him on this point, if he will agree with me in renouncing (after all we may have done or can do) every particle of merit, every secret thought of our becoming thereby entitled to eternal. life. I will most unequivocally admit with him, that faith without works is dead; that in vain we profess ourselves disciples of Christ, unless we love him and obey his commands, and in our hearts and lives seek to live to His glory who died for us.

If, however, your correspondent can sympathize with me, in lamenting that natural proneness to cleave to our own works (as some dependance for obtaining the favour and acceptance of Almighty God) which continually and secretly insinuates itself-or rather which springs from our very corrupt nature-he will be as anxious to preserve that "delicacy," as to our expressions concerning faith and works, which I cannot but deem of the highest importance to the Church of England, in order to preserve unimpaired her scriptural doctrine of pardon and justification ONLY by the blood and righteousness of a crucified Saviour.

And here I would remark, that whether I am right or wrong as to

Administration of the sacrament of

the Lord's supper.

Mr. Burrow's sentiments, the erroneous doctrine itself of justification partly by Christ, and partly by our own works, is perhaps a more prevalent error amongst churchmen that your correspondent P. is aware of.

I have read a sermon preached a short time since by an exalted divine (printed at the request of the numerous congregation on a very public and important occasion), wherein this heresy is decidedly maintained; namely, that the merits of Christ procure our restoration to a capacity for being saved (that is, restore us to the covenant of works), and that our own good works complete the title to eternal salvation.

It is likewise a melancholy fact, that, from another exalted divine, this dissent from the doctrine of the Churchof England is plainly set forth to the candidates for ordination as the view which they are required to take of the two Articles on Faith and Works, and without which they will be refused admission to the sacred office.

Let us suppose a minister who has subscribed (for he is required to subscribe with his own hand) to such an opinion; namely, that our primary justification is obtained by Christ, and our ultimate justification by our own good works; I say, let us suppose such a one to subscribe afterwards to the declaration, "That we are accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and not for our own works or deservings." With what false reasonings can he reconcile to his conscience the palpable contradiction? Can the words, "accounted righ teous," by any sophistry, be explained away so as not to mean "righteous" in that day when the secrets of all hearts shall be revealed? Can the "works or deservings" here spoken' of, as NOT being the ground of our acceptance, mean any other works than those which are produced even by

faith in Christ? For, what good works and deservings does our church say can be done before justification? NONE. (See the Article on Works done before the Grace of Christ.)

Your correspondent seems to regard the words of our Lord, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments," as conveying the meaning, that upon our keeping or not keeping them depends our title to eternal salvation. Now if this be the meaning, where is the comfort which could be offered to a trembling, guilty, dying creature? "If this be the title," he would say, "then am I lost for ever, for I have continually erred and strayed from God's ways like a lost sheep."

The divine just alluded to, and whose view on this subject coincides with that of your correspondent, regards the person addressed as a believer: but have we not evident proof of his being an unbeliever? If he had really come to Christ as a believer, desiring to be instructed more clearly in the way of salvation, and anxious to glorify God in his life and practice, would he have turned his back upon that Saviour

upon that Teacher in whom he relied?

Now if he was an unbeliever, your correspondent P. must admit he could not keep God's commandments (see Article on Works before Justification). What then appears to be the real meaning of the address? Does he not appear to have been one who imagined that he had kept all God's commandments ("all these have I kept from my youth up"); and perhaps he was outwardly decent and strictly regular before men: but does he not appear to have some doubt whether God would accept him: and if he came to Christ with this view-namely, to satisfy himself that he was righteous and would be accepted for his own works or deservings does it not shew that, instead of submitting himself to the

righteousness of God, he was seek ing to establish his own righteousness; that he was striving to be justified by the works of the law. What lack I yet?"

When our Lord, then, addressed him, was it not his object to convince him of having transgressed that law by which he was expecting to be justified? And when, after naming some of the commandments (for they are not all enumerated), he is still boasting and confident that he is not a transgressor, our Lord brings him to a test which he cannot stand: Give up those earthly treasures to which your heart is enslaved obey my commands by giving to the poor; come follow me, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. What was the result? He went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. That is, so far from actually keeping God's commands as he vainly flattered himself, he had not even the desire in his heart to obey his God, and follow that Saviour in whom he professed to rely for instruction in the way of salvation. "His heart was after his idols."

Can we then call this man a believer? Can we so interpret our Lord's words, as to conclude that this man had only to obey a few more commands and then to be perfectly entitled to everlasting life? And yet is not this substantially the doctrine in question; namely, that of a primary justification by Christ, and an ultimate justification by our own works?

And now, to lay aside controversy for we may contend for indisputable truths, and yet they may be but empty barren speculations on either side-let me entreat your readers to remember that justification by the merits of Christ alone, without ourown works ordeservings, is a doctrine of the heart: it implies a conviction that by our own deeds, by the deeds of the law, shall no flesh be justified in the sight of God; that by the Law is the knowledge of sin. It implies a

heart broken and contrite under a sense of our unworthiness, before a holy and righteous Judge, with a thankful remembrance of the sufferings and death of Christ, and of his inexpressible love to our fallen race. It implies not merely an abhorrence of any particular outward act of sin, which may disgrace the profligate, but also a serious and irreconcileable eumity and warfare with those corrupt lusts and affections which are unseen by man, which work in the secrets of the heart, and are opposed to the holy will of Him who knows our inmost thoughts.

In addition to a solemn renunciation of our claim to legal holiness and justification by the law: it implies an abiding sense of our utter inability even to keep stedfast in evangelical holiness without the grace of God through Jesus Christ. "Without me" (in the margin" severed from me," that is, like a branch cut off from the vine) "ye can do nothing." It implies such a love of real holiness in principle and practice as makes the believer habitually desire to become increasingly meet for the inheritance of the saints in light. Thus, then, so far from tending to licentiousness, it is the only doctrine which has ever yet produced any real holiness of heart and life.

Men may conform to outward decencies; they may govern themselves by custom and fashion: but to love the will of God, and to obey it, because it is his will-and nothing else can be called the holiness of the Gospel-can spring only from the doctrine of pardon, justification, and "acceptance," primarily, and ultimately by the merits of Christ Jesus received in a grateful heart by a true and lively faith.

May such true evangelical faith, working by love to God through Christ, and evidencing itself in love to all mankind, ever animate the members of the Church of England! And may we all, in