has set forth nothing contrary to the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.

By quoting as your correspondent has from Crossman, we may shew one text of Scripture to be contrary to another-whereas it is our duty to receive the whole word of God, and, in our dealings with our fellow creatures, to speak not only the truth but the whole truth. An attention to this rule would prevent many of the disputes which now distract Christians.

A CONSTANT READER.

We are much obliged to the writer of the above letter; the insertion of which we think may be useful; not because it proves Crossman's doctrine to be sound -very far from it—but because it shews how grievously the prevalence of such doctrine blinds the eyes of many conscientious persons to its unscriptural character. The passages quoted in exculpation are decisively condemnatory; scarcely less so than the words referred to by E. H. Our limits forbid our going at large into the subject, which involves the whole question of Justification, so often discussed in our pages; but we will offer a few remarks with a view to induce our correspondent, and others who have been deceived by the unscriptural statements of such writers as Crossman, to consider seriously the points at issue.

Our former correspondent, E. H., did not say that Crossman "disregarded the atonement of Christ, and considered man capable of effecting his own salvation." His doctrine indeed comes in its consequences to this; for to as many as look for justification by "works of law," whether ceremonial or moral, Christ, the Apostle teaches, is made of none effect; but still the atonement is not avowedly "disregarded," nor is man "made capable of effecting his own salvation" independently of it. No, the delusion is more subtle; justification and sanctification are so confounded as to pervert both; justification, in the words of Mr. Newman, is "a renewal of the Holy Ghost," and obedience "the formal cause of justification;" the cross of Christ is personal mortification; and no place that we can discover is left for the application of the blood of the atonement for sins committed after baptism. Crossman's system is not precisely this; but it involves the same result in reference to the atonement. There are several subdivisions of error, but they all make justification depend," in whole or in part," upon the righteousness of man, and not solely upon "the righteousness of God in Christ."

We have heard it said in reply, that if no merit is assumed, but our good works, our indwelling righteousness, are attributed to the blessing of God attending our right endeavours, and his Spirit aiding us, there is no interference with the doctrines of grace; no opposition to the meaning, even if these should seem to be the mere words, of St. Paul. But the Apostle does not say works of merit; he says simply "works ;" or "works of law;" he assumes that if works are in any way allowed to enter into the question of justification, grace is no longer grace; and though we may profess to disclaim merit, it will obtrude in some decorous shape, even as an angel of light. The Apostle Paul taught this when he said, "It is of faith that it might be by grace;" "not of works, lest any man should boast ;" and again, "To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt." Is not then the Christian to" work?" is he not to work out his salvation? is he not to be fruitful in good works? Assuredly he is; he cannot be a Christian if he bring not forth good fruits; but he does not work in the matter of justification. "To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." It is

excellently well observed in the Homily on Fasting, that the Pharisee's "fasting and all his other works," however apparently "good and holy," were rendered "altogether evil and abominable" before God, "Because he directed them to an evil end, seeking by them justification, which is the proper work of God without our merits."

Almost every clause of Crossman's statement is untenable in the sense in which he means it. Where, for instance, do we read in Scripture, "God sent his Son in our nature to reveal to us the knowledge of our duty, and to give us new strength to perform it?" What is meant by "To reveal to us the knowledge of our duty?" All Scripture proceeds upon the fact that men knew already more than they performed; they loved darkness rather than light; they did not like to retain God in their knowledge; they were "without excuse," not because they did not know their "duty," but because they neglected what they knew; God "left them not without witness;" but their language was, "Depart from us, for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways." It is not to preach the gospel to say, "God sent his Son in our nature to reveal to us the knowledge of our duty." The Scripture says that God sent his Son into the world "that we might live through him;" that he might be "the propitiation of our sins." "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

It is true that Crossman goes on to mention the atonement; but he does not make it the prominent object of our Lord's incarnation and death; it is only to procure for us "strength to perform God's commandments," and to make "our sincere repentance and constant care to do better for the time to come," acceptable to God, notwithstanding some flaws which human frailty is not exempt from. Man is still in reality his own Saviour, only that Christ makes up for his deficiencies. To a person ignorant of the Scriptural doctrine, it sounds plausibly to say, "Christ obtained for us the pardon of our sins, grace to do our duty, and eternal happiness ;" but under that mischievous and unscriptural phrase "grace to do our duty," lurks fearful delusion; it sets aside the whole character of the atonement, and robs man of his only hope: for if none have "the pardon of their sins " and "eternal happiness," but those who have " done their duty," Christ died in vain, and none can be saved. The qualifying clause of having grace given us to do our duty, seems at first sight more modest than doing our duty without grace, but it comes to the same result. Though man, it is admitted, could not stand under an unmitigated system wholly of works, he is yet made to stand, by fulfilling the conditions of a milder law; and he therefore does not come, first and last, as a penitent for free, unmerited, pardon.

We said that Crossman's system, though not precisely that of the Oxford Tract School, proceeds upon the same principle of justification being "by deeds of law;" but in the working out of the question, the Tract divines evince a clearer perception of the true nature of the question, than such writers as Crossman. The scheme of the latter is that of a remedial law; a law under which sincere obedience is accepted for perfect obedience, the atonement of Christ supplying the deficiencies of human virtue. But the writers of the Oxford Tract school, feeling the unwarrantableness of lowering the demands of God's law to meet man's imperfect obedience, give to every baptised person a nature "like an angel's," so as to enable him to rise to the standard of God's law. Neither party submits to the scriptural doctrine of justification; each mixes up works with what is by faith, that it may be by grace; but of the two, the Oxford divines have the better of the argument over the school of Crossman. Listen for instance to Mr. Newman, who says:

"Till the Gospel came, with its manifold gifts of grace, there was a contrariety and enmity between the divine law and the heart of man: they confronted each other, the one all light, the other all corruption.... In consequence, we were unable to please God by what we did, or were unrighteous; for by righteousness is meant acceptable obedience. We needed then a justification, or making righteous; and this might become ours in two ways, either by dispensing with that exact obedience which the law required, or by enabling us to fulfil it. In either, but in no other conceivable way, could our obedience, which by natnre is displeasing, become pleasing to God, our unrighteousness become righteousness. Now, according to the doctrine I am engaged in expounding, the remedy lies in the latter alternative only; not in lowering the law, much less in abolishing it, but in bringing up our hearts to it, in preserving, in raising its standard, and in refashioning them, and so (as it were) attuning them to its high harmonies. As regards the past indeed, since it cannot literally be undone, a dispensation or pardon is all that can be given us; but for the present and future, if a gift is to be vouchsafed us, and we may anticipate what it should be, this is what we have to pray for,-not to have the Holy Law taken away, not to be merely accounted to have done what we have not done, not a nominal change, a nominal righteousness, an external blessing, but one penetrating inwards into our heart and spirit, joints and marrow, pervading us with a real efficacy, and wrapping us round in its fulness...... If God counts righteous, it is by making righteous; if he justifies, it is by renewing; if he reconciles us to him, it is not by annihilating the law, but by creating in us new wills and new powers for the observance of it."

Here it is most distinctly declared that God has not " dispensed with that exact obedience which his law required," in order to meet the infirmities of human nature; which is the medley remedial scheme: he does not accept, "through Jesus Christ," sincere obedience for exact obedience, as Crossman teaches; but he gives to every baptized person a power to perform that "exact obedience" which he requires; and the atonement of Christ has nothing to do with relaxing requisition, or making up for deficiency; but is altogether retrospective. Since what is done, says Mr. Newman, cannot be undone, "a dispensation or pardon is all that can be given us :" we are forgiven in virtue of Christ's death up to baptism; from which time we commence upon a new footing. So far Crossman and Mr. Newman agree: both contend that we are placed by baptism in a new condition; but the remedialists say, with Crossman, that "if we fail in our obedience, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the propitiation for our sins: and for his sake God will accept of our sincere repentance, and constant care to do better for the time to come;" whereas Mr. Newman teaches that God will do no such thing; for we are not "accounted to have done what we have not done;" the atonement was retroactively available for the first month of our infancy; but after baptism, as Dr. Pusey teaches, there is no baptism but that of tears, and no Scripture warrant to permit the penitent to come to the blood of Christ, at least more than once; a second sin placing us beyond the stipulated mercies of the covenant. There is not a syllable in the word of God to countenance such a notion: but some old writer, or writers, invented it, and on their testimony it is to be received.

Of the two schemes, Dr. Pusey's is perhaps the less dangerous, not because it is more scriptural, but because it is less likely to deceive even the unwary. Many would be startled at being told by Mr. Knox that the atonement had no place in his system, who would be misled by Crossman's assignment of a place inadequate and unscriptural. The penitent might be driven in despair from the macerations of penance unalleviated by a ray of gospel hope, and find refuge in such thrice blessed announcements as that "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin;""He made him to be sin (a sin offering) for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." But in the medley scheme he might be fatally deceived, building upon works yet looking for

grace to make up for their imperfections, and repairing to Christ, not for salvation, but to complete what is wanting in his efforts to save himself. How strongly St. Paul denounced this unscriptural blending, we should hope it were almost unnecessary to mention. It was not merely justification by works which he repudiated, but justification by works and grace conjointly. Thus, he says: "If by grace then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace; but if it be of works, then it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more work."

Such was the doctrine of St. Paul, and it was made the very basis of the Protestant Reformation. We would entreat our correspondent, and all who have any doubts respecting the anti-Anglican character of such statements as those of Crossman, to study the writings of our venerated reformers. Or, without going far, the Homilies of our Church will abundantly exhibit their sentiments. It were superfluous to point out particular passages; for the whole volume embodies the doctrine of free justification. The notion also is strongly disclaimed of our doing in part what we cannot do in the whole. "Justification," says the Homily on Salvation, "is not the office of man but of God; for man cannot make himself righteous by his own works, neither in part nor in whole; for that were the greatest arrogancy and presumption of man that Antichrist could set up against God, to affirm that a man might by his own works take away and purge his own sins, and so justify himself." Again, in the third part of the same Homily, "Our own imperfection is so great through the corruption of original sin, that all is imperfect which is within us-faith, charity, hope, dread, thoughts, words, and works; and therefore not apt to merit and deserve ANY PART OF Our justification for us." How diametrically opposite this doctrine to that of Christ's coming into the world to teach us our duty, to aid our virtue, and to make up for our defects.

We are not in the slightest degree apprehensive that any honest reader will so misconstrue our remarks, as to suppose that we mean-as some slanderously accused St. Paul himself of meaning "Let us sin that grace may abound." The work of the Third Person in the Holy Trinity, needs to be insisted upon as much as that of the Second; nor can we too often or too forcibly urge that those who have believed, must be zealous to maintain good works. But justification and the fruits of justification must not be confounded. St. Paul for distinguishing them was assailed with the accusation just quoted; but did it never occur to such writers as Crossman, that if the Apostle had preached their doctrine, no such charge could have been invented by the most perverse disputant? The accusation supposes, on the very face of it, that St. Paul preached the doctrine of justification by faith, and not by "doing our duty," as it is called. We are "to do our duty" nevertheless; we are to repent, believe, and obey; but not for the reason assigned by Crossman, that whereas God required from our first parents "a perfect and unsinning obedience," he is now satisfied with "our honest and hearty endeavours." Let Mr. Newman refute, as he does, that false notion; and let our excellent Homily on Good Works shew, in the following passage, the grounds on which the believer in Christ is to be zealous to maintain them.

"St. Paul saith, Good works go not before in him which shall afterwards be justified; but good works do follow after, when a man is first justified. St. Paul therefore teacheth, that we must do good works for divers respects: First, to shew ourselves obedient children unto our Heavenly Father, who hath ordained them, that we should walk in them: Secondly, for that they are good declarations and testimonies of our justification: Thirdly, that others seeing our good works, may the rather by them be stirred up and excited to glorify our Father which is in heaven."

Such is the doctrine of our Church: but it is not that of such passages as our correspondent has quoted from Crossman.

We ought, perhaps, to have noticed another defence which is sometimes set up for such statements as those of Crossman; namely, that St. Paul and the Anglican Reformers speak of a first justification, and that this is by faith through baptism; but that the statements objected to, relate to a second justification, the result of holiness of heart and life. We know that the papists invented a first and second justification, and Bishop Bull and the Oxford Tracts have fallen into the like error; but as there is no such distinction in Scripture, we need not protract our remarks by refuting it. The Homilies-for addressing ourselves to Churchmen, we have a good right to appeal to them-speak very distinctly upon this subject; shutting out from the office of justification all works, not only past, but present or future." We must renounce," say they," the merit of all our said virtues of faith, hope, charity, and all other virtues and good deeds which we either HAVE DONE, SHALL DO, OR CAN DO, as things that be far too weak and insufficient, and imperfect, to deserve remission of our sins and our justification." "We put our faith in Christ, that we may be justified by him only; that we be justified by God's free mercy, and the merits of our Saviour Christ only; and by no virtue or good work of our own, that is in us, or that we can be able to have, or to do, for to deserve the same." (Homily of Salvation.) In like manner the Eleventh Article does not say that we are not accounted righteous before God for our past works or deservings; but generally and universally for our works or deservings.

We lament to say that the exceptionable doctrine of Crossman pervades not a few of the Tracts of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Crossman does but echo the opinions of that frigid school of divines, which after the Restoration deteriorated the general current of Church of England theology; and some of whom planned a new series of Homilies, a specimen of which Bishop Burnet presented to the world in a volume entitled, “An Essay towards a New Book of Homilies, in Seven Sermons, prepared at the desire of Archbishop Tillotson and some other Bishops." His friends and himself, he says, “designed to explain" [that is, to explain away] the "doctrine of justification ;" and "some expressions in the first book, that seemed to carry justification by faith only to a height that wanted mitigation, were to be well examined." Unhappily the opinions of these mitigators of St. Paul, and explainers away of the doctrines of their own church, spread so widely, that for more than a century our bishops and clergy well nigh forgot the formularies of the Reformation; and it cannot be wondered at that the publications of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge were pervaded by this baneful influence. It might have been supposed that a Church of England Society, publishing books and tracts, would have gladly resorted to the admirable writings of its martyrs and reformers; and especially that the Thirty-nine Articles would be inserted in its Prayer books; and that the Homilies would be reprinted and widely circulated but nothing of the sort took place. Divines of the theological opinions of Nelson, and Bull, and Burnet, and the author of the Whole Duty of Man, were substituted for Cranmer and Ridley, and Latimer, and Jewell, and Hooker; and were succeeded by a still more degenerate race, the Crossmans of a later age. It is much to the honour of the Society in these our own days, that it largely circulates not only our Articles and Homilies, but many other excellent publications, including portions of the writings of the Reformers, and that it proposes adding extensively to the list: but this ought not to prevent our writing as historical truth requires. If our readers will take the trouble to refer to the unanswered and unanswerable "Two Memorials "addressed to the Society by Mr. Robinson,