embrace the occasion of expressing and opinion, that some well-meaning clergymen are not exempt from the fault of grievously neglecting to enforce and explain the duties of a Christian life. A man, whose prin ciples of piety are sound, may yet fall into many faults, and neglect many duties, for want of solid, continaal, plain, explicit instruction. The moral precepts of the Bible are not readily applied to the complicated circumstances of life by weak, prejudiced, and illiterate men. And indeed the dimness of the human understanding, aud the treachery of the human heart, make it expedient for all classes of people, that the torch of Divine truth should be car fied before them in their daily walks, lest they become entangled amidst apparently conflicting du ties, distressed by difficult cases of conscience, and their " feet stamble upon the dark mountains." The Ten Commandments were not written originally on a scroll that might be folded up, but upon a solid and ample tablet,so as to be easily discerned and read. Let the Christian preacher never forget that he is to be a preacher of righteousness, in its proper and personal sense, and that no part of the Christian covenant, especially the terms upon which its final blessings are conferred, must be past over in silence, or with hasty and superficial notice. It is not enough to deal out general ex hortations and threatenings; or to exhibit the law of God in the mass, without unfolding its particular de tails. By such obscure and partial representation, guilt is seldom fixed upon the conscience of the sinner; and the law, not being clearly shewn to work only wrath, loses its blessed efficacy in bringing sinners to Christ for pardon and salvation. Ungodly men will often be amused and gratified by loose, and indefinite schemes of Christian righteousness, when the personal application of its particular precepts would excite the most uneasy sensations, Their consciences are lulled by the

distant thunders of the law, but would be startled and roused, if it appeared impending over them, and ready to burst upon their heads "with scattering, and tempest, and hailstones.".

We have often exceedingly la mented the injudicious zeal of some men of popular talents, and pious feelings, who, under the notion of preaching Christ alone, and thus giving glory to the Saviour, do, in fact, not preach Christ entirely, and thus lower the value of his salvation. To preach Christ, is to preach him in all his characters and offices: to shew him to mankind as a Priest indeed, who made a full atonement for sin, but also as a Priest "upon his throne," whom God the Father bath exalted to sit and rule upon his throne." We are directed by unerring wisdom not to regard Jesus Christ, merely as a victim who suffered, but yet farther, as having

left us an example that we should follow his steps." If he rescued us from the two-fold yoke of the law of Innocency and the law of Ordinances, it was in order to bring us under his own gentle and spiritual yoke, and to win to himself "a peculiar people zealous of good works." The Moral Law, as it has been elevated and spiritualized by the Author of our faith, ought to be perspicuously unfolded by Cliristian ministers, and the sanctions with which it is sustained should be seriously and repeatedly set forth. The Gospel of Christ is then only preached, when nothing is kept back that enters into it as a cove nant of mercy and life, established between God and his desolate crea tures, by a perfect Mediator. Let those who erect themselves with unseemly ostentation, as the pecu. liar preachers of the Gospel beware lest in their zeal to assers some distinguishing doctrines of that blessed revelation, they leave out others, which are hardly less important. The crime of taking away any thing from the words of Divine truth cannot be too religiously

1

dreaded by those who have learnt and believe the retribution by which it shall be followed *.

We are here called upon to reprobate another of Mr. Beresford's heresies. After a witty remark upon the greater propriety of styling those men epistle-preachers, who are some times denominated Gospel-preachers, he subjoins:

"Evident even to childhood and igno rance it must be, that whoever expect to be considered as Christians, must seek to Christ, and Christ alone, for the true character of his own religion. Is this, then, an anthority from which there is to be an appeal?an appeal, too, from the Teacher to the disciple; from the Lord to the servant; from the ever lasting God, to his mortal-creature man?→→ For (deny it who can), that disciple, that mere mortal creature, was even the great Apostle to whose writings this extraordinary appeal is made." p. 30.

It is very evident to us, that even childishness and ignorance cannot excuse the pastor of an English church, for the Socinian and Antichristian insinuation conveyed in these lines. Does the Rector of Kibworth really doubt, that the authors of the Epistles wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost?" Does he doubt if they were replete with the Spirit of their Divine Lord, which he promised to bestow, that it might guide them into all truth?" Although we are satisfied, that the gerin of every Christian verity has place among 'the four Gospels, yet, it is indis putable, that the full and clear expansion of those truths is to be confidently sought in the Epistles. Many important doctrines, which our Saviour had but imperfectly sketched, and which could not be well understood till after his earthly work was completed, were amply displayed to the first teachers of the Gospel, by the mighty irradiations of the Spirit. It is not, however, our present business to discuss a sub>

We beg to refer our readers to a paper, in an early part of this Number, in which a valuable and respected correspondent has aited this subject with great ability. *****

ject, which cannot long appear dubious to an inquiring mind, endowed with a fair portion of sense and honesty. And to attempt to deprive the apostolic: Epistles of the same character for divine authenticity with the Gospels, is a deadly blow aimed at the root of Christianity itself, or to smith

The disorderly conduct of this miserable performance, has précluded us from adopting a very sys tematic arrangement in this revision. We have done little more than expose a few of its most pernicious vices, with a view to exhibit those evangelical truths to which they are directly opposed. Upon cused for not having yet directed these grounds, we claim to be ex nion of the merit of good works; our readers to Mr. Beresford's opi respecting which, he finds it diffi cult to conceive, that they should not in this life be "the meritorious objects of final reward," inasmuch as it is contended by his antagonists, that our evil actions are truly the meritorious objects of final punish ment? In order to explain the author's sentiments more fully, we turn to page 39, where he first de vises a most heretical proposition which he puts into the mouth of an adversary, and repels it by askiną dred heresy, of which he proclaims himself the father. His business is to prove that faith, through infirmity, cannot produce good works enough to ensure our salvationg and the difficulty with which he hampers his antagonists is, to find

some method of supplial" But here he is resolved" to leave them no avenue of escape," and, there fore, imagines them to answer};

Naam, 7 of myoca

"Faith secures one portion of the good works which are necessary; and the merito rious sacrifice of Christ supplies the remainexhortation. To this, I should finally reply der; and so there is still no need of moral as follows:-The promised benefits of that great sacrifice, extend to those only who shalt have performed good works to a certain amount. Now, by admitting that human infirmity remains in despite of faith, you cantess that

faith may be unable, even by her most potent stimulations, to force the required amount of good works. Under this tertify ing doubt shall we trust to the probable, or possible, efficacy of faith (that is, to an uncertainty)?--And if not, who shall dare to assign the precise extent of her power? Or supposing that power to be most unhappily over-cated, who can contute me when I say, that, by the added excitements of moral exhortation, when those of faith had done their utmost, this damning deficiency in our account might have been fully supplied?"

A Papist, in the darkest cloisders of superstition, could not well have engendered a theory more flagrantly opposed to revealed, truth. In order to our justification before God, it would appear, that a certain amount of good works is to be produced, of which one proportion is to be "forced by the potent sti mulations of faith," and " the damning deficiency" is to be supplied by the "added excitements of moral exhortation." The doctrine of works of supererogation, is an obvious corollary from this most un scriptural statement. But we shall not stoop to unravel the web of he terodoxy and nonsense which chal, lenges the patient reader's sagacity in the sentences just cited. The doctrine of merit, however, as attaching to the works of man in any sense whatever, has been so faultily represented by the violent of differ ent factions, that it may not be amiss to dwell upon it for a few minutes.

The Roman Catholics adopted notions on this subject which were so inimical to scriptural truth, as to draw from Luther and his coadjutors just and severe animadversion. Yet candour requires us to acknowledge, that even Bellarmine, Vasquez, and the Trent Council appear, from many passages in their works, to have held the doctrine of merit in a more moderate sense, than might be supposed from the language held by some distinguished divines of the reformed churches. Inferior writers of the Catholic persuasion do indeed appear to have attached a certain positive value to good works, a merit

[OCT. of that absolute kind by which the Supreme Being is brought in a debtor to his creatures, and might withheld the correlative remunerabe chargeable with injustice if he tion. But this shocking and almost blasphemous tenet is far from expressing the general sense of the Romish Church. To suppose, indeed, that God's rational creatures, by the proper enjoyment of his bounties, can merit, in the strict sense of commutative justice, any addition to their present felicity, is evidently false. Brute creatures would have the same natural title to an amelioration of their condition, upon conformity to the suggestions of their instincts, that we can have for the most correct exercise of our intellectual faculties. It is certainly true, that, had sin never entered into the world, punishment, and therefore misery, would have been unknown; for God can no more be the author of natural than of moral evil, which are perhaps more closely united than some persons are apt to imagine. But the idea that man could establish, by moral works, claim on his Maker for any specific rewards, is at once irrational and irreligious. Notwithstanding this, we are of opinion, that the Roman Catholics were not always so unsound as might be suspected, in their principle of meritum de congruo, though we exceedingly dislike the expression. God is the fountain of holi ness; and whatever is holy in his creatures, must be the object of his complacency, and, consequently, blessed. Now, man was created in the image of God; reflecting from his own bosom, without fault or blemish, the communicable properties of his Divine Maker. And had he persevered in uprightness, he must have remained perfectly happy, and that continuance of happiness is itself a species of reward. Nay, more, though it is false to affirm that any reward would have become due to Adam for continuing upright; yet it is probable, almost to a certainty, that he would continually

have advanced in the knowledge and love of God; and thus, becoming progressively more excellent in himself, he would have daily augmented his blessedness. But our object in adverting to this subject, was chiefly, to suggest a caution to those who broadly represent the works of fallen man as all utterly hateful to God. This sentiment, though true in a certain sense, is often incorrectly apprehended. As the original law of works exacted perfect obedience, and assigned a penalty to the smallest deflection from that rule, every imperfect action became obnoxious to condemnation and punishment. But then, it is to be considered, that human actions are not for the most part of unqualified malignity, but proceed in some measure from justifiable or praiseworthy motives. Now, that part of any action which is good, can never be regarded with disapprobation by the righteous Judge. The honest, gentle, benevolent deeds of Jews and Heathens, must find fayour with God, so far as their honesty, gentleness, and benevolence are alone contemplated. Still as any flaw in a moral act makes it damnable by the law of innocency, nothing is more certain, than that all the actions of unregenerate men are, to an extent, displeasing to God, and always subjected to a judicial curse. And this is perfectly consistent with our assertion, that what any action has in it of righteousness, though it be the work of an unregenerate man, is so far acceptable to God. But by conversion and adoption, man is transferred to another state. He is brought into a cove nant, which does not vainly offer justification to the doer of the law, but offers it effectually to the penitent believer in Christ. And hence the just man lives by his faith; for on that principle alone can his works be so favourably regarded by God as to obtain for him the gift of eternal fife. For actions, which by the first law must have brought us

under condemnation, are made acceptable by the law of grace, and even rewardable. And on this word. the combatants might surely join hands, and consent to dismiss the equivocal and offensive word merit, For by rewardableness, nothing more is implied than a moral aptitude for reward and that moral aptitude consists in possessing the qualificatións enacted under the covenant of grace. Now these qualifications are, faith and holiness, which God has promised to reward, notwithstanding their manifold blemishes, for his own mercy's sake, and the infinite worthiness of his Son Jesus Christ. Their rewardable character originates, therefore, in God's merciful covenant, and not in the inherent value of the works themselves: and God is not so properly engaged to his creatures, as to his own faithfulness. We have already shewn, that even a perfectly good action possesses no claim whatever to a specific reward; and that, in the present state of mankind, the very best action of the very best man is not only entitled to no reward from Almighty God, but on account of the sinful leaven with which it is contaminated, deserves punishment, according to that law which winks at no defect. Still we deem it not untrue, that there is a certain congruity in works comparatively righteous, to obtain the favour of God; for he is a lover of holiness, while iniquity is an abomination to him. If, therefore, He determine, in sovereign mercy, to bestow certain privileges and blessings on his children, it seems fitting, though we dare by no means call it necessary, that such as have laboured most to become holy even as God is holy, should obtain a preference in his sight. It will appear from this reasoning, that Mr. Beresford is wholly wrong in supposing that good works merit rewards, in the same sense in which evil works merit punishment: for the slightest mixture of sinfulness constitutes

work bad, in the strict legal sense, while no work is properly called good unless it be perfect.

But the notion of absolute merit in good works, is yet farther dissipated by the reflection, that even our mean and incomplete righteousness derives its existence from the energy of God's Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit of purity, working with our wills, that alone produces any outward demonstration, which a holy God, even viewing us in the covenant of grace, can approve. He excites our desires, lightens our darkness, sustains our weakness, animates our hopes, alarms our consciences, and effects that reparation of our nature without which no effort or discipline could accomplish our sancufication. The soul is fashioned into beauty and holiness, by the Spirit brooding upon it, when a hateful mass of vicious passions and faculties: and its present redemption from sin is the ground-work of its final salvation in eternity. In short, as a tender father bestows rewards upon his children for learning, though his teaching is itself a gratuitous kindness; so God bestows on bis adopted children rewards in proportion to their holiness, which buliness had already been graciously conferred by himself, thus giving them grace for grace.

We have done with the examina tion of Mr. Beresford's essay; and it we express our joy at having reached the term of our labour, we shall raise no surprise or indignation in persons acquainted with the faLigue and vexation of toiling through a senseless book in search of its meaning. To have exhibited all that is false, foolish, or unchristian, in these pages, would have been Jittle else than to transcribe every sentence they contain. The style of this extraordinary composition, our readers' will already have observed, to be below criticism; heavy, awkward, obscure, affected, and vulgar. In truth, the essay is a con tinuous string of vapid conceits and

"

ill-digested heresies, clumsily elaborated into an unclassical technical phraseology.

The author is, obviously, a mau of very ordinary talents, and few literary attainments. He appears to have learnt, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is not in fashion with the world: and he has accordingly joined himself to the weak and the vicious, to men of unsubdued pride and obstinate prejudices, in scouting an article of faith, which, according to the great Reformer, cannot fall into disrepute, except in a corrupt and tottering church. The Church of England calls aloud for the interposition of her reverend and dignified champions, when a man, who wears her vestments, and feeds on her reve. nues, dares, in the face of day, to carry a sword into her bowels. We do sincerely hope, that Mr. Beresford may be led by the Spirit of truth, deeply to lament and publicly to abjure these fundamental errors. Ignorance of the first principles of Christianity is excusable in no man, to whom the means of instruction are accessible; and least of all in a clergyman of the English Church. Let Mr. Beresford read his Bible thoroughly and seriously, and, with it, the excellent writings of the Fa thers of our Establishment.' Let him earnestly seek for inward illumination at the Fountain of light and wisdom. Let bim acquaint himself with the depravity and treachery of his own heart: and casting away the conceit of genius, let him bow down, with men of talents far greater than his own, before Him who reveals himself to the simple and humble, but not to the presumptuous and highminded. Should Mr. Beresford ever be taught of God the meaning and excellency of true religion, he will be foremost in denouncing this unhap py essay, and in resting all his hopes of salvation on that glorious doctrine of free, unmerited grace, which he will then deem it equally foolish and wicked to reject.