works may, in some sense, be considered as correlative terms, and as such they ought not to be separated. But the two words, ought not and cannot, convey two very different meanings. It is surely a different thing to say, that faith and works ought not to be separated, because perfect Christianity depends upon their constant connexion; and to say, that the union between them is indivisible. Had St. Paul thought so, instead of making the promises of the Gospel, the ground of his argument for human exertion, in the work of salvation, by beseeching his disciples to " present their bodies a living sacrifice, acceptable to God;" as if he had said, seeing, my brethren, such promises of salvation have been made to you through Jesus Christ, therefore, on this ground of hope, in the confidence that your labour will not be vain in the Lord, let me beseech you so to make use of the grace of God, that ye may thereby become "meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light;"* the language of the Apostle ought to have been this: "Having, therefore, these promises, dearly beloved, let me beseech you" to receive them in faith; in such case I shall have to congratulate you upon the certain effect that will be produced by them, as the consequence necessarily growing out of its cause; in such case you will be cleansed from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, and your bodies will be presented a living sacrifice, acceptable to God. An idea which, it will be readily perceived, the words of St. Paul were not designed to convey. Paul did not, therefore, sus * Col. i. 12. pect that the indivisible union between faith and works might “possibly be overlooked ;”• because, if I understand him, he did not consider that any such union existed. The object of his address to his disciples was, to prevent them from separating what, according to the Divine economy of man's salvation, it was intended should always be joined together; and thus, by having the grace of God bestowed on them in vain, rendering the promises of the Gospel of none effect. " These things I will (said Paul, in his directions to Titus) that thou affirm constantly," as a matter of most essential importance, that "they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.”+ Indeed, were the general tenor of St. Paul's writings duly attended to, we should not have his authority brought forward in support of a doctrine, which, though it does not openly preach Antinomianism, will, it is to be feared, insensibly promote it. In page 52, you bring forward the celebrated Bishop of Meaux, for the sake of impressing upon the reader's mind the idea, that whilst, according • Strictures on the Modern System of Female Education, by Hannah More. No one who regards this lady with the respect to which she is entitled, from her zeal for the honour of God, and the welfare of the community, but must remark with reluc tance, that in writings confessedly containing so much of what is excellent and truly spiritual, any doctrine should be met with not perfectly sound. Would this lady take the trouble to consalt the learned Hammond, she would be convinced, I flatter myself, that the paraphrase annexed by him to the text in question, does more justice to the Apostle's argument, than does the conclusion which she herself has inadvertently drawn from it. + Titus iii. 8. to your opinion, I differ from Mr. Wilberforce, and the Church of England, on the subject of faith, there is an exact conformity between my doctrine and that of this renowned Popish champion. To this I shall only answer, that I have not been in the habit of considering a Roman Catholic to be no Christian, because he is a Roman Catholic, On the contrary, I consider that Roman Catholics hold the fundamental doctrines of Christianity in greater purity than some Protestants. Nor should it be forgotten, for how much of our excellent Liturgy we are indebted to men who were Catholics; a circumstance which, so far from being thought in any respect derogatory to it, has generally been regarded as a pleasing proof of its venerable antiquity. Many uninformed persons are led into error by the word PROTESTANT. We talk of the PROTESTANT religion and the Protestant faith, as if the religion and faith of a Protestant were essentially and totally different from those of the Roman Catholic. Whereas it should be remembered, that in the most essential articles of the Christian faith, the Church of England and the Church of Rome are agreed. Their disagreement respects those errors and corruptions, which have been superadded by the Romish Church to the original doctrines of Christianity; in the rejection of which errors and corruptions, the Protestantism of the Church of England consists. To the quotation from the Bishop of Meaux I readily subscribe, as containing, what I understand to be, sound divinity. The doctrine you have opposed to it, is not to be found any where in the Bible. So long as the Spirit dwells in the human heart, the fruits of the Spirit will be produced. But as the Spirit may be quenched,* and grieved,t and, in consequence, provoked to leave his abode; no man can be said to be completely justified, till he shall be finally justified. But upon this head more, perhaps, has been already said than was necessary. I therefore proceed. In page 60, you say, that, "upon the authority of the royal declaration prefixed to the Articles, we are jointly agreed, that they must be taken in their plain, literal, grammatical sense." Granting your premises, our conclusion will still be different. According to your judgment, the Calvinistic sense of the Articles, is their plain, literal, grammatical sense. But so far from finding this point established by the declaration in question, there is reason to think that no such point was meant to be established by it.‡ In the first place, the declaration was made by King James the First, who did not himself see the seventeenth Article in the Calvinistic sense in which you receive it; therefore that sense was not by him understood to be the plain, literal, grammatical sense of the Article to which it is prefixed. And should I even admit the justness of the inference drawn by Burnet from this declaration, that the seventeenth Article "is conceived in such general words, that it can admit of different literal, grammatical senses, even when the senses + Eph. iv. 30. * 1 Thess. v. 19. The reader will see this point fully made out in "Vindicia Ecclesiæ Anglicana," chap. ii. sect. 1. Burnet's Exposition, fol. p. 8. given are plainly contrary to each other;" I, as an anti-Calvinist, should stand as fully justified in my subscription, as you can be in yours. But my position is this: the declaration here referred to, if I understand it, was meant to guard against the abuse that had been made of the scripture language, in which the seventeenth Article is composed, by discountenancing that very sense for which you are so strong an advocate; where, alluding to the unhappy differences that had been raised about the doctrine of absolute decrees, election, &c. it proceeds thus: "We will, that all further curious search be laid aside, and these disputes shut up in God's promises, as they are generally set forth to us in the holy scriptures, and the general meaning of the Articles," &c.; which general promises and general meaning, are certainly inconsistent with what you conceive to be the plain, literal, grammatical sense of the Article in question. In short, upon the same principle that you expect me to receive the Calvinistic sense, because it is the plain, literal, grammatical sense of the seventeenth Article, according to your reading; the Roman Catholic may call on you to admit the doctrine of transubstantiation, from the authority of the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel, according to his reading. The only difference I see between the two cases is this: whilst you are called on to believe against the testimony of your senses, I am expected to do it against the conviction of my understanding, founded upon the general tenor of scripture. In page 63, speaking of one of God's elect, you |