to postpone our review of the remaining discourses in this important volume. The account which we have given of the preceding four will be sufficient to prove how highly we esteem and value them. Our object, in the brief analysis which we have exhibited of their contents, has been chiefly to induce our readers to study them for themselves, to imbibe the enlarged and lofty principles which they so ably unfold, and to labour each in his re spective sphere to realize and to adorn them. The influence of such principles over the immense population amongst which Dr. Chalmers is providentially established, must be in the highest degree beneficial. May an abundant blessing accompany his personal labours, and follow the extensive circulation of his original and valuable writings! (To be continued.) REVIEW OF REVIEWS. ON THE DOCTRINE OF GOOD WORKS, AS EXHIBITED IN THE ERUDITION AND THE HOMILIES. WE have been too conversant lately in the language, though we hope not the spirit, of controversy, to resume our controversial pen with much complacency on the above subject, as connected with the challenge thrown out to us in the Chris tian Remembrancer, and adverted to in a former Number. Being pleased, for reasons best known to the writers, to assert, without proof, the "substantial agreement" of certain palpable contradictions brought side by side in the columns of our Appendix for the last year, we should have little hope of working conviction in their minds, (and others we trust do not need it,) by any further lengthened discussion on a point so disputed. We should therefore wish to be very short; and only to re-assert, that as the statements of the Necessary Erudition and of the Homilies are palpably contradictory on the subject of faith, and "finely "irreconcileable on free-will, and fundamentally dissimilar on the point of justification, so on good works they exhibit traits of the most important dissimilarity: although on these two latter points we had endeavoured, in our extracts, to make them speak a lan guage as favourable as possible, not to ourselves, but to our op ponents. We shall not now detain our readers with long parallel quotations, or rather "confrontings between the Erudition and the Homilies; since we have tried the inefficacy of that mode of confutation, at least with those who had called us to the task. We shall state, and prove very shortly and explicitly, the difference between the good works of the Erudition and the good works of the Homilies, making a very few conclusive extracts, and so take our leave of the controversy. Good works, then, in these two formularies differ in four points: 1. The nature of good works; 2. The use of good works; 3. The collateral expressions used in maintaining each class of good works respectively; 4. The spirit of the men who maintained them. 1. The nature of good works. These in the Erudition are of two kinds; in the Homilies only of one kind. The secord kind in the Erudition, have no place whatever in the Homilies, and are totally opposed to the fundamental principles both of our Homilies and Articles. This second sort of good works is represented as "not so perfect at the first," and "not meritorious towards the attaining of everlasting life." They are works of penance, say of penitence, of repentance: they are initial, implying" respect and remorse for sin;" they "come," it is true," of grace," yet the man who has them is not to be accounted a justified man; but he " is in a good way, and by those means doth enter into justification, &c." (see Christian Observer, 1820, p. 42.) -Now it is clear our Protestant church knows nothing of this trash. Quite the contrary. The system of the Articles and Homilies, for they are one and the same, is this; that no works are good, but what are done in faith, and follow upon justification. The grace of Christ, the inspiration of the Spirit, and justification, are clearly synchronous, that is, take place at the same time, according to the doctrine of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Articles; and those works only which follow, are spoken of as good, and pleasing and acceptable to God. Indeed it is difficult to know whether the Necessary Erudition means to call these initial works pleasing or displeasing to God. But the dilemma is complete. Either they displease God, and then a man is in a good way, although displeasing to God; or else they please God, and then a man is as yet in an unjustified state, although pleasing to God. Perhaps the defenders of the doctrine will reply, a man may be displeasing to God, and yet his works may please him. The plain question may then be asked in return; When God shall punish a man who is displeasing to Him, what will be come of the reward of those works which please Him? But why would the doctrinists of the sixteenth century plunge themselves into such unnecessary Erudition? And why will the divines of the nineteenth, more marvellous still, undertake to justify them? And is this hopeless undertaking the reason why the Christian Remembrancer quotes only these little bits and scraps of our inimitable Homilies, in direct violation of its own canons on length and integrity, instead of such noble quotations as the following, which give the true, and the only Protestant and Churchof England, notion of good works? "Wherefore, as you have any zeal to the right and pure honouring of God; as you have any regard to your own souls, and to the life that is to come, which is both without pain and without end; apply yourselves chiefly, above all things, to read and to hear God's word; mark diligently therein what his will is you shall do, and with all your endeavour apply yourselves to follow the same. First, you must have an assured faith in God, and give yourselves wholly unto him; love him in prosperity and adversity; and dread to offend him evermore then for his sake, love all men, friends and foes, because they be his creation and image, and redeemed by Christ, as ye are. Cast in your minds, how you may do good unto all men unto your powers, and hurt no man, Obey all your superiors and governors; serve your masters faithfully and dili gently, as well in their absence as iu their presence, not for dread of punishment only, but for conscience sake, knowing that you are bound so to do by God's commandments. Disobey not your fathers and mothers, but honour them, help them, and please them to your power. Oppress not, kill not, beat not, neither slander, nor hate any man; but love all men; speak well of all men; help and succour every man as you may, yea, even your enemies that hate you, that speak evil of you, and that do hurt you. Take no man's goods, nor covet your neighbour's goods wrongfully; but content yourselves with that which ye get truly; and also bestow your own goods charitably, as need and case requireth. Flee all idolatry, witchcraft, and perjury; commit no manner of adultery, fornication, nor other unchasteness, in will nor in deed. And travailing continually (during your life) thus in the observing the commandments of God, (wherein consisteth the pure, principal, and direct honour of God, and which, wrought in faith, God hath ordained to be the right trade and pathway unto heaven,) you shall not fail, as Christ hath promised, to come to that blessed and eternal life, where you shall live in glory and joy with God for ever: to whom be land, honour, and impery, amount is this: The Erudition for ever and ever. Amen." Homilies maintains that our imperfect fulquoted by Todd, pp. 108-110. 2. The next point of palpable and dangerous incongruity between the good works of the Homilies and of the Erudition, is especially in the use made of them. What the second sort of good works of the Erudition is good for, we have yet to learn; except, indeed, to put people in a good way,-that is, we presume, in plain terms, to deserve more grace, either of condignity, or, at least, of congruity. But as for the first kind of good works mentioned in the Erudition, their office is high enough. Properly described as to their nature, being "charity out of a pure heart and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned," we find that their "unperfectness being supplied by the virtue and merits of Christ's passion, the merciful goodness of God accepteth them as an observation and fulfilling of the law; and they be the very service of God, and be meritorious towards the attaining of everlasting life." (See Christ. Observ. 1820, p. 42.) First, then, they are the fulfilling of the law: secondly, they are meritorious to salvation. Now, as to the first, namely, the fulfilling of the law, the difference between the Erudition and our Homilies is just this: We fulfil the law for ourselves, Christ supplying our imperfectness, says the Erudition: Christ fulfilled the law for us, say the Homilies. That there may be no mistake, we shall put two passages evidently corresponding to each other in both productions, in a note below. The 1. The Erudition.-" We be justified gratis, that is to say, freely; foras much as all other gifts or works, where by our justification is wrought and ac complished, come of the free mercy and grace of God, and not of our deserving: so that our pride and glory in ourselves, and our own worthiness, is utterly ex, cluded. For we be not able of ourselves, as of ourselves, not as much as to think any good thing; but our ableness and sufficiency is of God, which giveth us the said gifts, of his also assist us with his Holy Spirit, and own inestimable goodness, and doth strengthen us to keep his commandments. "And, further, where our keeping of them is unperfect, and even in the best men wanteth a great deal of that duty to God, which they ought and be bound to do; yet Almighty God, of his mere mercy and goodness, accepteth the same, as a perfect fulfilling of them, for our Saviour Christ's sake, which hath fulfilled the law for us, and is the end and perfection of the law to all that truly believe in him. And so we have all gratis, that is to say, of his grace, and not of our worthiness or any merit going before grace; but receiving all of God, as St. Paul saith, What hast thou that thou hast not received?' We refer all uuto his goodness and mercy, by the which we both come unto the beginning of our justification, and do proceed and go forward in the same; and finally attain the end thereof, and be brought to everlasting life; unto the which the very day appointed by Christ, whose word no man may change, is, to keep and observe the commandments of God. For he saith expressly, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments: that is, Apply thy whole study and affection to walk in the law of God, wherein if thou shalt persevere, thou shalt be saved. And so, after thy justification, thou shalt be glorified, according to the order of God; which St. Paul speaketh of, when he saith, ‘Quos justificavit, illos glorificavit.'" 2. The Homilies.-" Faith doth not ex-' clude repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified; bat it excludeth them from the office of justifying, So that, although they he all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not altogether. Nor that faith also doth not exclude the justice of our good works, necessarily to be done afterward of duty towards God; (for we are most bounden to serve God, in doing good deeds, commanded by him in his holy Scripture, all the days of our life:) but it excludeth them, so that we may not do them to this extent, to be made good filling of the law is itself, by Christ's having perfectly fulfilled it, made also perfect; consequently accepttable; consequently leading us both to the beginning, the advancement, and the completion of our justification. Hence the Erudition considers justification as coming of our works made perfect by Christ's perfection; and coming therefore of grace," because it is by the grace of God we do even those works, and through His grace they are accepted ;-which, if we understand Popery aright, is the direct and explicit doctrine of Popery. As for our Homilies; their doctrine plainly and undeniably is, that Christ alone hath fulfilled the law for us; that, it is His fulfilment alone which is accepted for our justification, either in whole or in part. In short, in Christ, and by Christ, every true believer is regarded as a fulfiller of the law, and is justified in virtue of HIS fulfilling it, not of our own fulfilling it, even though through His grace, either perfectly or imperfectly. The contradiction is palpable, and not to be evaded by any sophistry whatever; the similarity of expression in the two pro [just] by doing of them. For all the good works that we can do be unperfect, and therefore not able to deserve our justification; but our justification doth come freely by the mere mercy of God, and of so great and free mercy, that whereas all the world was not able of theirselves to pay any part towards their ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy, without any our desert or deserving, to prepare for as the most precious jewels of Christ's body and blood, whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the Law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied. So that Christ is now the righteousness of all them that truly do believe in him. He for them paid their ransom by his, death. He for them fulfilled the Law in his life. So that now in him, and by him, every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the Law; forasmuch as that which their infirmity Jacketh, Christ's justice hath supplied." ductions becoming only a clearer proof of dissimilarity in sentiment, as it brings the two doctrines into exact juxtaposition, and shews distinctly where they differ; and, therefore, so far from proving that the writers meant the same thing, it proves exactly the contrary. Yet, strange to say, this similarity of expression is the very source of the error, so freely and boldly maintained, of the identity of sentiment between the Erudition and the Homilies. But, secondly, these good works, it seems, are meritorious towards the attaining of everlasting life. There certainly is something bold in meeting a difficulty, so to speak, full butt; and feeling no alarm, or shewing none, where the most manifest incongruity is palpable. Do our Homilies represent good works in this light? Nay; is it possible there should be that divine in Christendom, who can maintain the substantial agreement between our Homilies, our Protestant Homilies, and those which thus declare good works to be meritorious to salvation? But it may be argued that the term "availing" to salvation of the Homilies, means the same thing as the term "meritorious" to salvation of the Erudition. We therefore think it necessary to say, that the "availing" to salvation of the Homilies, is a totally distinct thing from the "meritorious" to salvation of the Necessary Erudition; as distinct as that which is scriptural and that which is unscriptural. "Meritorious "D fixes the use of good works to a false end: " availing " is a general term, tantamount to "repentance unto salvation," "the Author of salvation to them that obey him," &c. Works avail unto salvation as being the evidence and necessary product of faith; as qualifying us for heaven; as conforming us to the only way, in which he will lead our Saviour; as being the way, and us to heaven; and, in this sense, they are the measure of our reward. But what is there in all persons? "By good works," say they, 66 this of merit, of being " meritor ous" to salvation, of beginning and completing justification, &c. &c. &c.? No-the plain undeniable fact is this: The Erudition preaches the doctrine of human merit; the Homilies overthrow and annihilate it, and were written for the express purpose of so doing. To us it seems little comparatively, whether we are to claim heaven by the merit of a Paternoster, with the Papist, or the merit of an act of purity or charity, with the Necessary Erudition. The grand question at issue between Papists and Protestants is, whether they can claim heaven at all, or for any thing? If good works are to be meritorious, Protestants as well as Papists may form a goodly system of self-sufficient supererogatory righteousness, which shall realize all the worst points of those doctrinists whom our forefathers conquered, though with their blood. And whilst we dwell with calmness on the "meritoriousness" of good works, whatever they may be, we may indeed build the sepulchres of our murdered forefathers, and boast in swelling terms of Cranmer, and Ridley, and Latimer, and so on; but we are in truth allowing the deeds of those who killed them, and had better exhibit some of the real virtues of our popish brethren, lest at length we be found with nothing of Protestantism but its name, and with every thing of Popery except its often well-meant devotions and sometimes holy mortifications. we mean not the superstitious works of men's own invention, which be not commanded of God, nor approved by his word; in which kind of works many CHRISTIAN men, and especially of them that were lately called religious, (as monks, friars, nuns, and such other,) have in times past put their great trust and confidence." (Todd, p. 38.) This may be very prudent and discreet language under Henry VIII.; and monks, friars, and nuns, were just such as he had sacrilegiously robbed of the rights of the church, for his own coffers and courtiers. "Odit quos læserat." But was "Christian men," after all, just the appellative which high-principled Protestants would have given to the race of meritorious doctrinists; and was it only one kind of works on which they blamed such for placing their great trust and confidence? If these same Papists were afraid to speak out, why, in the name of common sense, are they to be appealed to for the true sense and plain English of our own excellent and never to be misunderstood Protestant Homilies? 3. The collateral expressious used respectively in maintaining the good works of the Necessary Erudition and the good works of the Homilies, speak much, in our mind, as to an entire dissimilarity between the two doctrines, as felt by the very writers themselves. Those Papists who were ready to slaughter such as opposed their doctrine of human merit, the writers of the Necessary Erudition felt indeed to be carrying their practices of superstition too far. Yet how do these writers speak of their principles aud "This saying, that we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works, is spoken to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve justification at God's hands.".." This faith the holy Scripture teacheth; this is the strong rock and foundation of Christian religion; this doctrine all old and ancient authors of Christ's church and setteth forth the true glory of Christ, do approve; this doctrine advanceth and suppresseth the vain-glory of man: this whosoever denieth, is not to be reputed for a Christian man, not for a setter-forth of Christ's glory, but for an adversary to Christ and his Gospel, and for a setter-forth of men's vain-glory." (Homilies quoted by Todd, pp. 56, 57.) And again; " Man cannot make himself righteous by his own works, either in part or in whole; for that were the greatest arr ogancy ad presumption of man, that ANTICHRIST could set up against God, to affirm that man might by his own |