says, Yes; we are still bound to obey it, if we would be saved; bot with this difference of condition under the obligation, that we are no longer under the penalty of the curse if we disobey, but in the hands of a reconciled Father, who will forgive us, upon our repentance, for our crucified Master's sake. The memorialists may say, if they please, that this is "sinking the perfection of the Godhead, to meet the sinful imperfection of fallen man;" I see but the great goodness of God in it to his fallen creatures-restoring them, though they have been miserable offenders against his holy laws, upon their repentance, and ever holding out to them the hope of this restoration on the strength of "his promises, declared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord." 1! rxi{'ར༄ཝ

VIII. This brings me to the last passage from the "Whole Duty" to which I shall call your readers' attention :-" Unite all those that profess thy name to thee by purity and holiness." Not, object the memorialists, by purity and holiness, but, "forsooth it is faith." Now, the party offering the prayer is already in union with God by faith, and the object of his prayer is, that he may be more and more conformed to the image of that Christ in whom he believes; that he may (John, xv. 10) " keep his commandments;" and so ie, by purity and holiness abide in his love."

Now, is there anything reasonably to be objected to in this doctrine? The memorialists argue as if the person offering the prayer was as yet afar off from God, and on this supposition build their objection; but the supposition is theirs, not that of the tracts. And what deference, then, can be due to the judgment of the memorialists on the subject of the tracts, when they first suppose them to teach what they do not teach, and then cry " untrue," "absurd," " pernicious," and speak of " their hearts shuddering," and "their hands trembling with horror," at their own suppositions?

There is more of similar objections to one or two other tracts; but if the unreasonableness of the objections taken by the memorialists be not now apparent, I shall be unable to make them so by any further investigation of these charges. I will now, therefore, bring these remarks to a conclusion, by offering you some general observations on the doctrine of the tracts, and on that which the memorialists offer the Society in its stead.

The authors of the tracts against which the censure of the memorialists is principally directed held the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Their doctrine is, that man, by a new birth of water aud the Spirit at baptism, is made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven; and that his business, from that time forth, is to make his calling and election sure. They all along suppose him to be standing by faith, and to draw the power to do works pleasing to God from Christ, his head, as the branch draws its sap from the vine. When, therefore, these writers speak of the Christian's works of repentance, charity, &c., what is the assumption good for, which the memorialists constantly make, that they are speaking of works done before faith in Christ, and without the help of the Spirit? Yet on this as

sumption is the reasoning of the memorialists altogether built. It is the puro voog of their objections-the warp through which the whole woof of their argument is run, rendering it worthless in effect from the beginning to the end of it. The false doctrine which the memorialists charge upon the Society's tracts, is very false; but then it is not in the tracts. The whole question, in fact, regarding the soundness of the doctrine in the tracts resolves itself into these twoI. Is the sacrament of baptism not merely a pledge, and a seal, but a means of grace to the recipient? And II. What is the place of good works in the Christian covenant, and the language to be held respecting them? The question of baptismal justification, I contend, the memorialists must first settle with the Society, proving it to be what ** it has been so reverently called, nothing better than "al wretched figment," before they can be in a position to accuse tracts based upon this doctrine, and drawing their reasoning and language from it, of "setting forth a Christianity unknown both to the Bible and our church, and as dishonourable to the mercy of God as it is oppressive to the incapacity of men." But what if the evidence is altogether in favour of the doctrine? What, if the primitive church so teaches? What, if we must travel down through centuries in church history before we meet with the contrary doctrine? What, if it is utterly impossible to find a single sentence in our church services, from the first thanksgiving for regeneration after baptism to the closing service over the dead, that countenances the contrary doctrine? What, if the language held by our church on this subject has been felt to be so plain spoken by clergymen not holding baptismal regeneration, that some have even left the church in consequence, while others omit the address following upon baptism-"Seeing now that this child is regenerate," &c.? What if, in the pamphlets written against baptismal regeneration, the tenour of the argument invariably almost is to prove, that the church does not really mean what she literally teaches?-that, although she directs a thanksgiving to be offered for every baptized child, as regenerate, she believes many of the children, for whom she offers this thanksgiving, not to have been regenerate? That, although she teaches every child in her catechism that he was made at his baptism a member of Christ, a child of God, &c., she believes many of the children, whom she thus teaches to believe of themselves, not to have been then made members of Christ, &c.? What, if it is this very doctrine of baptismal regeneration, that is notoriously the capital doctrinal offence which the church gives to orthodox dissenters? If these things be so, then I contend that we have here evidence not easily to be gainsayed to the fact, that baptismal regeneration is a doctrine of the church, and that Nelson, therefore, and those that think with him, committed no unpardonable error, in forming their tracts on this basis, and, in reasoning from it, are perfectly innocent of the guilt of teaching "man's ability to save himself, to reconcile himself with God, to do works pleasing in his sight, of his natural self, out of Christ, and without God's help."

Supposing, however, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration to be

the doctrine of the church, there still remains the question of the place of good works, and the language to be held regarding them. And this question I must contend is simply this: Are we to take the lan guage of scripture and the church on this point in the meaning that a person of plain common sense would take them in, or are we not? Thus, a father says to his son, "I love you, my dear son, and I will do everything I can to further your welfare; but, if you wish to retain my affections, you must do your duty as my son; you must shew a willingness to comply with my desires, and sincerely endeavour to do so." Now, would not any son to whom these words were addressed understand from them, that his tenure of his father's affections depended upon his acting thus-that this was the part he had to perform the condition upon which the continuance of his father's good offices was suspended? And would he not, at the same time, feet sure that his father supposed him to have the power of doing what he required of him? When, therefore, the same person finds himself addressed by his heavenly Father in such terms as these" Repent, and believe the gospel, and your sins shall be forgiven you," is he not to understand that his hope of receiving pardon from God depends upon his repenting, and believing the gospel-that this is the part he has to perform the condition upon which forgiveness is promised him? And must he not, at the same time, feel sure that his heavenly Father supposes him to have the power of doing what is required of him? I am almost ashamed to ask such a question. It seems to imply that our common sense may be put utterly aside when we come to the consideration of scripture, and that the words of divine truth are not such as those that run may read, but a something which can be rightly understood only by our first divesting ourselves of all our accustomed modes of interpreting language, and learning to believe, that when God addresses us, something is meant different from the meaning that the words plainly convey. While language is in use among men, and God pleases to make it a medium of communication between him and us, it must be subject to the same rules of interpre tation, whether speaking of the things of God or of men. How, then, can a system of theology stand a moment which either tells us that when God calls upon us to repent and believe, that our sins may be blotted out, he addresses these words to many whom he knows to be incapable of repenting and believing?-or that those to whom they are addressed are mistaken if they suppose that their repenting and believing is a condition upon which the bestowal of their pardon is suspended? Nor can it, in my humble opinion, make the slightest difference, as far as the present argument is concerned, as derived from the use of language, that the power by which man repents and believes is a power not his own by nature, but bestowed upon him by the Holy Spirit. If he have the power, whence derived is immaterial; or, if he have access to the source whence the power is de rived, then is he able to perform the duties required of him. Those duties are in no sense performed for him, more than they are performed by him,in no sense, that is, more performed for him, than every act

of his existence is performed by God for him, the source of power in him, in all his actions, being precisely the same, and the difference in the power he derives from this source, as in Christ or out of Christ, being more in kind and in degree than in the mode of operation in him. It is on these grounds, which are planted deeply, I contend, in the very use and meaning of language, as the medium of communi cation between mind and mind, in the very necessities almost of our nature as social beings, that Nelson and the tract writers in question, aye, and a cloud of witnesses, speak of Christian duties as conditions of salvation, in the proper meaning of the word, as those duties upon his performing which, or being pardoned for Christ's sake, on his re pentance, for neglecting to perform them, the Christian's salvation is suspended. Yet this is the very thing that is objected to in the Society's tracts; that the writers of them thus interpret the language of scripture in reasoning upon it; that they take God, take our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, and his apostles, at their word, (I speak after the manner of men ;) and when our Lord says to them, "Not every ones that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven," they be lieve him to mean, that our obedience to him in this world must precede, as a condition, our fruition of him in the world to come. This is the grand offence, according to the memorialists, in the Society's tracts; their teaching that man has something to do himself in the work of his salvation, upon which his salvation depends; and their calling upon him, in consequence, to perform this part, if he would be saved. No, exclaim the memorialists, such teaching as this is utterly subversive of the gospel, which proclaims a free salvation, without any conditions whatever. No conditions are required of us. No conditions required of us? Then how are we simple people to under stand words which, out of the Bible, could be heard by no reasoning creature without being understood to propose conditions? Take our Saviour's solemn words, for instance, to the twelve:" Ye are my friends, IF ye do whatsoever I command you." And in another place:"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying he shall never see death." Now a man of plain sense, desirous to please God, would say, upon hearing these words, that his doing whatsoever our Lord commanded him, his keeping his sayings, was a condition, in the proper acceptance of the term-a something to be done on his part, that he might continue to have Christ as his friend, and escape death. But no, say the memorialists, he has not anything to do himself,-it will be all God's doing. What, not to obey his Lord's commandments?-not to keep his sayings? "No; God will do it for him!" But God, he might answer, speaks to me, addresses me, and distinctly requires me to do such and such things, if I would enter into life. Am I, then, really, not to do them? Am I not called upon to do them? "Yes, you are called upon to do them, but you really are not expected to do them; you have nothing to do with them; God will do them for you." Now I affirm that I have not, in this statement, gone beyond what must be the doctrine of the

memorialists, when they tell us that no such things as conditions, in the sense of the tracts-i. e., in the plain every-day sense of the word— are proposed to us in the gospel. For these are their own words: "Or if they must have that name, (conditions,) such conditions as the God of mercy, in condescension to human incapacity, (is it less a con- ' descension of mercy to remove the incapacity ?) himself engages to perform." Not, be it observed, enables man to perform, but, as they speak in another place, "engages to do both in man and for man himself." That is to say, the memorialists complain of the tracts, that they do not represent man simply as a machine, with nothing himself to do in the work of his salvation, no power himself to act, even under grace; a mere machine, therefore, to be urged onwards passively towards heaven by the impulses of the Spirit. I contend that this is the state to which the doctrine of the memorialists, regarding conditions,-as not what God requires and enables man to perform, but engages to perform himself for man,-necessarily reduces man under the covenant of grace; and that it is only on the supposition that such is his state, that the word conditions can be reasonably objected to, and "things accompanying salvation" considered the preferable term, as applied to the duties enjoined us in the gospel. Nor can the prefixing the word "meritorious" to conditions alter the case, for this is only to misuse the word "meritorious," which, in its invidious sense, as the memorialists use it, is utterly inapplicable to the conditions on which it pleases God to permit our continuance in a state of salvation, to which, from first to last, we have no right but through the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The memorialists find the word used obviously in the sense the tract writers use it in one of the homilies, and are evidently hampered by it; and, in order to extricate themselves from their difficulty, they endeavour to make a distinction between what they call meritorious conditions and conditions sine qua non; a distinction that cannot, in reason, exist, as they would interpret conditions-viz., what God performs for man, man being unable to perform them-but upon the supposition that man is a mere machine in the work of his salvation! The question, then, brought before the Society by these memorials really is this, whether the members of it are prepared to put out of circulation all the tracts that do not give this view of man under the gospel dispensation, and to appoint a committee for the purpose of introducing such as shall faithfully reflect it? For one, from my heart I say, Mŋ yɛvoɩto. The old tracts have their faults their share; but they have the sterling merit of conveying the great truths of scripture in broad natural language, without any fear of school divines before their eyes; and I cannot but think that, even on that ground, it would be nothing but the gain of a grievous loss, and hurt to the cause of scriptural truth, to part with them, and substitute for them tracts of an opposite description, turning a wary eye to every point of the theological compass, whence false doctrine cometh, and speaking a language, every phrase of which has been first weighed, word by word, in the captious scales of polemical divinity. I am, Sir, yours, &c., C. J. H.