The doctrine of " meritorious good works," our Author justly, as we think, condemns, quoting, with entire approbation, the eleventh article of the Confession of his Church, and the Homily on Justification. We were pleased and gratified, in no ordinary degree, to find him so explicit in stating, that "the ground of the justification and salvation of fallen man is simply and exclusively the merits of Christ."

We perfectly agree with him, in the following observations, "When it is considered, how far we fall short of the pure and perfect law of God, the idea of attaching merit to any thing connected with us, whether it respects faith or works, is so utterly preposterous, that we are at a loss to conceive, how it should ever, even in the darkest ages, have entered the human mind." We join issue in the astonishment, expressed by our Author, on this subject: but must inform our readers, that this very "preposterous" doctrine of meritorious good works has been maintained, and is maintained, in that very Church, which possesses, as he thinks, "an apostolical constitution and evangelical liturgy." Our proofs for this assertion, we take from Overton's True Churchman ascertained. Chap vi.

Dr. Hey, the Norrissian professor of Divinity in Cambridge University, teaches, that the Reformers went too far in depreciating good works, and extolling "the necessity of founding all pretensions to reward on the merits of Christ." He talks of making our article (on Justification) more acceptable, by softening some expressions, seemingly tending to Antinomianism, and by strengthening expressions, tending to encourage virtue, and the hopes of its rewards." He, moreover, says, "the merits of Christ supply imperfection."

Mr. Fellowes says, "those persons, who expect justification upon easier conditions than those of good works, will find themselves miserably and fatally deluded."

Dr. Burns, Chancellor of the Diocess of Carlisle, roundly asserts, that "the laws (of the gospel) never promise any thing but to obedience. No man will be acquitted at the day of judgment, but only for working and obeying. There is no pardon to be purchased without obedience. Our obedience is

the only thing which will be admitted as a just plea; and as a qualification able to save us in the last day." "Nor," adds Mr. Overton," is it obedience taken in an extensive sense, as consisting especially in believing in him whom God hath sent, that is here chiefly meant; but obedience to the moral law, obedience as distinct from faith." This is clear from what follows. Having observed, how fatally "men evade this doctrine, because the gospel promises salvation to faith, love, being in Christ, &c." "These," he says, "save us no otherwise than by being springs and principles of our obedienceso that, first or last, obedience is-that alone condition which our Judge will accept, and which we may safely trust to."

"Were we," says Mr. Benson, "to utter those pressing calls, which elsewhere you may hear- Come to Christ, and throw yourselves on his mercy-come to him, bringing nothing but your sins-seek him, not by your deeds, but seek him by faith'-Were we, I say, to call you in such terms, we should but turn conspirators against the welfare of your souls. The call you desire to hear, is uttered only to the RIGHTEOUS. He (Christ) speaks comfort to the RIGHTEOUS."

To Bishop Fowler it appears self-evident, that "None but HOLY souls ARE CAPABLE of remission of sin."

Mr. Daubeny, now Archdeacon of Sarum, if we are not mistaken, says the clergy "feel themselves called upon to enforce obedience to the moral law as necessary to the accomplishment of the Christian scheme; necessary to bring fallen man into a state of acceptance with God, by QUALIFYING him for the salvation which has been purchased."

These extracts prove, that the "abominable system," as Dr. How justly calls it, which represents man as able, by his own unassisted powers, to prepare himself for grace, so as to deserve it; and, with the help of grace thus deserved, to attain to that higher degree of merit which entitles him to heaven, is actually propagated and defended in that Church which boasts of her apostolical ministry and her evangelical liturgy.

This departure from the true faith is not the only one, with which the members of this Church are chargeable. Bishop

Newton denied the eternity of future punishments. Dr. Clarke, Rector of St. James, London, was an Arian. The celebrated Dr. Whitby, the Commentator on the New Testament, espoused Dr. Clarke's opinions. Woolston, a fellow of Sidney College, Cambridge, was tried for blasphemy. Dr. Middleton, the author of the life of Cicero, was charged by Bishop Pierson, with infidelity. Dr. Clayton, bishop of Clogher, in Ireland, maintained Arian principles. Bishop Law, of Carlisle, was a Materialist. The celebrated Chillingworth, in answer to a letter of a friend, who "desired to know what judgment might be made of Arianism from the sense of antiquity," replied, "In a word, whosoever shall freely and impartially consider of this thing, and, on the other side, how the ancient fathers' weapons against the Arians, are, in a manner, onely places of Scripture, (and those now, for the most part, discarded as impertinent and unconcluding,) and how, in the argument drawne from the authority of the ancient fathers, they are alwayes defendants, and scarce ever opponents; he shall not choose, but confesse, or at least be very inclinable to believe, that the doctrine of Arrius is eyther a truth or no damnable heresy." Fellowes is a Socinian.

For the correctness of this statement, we refer to the writings of the persons mentioned, and to Kippis' Biographia Brittanica, and Chalmers', with Lempriere's Biographical Dictionaries. We forbear enlarging, satisfied that these cases are sufficient, until they are disproved, to show that the apostolical ministry and evangelical liturgy of the Episcopal Church cannot prevent a departure from the true faith in those matters which Dr. How has particularized.

These cases also show the degree of credit which is due to the assumption of the Christian Observer, which we noticed, p. 174. The articles and formularies of the Church of England do, unquestionably, license latitudinarianism, to the utmost extent, as appears from the fact of the prodigious variety of opinions, discordant with each other, on subjects of fundamental importance, which actually exists in that Church, and is tolerated.

3. We proceed to examine the fact, which Dr. How maintains, "that many of those societies on the continent of Europe, which laid aside the divinely-constituted order of bishops, have grievously fallen from the distinguishing doctrines of the cross." The Church of Holland, the Swiss Churches, the Reformed Churches of protestant Germany, and the Church of Geneva, must be meant by him. We say "must be meant by him," because he and his coadjutors claim the Lutheran denomination, as well as the Russian and Greek Churches, as Episcopal, in their controversy with Presbyterians. He and his friends may take their choice, for we are little concerned about the issue. As the High Church party have committed themselves, we, for the present, meet them on the position assumed by Dr. How, in this address, connected with the claim of the party of the Lutheran Church, on their side, as it respects the question of government.

The Church of Holland, which is purely Presbyterian, we do know, from correct information, has never departed from the true faith, in point of doctrine, as that true faith is described by Dr. How. Nor have the Swiss Churches departed from this faith, in the sense of our Author. In Geneva there have been defections, and sad ones, but never until Bishop Burnet, an Episcopal divine, succeeded in producing an abolition of the subscription to Calvinistic principles, by the authority of Geneva. With the Church of Geneva, as it now is, "that Church, which has an apostolical ministry and an evangelical liturgy," must settle the controversy, in reference to departure from the true faith, in Dr. How's sense.

We are aware of the fact, that, on the continent of Europe, there has been a sad and grievous departure from the truth. But, reader, be it known to you, that it is to be found among a denomination, whom the Episcopalians claim, as on their side, in the article of government. Bahrdt, Eberhard, Dam, Teller, Semler, &c. were all Lutherans. These men, who supported "the impious system of Socinus," never had been Calvinists. So much for Dr. How's assertion, relative to the continental Churches, who have "laid aside the divinely-con

stituted order of bishops." p. 24. "Passing from one extreme to another," says the Doctor," they have exchanged the absurdities of Calvinism for a system still more frightful”—“ the impious system of Arius and Socinus." Besides the absolute and utter want of proof for this assertion, as it respects the Calvinistic Churches on the continent, there is an unfairness, as it respects the Lutheran Church. As a Church, they never have embraced the heresies of Arius and Socinus, though many of their ministers and professors are supporters of these heresies. Nay, more, we say, that "not a single society," if Dr. How means, by that appellation, a denomination of Christians, "not a single society," Presbyterian in their government, on the continent, have embraced the system of either Arius or Socinus. We challenge the Rev. Author to prove his assertion.

Not less unhappy, because equally incorrect, is his statement of the condition into which England was brought, when, as he is pleased to call them, "the barriers of a primitive Episcopacy," were thrown down, p. 24. We venture to say, and we appeal to the impartial histories of that period, that there were less "impiety and heresy" in the nation then, than there were after the restoration of Charles, and since that time, until the rise of the Methodists. With all the canting hypocrisy of the day, there was a high degree of external morality and attention to religion, throughout England. The scene was sadly reversed, when Charles ascended the throne. Did Episcopal authority interfere to prevent the debauchery of the nation? Let the reader cast his eye over Burnet's history of his own times, but particularly over his prefaces to the first and third editions of his Pastoral Office, and he will see what had been done by them so far down as his day.

4. We proceed to examine the dubious or incorrect use of Scripture which Dr. H. has made. We confine our remarks to the interpretation which he gives of Antichrist, and of the passage in Timothy, where the Church is called the pillar and ground of the truth.