but it is placed in a striking point of observation, and may assist us, I think, in accounting for some recent occurrences. It is well known, that among many varieties, there are two leading parties and two systems of doctrine in the Church of England, which have come to be distinguished from each other, in common conversation, by the names of Orthodox and Evangelical. With what propriety either of these names is assumed or given, I do not mean to inquire. It would seem, that whatever is orthodox must be evangelical; and whatever is evangelical, orthodox: and although it ought to be our constant aim to merit both appellations, there is at least an equal degree of arrogance in laying an exclusive claim to either. The fact, however, is, that these, in themselves harmonious titles, have been made symbols of discord; and I think the passage just quoted from Buchanan, furnishes us with a key to the difference between the two parties to which they are applied. It has been, of late, fashionable (excuse the term) to consider these two parties as distinguished from each other, by their adherence to Arminianism or Calvinism. But this is now well known to be an error; and, if I were required to distinguish them, it should rather be as believers in a partial or a radical corruption of our nature, in justification by faith conjointly or in justification by faith only and this I take to be the real clue to all the differences in which they have been engaged. The doctrine of justification by works is, indeed, seldom openly avowed by any Protestant writer; and in our own church especially, the Article is so direct, which teaches, that " we are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings," that it is necessary to resort to some gross subterfuge, in order for a churchman to hold such a doctrine consistently at all. Yet whoever is acquainted with the labyrinth of his own heart, or has had any experience in reasoning with other men, must have often found, that some sentiments which he wished to disavow lay at the bottom of others which he was conscious of entertaining. It is one work of the Holy Spirit to convince us of sin, which could not be necessary, if there were not always something in our hearts which we are not sen. sible of harbouring. Unbelief itself is often unknown to the unbeliever; and the doctrine of justification by works may be really held, where the form of words which would be necessary to teach it would be repudiated. It is, as Dr. Buchanan says, the doctrine of the world, and may therefore find admittance wherever the principles of the world have any influence. Sometimes, however, it happens, that a particular course of argument or controversy elicits a sentiment which would otherwise remain concealed in unsuspected obscurity. This was what happened in a former controversy between Mr. Overton and Archdeacon Daubeny, when the latter was led, in the vehemence of discussion, to represent, as an error of his opponents, the position that "where true faith is, there will be repentance, obedience, and holiness;" although, in his subsequent apology for this mistatement, he was compelled to plead, that had the language of the Twelfth Article presented itself to his mind at the time, he would certainly have avoided this apparent opposition to its sentiments.-(Guide, p. 291. Vindiciæ, p. 345.) I am inclined to think, that something of the same kind has occurred also in the more recent discussions on baptism. I am not one of those who wish to revive a sinking controversy; and therefore, if I now allude to these divi sions, it is because I hope the heat of disputation is over, and that a few practical remarks may be both offered and received without intemperance. There must be a bias of mind somewhere, when different persons see the same truth in such different points of view: and a little observation of prevailing opinions may, I think, discover, in the present instance, in what that bias consists. What then, I would ask, is the prevailing sentiment of the great majority of the Orthodox party, so called, as opposed to that of the Evangelical, respecting the important practical objects of Christianity? Is it not notoriously this, that Christianity is a privileged state, in which, through faith in Christ, we are made acquainted with our duty, and admitted to the promise of future forgiveness and reward, if, on the whole, we are found to act up to the demands of a tolerably refined morality? In this case, therefore, baptism may be looked upon as a mere admission into this state of privilege; regeneration, as a change of relationship, by which we are taken into the family of God, without any actual change in our fitness for it; and all the high expressions of a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness, may thus dwindle down to a gradual improvement of life, and an abstinence from grosser crime. All this misconception, I think, results from a defective view of the extent of original corruption. For no one will discern an essential necessity to put on a new nature, who thinks he can sufficiently reform and sanctify the old one; and the remains of sin will give us little offence, if our highest hope be that of forgiveness through grace, independently of a renewal by the Holy Spirit. In a word, if we believe our nature to be radically corrupt, we shall acknowledge the necessity of a radical change; if only partially so, a partial change will be sufficient for us: and the difference between our sentiments will be aptly expressed by the dif ference between the Apostle's term of transformation, and the modern phrase "reformation." Nevertheless, as those to whom this description applies are compelled to adopt the same language of Scripture, in their public services, and in their appeals to scriptural authority, with those who differ from them, each party will be likely to assign to that language a meaning adapted to its own sense of the change required: and thus our notions of regeneration, new creation, and adoption into the family of God, will often be derived neither from the natural import of those terms, nor from their force in the connexion in which they stand in Scripture, but from our previous conceptions of the sense which we imagine they ought to bear. The great cause, therefore, of difference on this subject, I judge to be, that many persons are not aware how great, how total a change is necessary; how absolutely essential it is, that every sin should be crucified, and the entire man be, come devoted to God. They believe that every baptized person, who is regular in the observance of all the external duties of religion, who is sorry for occasional sins, and desirous to cultivate justice and charity, will be received to the presence of God without any further evidence of a heart actually converted from the vanities of the world to the love of its Creator. They do not remember, that every thing that we do is naturally contaminated by sin; that our very prayers are stained with it; and that the entire system must be changed, every sinful inclination be subdued, and the whole heart renovated, before we can be fit for the enjoyment of heaven. When once they are sufficiently impressed with this truth, they will either find a higher meaning for such words as New Birth and New Creation, than that to which they are accustomed, or they will be at a loss for words to describe the change which they acknowledge to be necessary. Among those who are truly persuaded of this necessity, there can be no important or practical difference, whatever may be their seeming and verbal difference on any part of the baptismal controversy. The origin of the whole dispute is, as I have stated, that there are many who do not see the neces sity of so entire a renovation as has been described; but who, framing to themselves a standard of morals partly from the world and partly from the Bible, think, that by living up to this imperfect standard, they may ensure to themselves the bless ings of the Christian covenant, and indisputably attain everlasting salvation. Can persons holding this scheme of religious faith be justly accounted orthodox, while it is evident that they seek their justification not from a renunciation of themselves, and a total dependence upon Jesus Christ as their Saviour, but from a compliance with their own defective code of morality? Let me not be misunderstood or thought to charge any whole body of my Christian brethren with having little personal religion, or knowing little of the nature of Christianity. It would ill become me to utter such an opinion. I only mean, that as far as any of their sentiments resolve themselves into the doctrine of justification by works in any of its modifications, they are founded in error, and require to be re-examined, and again compared with the only infallible test, the sacred Scriptures. The sentiments now described, as Dr. Buchanan justly remarks, constitute the religion of the world; and too much of similar sentiments will ever adhere even to the most spiritual Christian to justify him in harshly censuring in others what he himself cannot entirely put away. It is scarcely possible to divest the mind effectually of that self-complacency in a tolerably faithful discharge of any given duty, which indicates that we trust to it, as a ground of confidence, instead of presenting it with shame and humiliation, as an unworthy and blemished offering: and it is this circumstance which hinders us from adopting with gladness that doctrine of a real regeneration of heart and life by the power of the Holy Ghost, which alone can sustain the mind under an overwhelming sense of sinfulness, and make even the exercises of prayer and watchfulness, and self-denial, grateful to the soul of the penitent. I firmly believe, that, if we could utterly eradicate from the hearts of all professed Christians the idea of justification by their own works, and plant in its stead an entire renunciation of self, grounded upon that apostolical persuasion, that in ourselves (that is, in our flesh), dwelleth no good thing; but that in Christ Jesus, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we have the promise of a new nature, to be obtained by prayer, cultivated with watchful. ness, and maintained through selfdenial, in continual dependence upon the efficacy of those purifying graces, which will gradually transform us into the image of our Redeemer,-could we, I say, thus rectify the hearts and conceptions of professed Christians, we should have taken away, I imagine, all ground for serious diversity upon the nature of regeneration, the efficacy of baptism, and the distinction between conversion and repentance. But as long as there remains in the world such a doctrine as that of justification by works, so long must there be a disposition to lower the import of terms which imply a Divine renovation, at which, by our own righteousness, we can never arrive, and to identify spiritual changes with outward privileges, thus substituting the signs of grace for the things signified. There may be, and are persons, who endeavour to reconcile systems thus essentially different. But the grand source of disagreciment lies here-that the one party believe, in fact, that Christ justifies the sinner by faith; the other, that he only enables the penitent believer to justify himself, or to entitle himself to justification. I can only say, in conclusion, May He who is emphatically the God of Peace, put a speedy end to such divisions, by leading all who profess and call themselves Christians into the way of truth, that they may hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life! C. C. FAMILY SERMONS.-No. CIV. 2 Cor vi. 17, 18.-Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you. And I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. MEN readily admit the necessity of being virtuous in their conduct, and of acknowledging to a certain extent the moral precepts of religion. So far, therefore, the Christian instructor finds little difficulty in executing the high commands of his office: every feeling is on his side; every voice is ready to attest the propriety of his injunctions, He paints the beauty of virtue, and we admire it; he tells us of the joys of heaven, and we long to partake of them; he exhibits the deformity of vice, and we shrink from it with abhorrence: all is easy, and calm, and tranquil, on this natural, this philosophical ground; no jealous passion rises in the heart; no prejudiced ear is opposed to his mes sage: we resolve to be decent and reputable characters in society; we determine that our conduct shall be upon the whole dignified and virtuous. So far all may be well and excellent. Let us now advance another CHRIST, OBSERV. No. 188. step. We are told of the giddiness of ambition; of the frivolity of the world; of the vanity of a life of fashionable amusement. Here again, though we do not perhaps follow the lesson, we do not raise our voices against it: we allow it to be, upon the whole, reasonable, and correct, and Christian. As long as we are permitted to be of the world, to live in its general spirit, to practise its current maxims, and enjoy its usual gratifications, we are not se riously offended at being told that we need be somewhat guarded as to the extent of our concession; that it is best to be on the safe side; and that Christianity does certainly require some undefined instances of self-denial, though, compared with what she allows, they shrink almost into nothing. But let us suppose the instructor goes farther: let us suppose that he follows up his holy message in all its important extent; teaching us, that not merely a little decent exemption from gross sins is necessary, but that we must decidedly come out from the world, and be separate; that we must not touch the unclean thing; that the friendship of the world is enmity with God; that she who liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth ;what would be the reception given to his unwelcome message? The answer would, alas! in too many instances, be, "This is a hard say. ing; who can bear it?" One man would, perhaps, be hardened, and determine never to perform the duty, though he knew his salvation depended upon it; another would allow the necessity of being separated from the world, but would put off the period of his separation; another would justify himself with vain excuses; another, perhaps--and, oh! may this be the case with each of us!-would not only perceive the necessity and infinite importance of the injunction, but would resolve, by the grace of God, to put it into immediate practice. 3 T means approve of being placed together. To this end, let us, I. Point out the way in which the true Christian is to come out from the world. II. The blessed encouragement held forth in the text for so doing. I. The way in which the Christian is to come out from the world. But here a question arises, What is the world which we are to forsake? Were we to measure it only by the opinions of men, what diversity would there appear upon this subject! All would readily forsake something which they called the world; but few would forsake their own world-the scene at once of their delights and their temptations. The dishonest man forsakes the company of the murderer: the licentious forsakes that of the dishonest; the man of decent character that of the licentious. But may it not be that even this person of decent character is still a worldling -and therefore, however harsh the assertion, not a true disciple of Christ? This is possible, nay it is probable, and, in many cases, is too often certain. The world, then, includes all who, whether high or low, rich or poor, rude or elegant, are living to themselves rather than to God, for time rather than for eternity. In order to comply with the command of forsaking the world, 1. We must forsake its unholy pleasures. 2. We must renounce its unscriptural doctrines. 3. We must be separated from its general spirit and design. 1. The Christian is to forsake the unholy pleasures of the world. In what, then, do these consist? Alas! disguise and palliate it as we may, the enjoyments of the world may all be reduced to the brief catalogue mentioned in Scripture ;-the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eye, and the pride of life. The difference of a little more grossness or refinement is the utmost, perhaps, that is found between characters who would by no To forsake, then, the pleasures of the world, is not merely to soften them down, and refine them till they lose their vulgar aspect; it is not to mix up with them much that is sentimental and attractive; it is not to indulge in them only in a respectable and regular manner; but it is to come out from among them, and to be separate; it is to give up vanity, and pride, and selfindulgence, in all their forms, as much as open sensuality and gross corruption. It is to be new creatures in Christ Jesus; it is for old things to have passed away, and for all things to have become new ; it is to find our pleasure, not in the world, not even in its apparently innocent amusements, but in God and heaven-in the contemplation of a merciful Redeemer, and an all-gracious Sanctifier-in the doctrines and precepts, the promises and rewards of the holy book of God. 2. This leads us to consider the next idea proposed; namely, that in forsaking the world we are to renounce its unscriptural doctrines. What, my brethren, are the common doctrines of the world relative to man and his salvation? They are short and simple; but they are not scriptural, they are not consistent with fact, and they will not conduct us to the kingdom of heaven. Persons of the world, in general, view themselves as beings with a few faults or follies; too thoughtless, it is true, and too much engaged with temporal concerns, but still right at beart, and needing a Saviour only to make up for their de fects. What a change, therefore, must occur in the opinions of such au individual, before he can be said truly to admit into his heart the doctrines of Scripture! How must he view himself guilty and wretched in the sight of God, by reason of his sins! How must penitence soften his heart, and a knowledge of him self, as he really is, dispose him to |