but apt to cause loathing and weakness. It is said to be without grains, and frequently infested with grubs.

"The sycamore, as well as the fig, cedar, vine, olive, and others, is to be found also in the world of mind. Its leafy, fruitless boughs, mark its place in the microcosm, rather in the intellect, or perhaps memory, than in the will; as a figure of truth, or of knowledge, rather than of good. Its growth on low ground, and especially in Egypt, shows that it represents something of no high degree; truth, it may be, as received by the natural man, in whom it makes more display of leaves and wood, than of flowers of wisdom and fruits of charity. Fruits there are, however, of a humble kind; devoid of spirituality; yet owing their production to the circulation caused by the apparently idle boughs. Even these poor, unproductive, infected fruits, can only be ripened by exposure to the light and air of heaven, and the rough usage of the world and its temptations.

"The prophet's description of his humble calling has therefore greater force than appears at first sight:- No prophet, neither a prophet's son; not even a shepherd or a vine-dresser; but an herdman (or a ploughman with oxen) and a cutter open of sycamore fruit;' as if he had said, as the expressive words of the original seem to imply, I was no opener of Divine things, but only of the ground and of sycamore` fruit.'*

66

Isaiah says, 'The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycamores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.' Who cannot see that the firm, branching, mountain cedar, although bearing no edible fruit, figures a higher degree or condition than the light-wooded sycamore of the vale? Hence, in the golden days of Solomon, the king made silver to be in Jernsalem as stones, and cedars made he to be as the sycamore trees that are in the vale, for abundance. Would these particulars be recorded in the volume of Eternal Truth, if they had no other meaning, more 'profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness,' than to describe the outward splendour of Solomon's reign? Or would the New Testament of the same Eternal Truth, which relates but a small portion of the 'things which Jesus did,'§ contain the trifling incident of Zaccheus climbing the sycamore tree, if nothing more than that trivial occurrence were involved? Would that every one who, like Zaccheus, may not be

* See the Hebrew text. The radical idea in all the words is, to lay open. Consult Dr. Lee's Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon.

+ Chap. ix. 10.

1 Kings x. 27.

§ John xxi. 25.

well versed in the law of spiritual order, and may therefore be despised as a Publican by the better informed Scribes, were like him, charitable and just; little of stature,' and humble enough to mount the sycamore tree! to use the knowledge at his command, in order to gain a better view of the blessed Saviour, who never lets an honest effort be slighted! Assuredly, he will receive the gracious invitation, Zaccheus, make haste and come down, for to-day I must abide at thy house!'* The door of his heart will be knocked by Him whose promise extends to every human being:- Behold, I stand at the door and knock: If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.'

66

When the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith,' He replied, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.' This is commonly supposed to be nothing more than a casual illustration, because a sycamore tree happened to be near. But is that a safe construction to put upon words which the Lord himself declares to be spirit and life, and which, coming from Him, must needs be the very truth? Admitting that a sycamore was nigh, and that the apostles' request at that moment was accidental, is it not reasonable to suppose that the Lord named the tree in its typical character, representing the very obstacle to the desired increase of faith? Unless something more than the obvious sense is contained in His words, they are no answer to the apostles' request.

"Taking the sycamore tree as an emblem of that inferior form of truth, or of those views of truth which the natural man receives, and from which the charitable Publican was called to a more intimate acquaintance with his Saviour, it will represent, in the case under notice, the same external views, when confirmed and set up in opposition to more spiritual perceptions; in which case, what was useful in its proper place, as apparent truth, becomes an obstacle to the reception of the truth itself. This is a matter of common experience. That the sun rises and sets; that 'God is angry with the wicked,' are truths to the natural man, who is led by appearances; but if he insist that those appearances are real facts, he makes them no longer truth, but falsehood. That the apostles entertained such external views, and were 'slow of heart to believe‡' the wondrous things'§ their Divine Master afterwards expounded, || is plain from the Gospel History; and if He

* Luke xix. 2-6.

Luke xxiv. 25.

Luke xvii. 5.

pointed to this impediment to their faith, under the figure of the thick shading sycamore, the harmony of the application with both the Scriptural and natural characters of the tree, is equally striking and instructive."

THE NECESSITY OF GOOD WORKS IRRECONCILEABLE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE.

REV. SIR,

(A Letter addressed to a Clergyman.)

In your sermon of Sunday morning last, you combatted the difficulty which many feel in finding a place for good works under the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and it has occurred to me that some thoughts of mine might be useful as shewing, at all events, how laymen think about these matters. A spurious Protestantism would disallow the right of individual interpretation; but however a certain party may insist that the church is to decide on doctrine, the rising independence of the age will not tolerate the denial of the right to think; and the more this authority of the church-i. e., of the priesthood, is insisted upon, the less difference will be seen betwixt Romanism and the Church of England, and therefore the more easily will people go over to Romanism, or sink into downright infidelity. I believe, however, that you have none of this feeling, and therefore am free to offer one or two ideas on the point in question.

It appears to me that to say we are saved by faith alone, and yet that good works are necessary to salvation, is a contradiction in terms, and therefore that every attempt to reconcile the two propositions must fail. I have studied the case much, and given an attentive ear to a host of ingenious arguments, and yet I see the contradiction as plainly as ever. To say that Scripture teaches the necessity of good works, and therefore that we must believe a logical contradiction, is to take refuge under mystery and authority, two rulers which no rational mind will submit to without absolute necessity. Is there any such necessity here? I think not. I think there is a rational, and therefore a better resource. There are, indeed, some points upon which something of this necessity must be admitted, but such points are not peculiar to Christianity, and the case in question is not one of them, because the contradictory element may be thrown out. Reject the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and there is an end of the difficulty. The next step is to base salvation

upon "faith, hope, and charity, these three," together, and if there be any preeminence to give it to "the greatest of these," which "is charity." (1 Cor. xiii. 13.)

Before noticing the supposed necessary connection between salvation by works and self-merit, allow me to express my opinion of the only other way in which a place is provided for good works under the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. It is said that good works are to be done as evidences of our faith, and not as a procuring means of salvation. Evidences to whom? To God? He looks into the heart and has no need of outward evidence. To man? What can a fellow-man have to do with that evidence as touching our salvation? His opinion of us cannot affect the judgment of God, and "God is the judge." This plea has always appeared to me singularly puerile, and unworthy of the dignity of revealed religion. Where is it set forth by the Author and Finisher of our faith? If good works are done in obedience to His command, Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." This is evidently an embodiment of love to God in charity towards our neighbour. The motive qualifies the act, and that motive is set forth in the last clause. The object of our good works is to be, that others may come to God, not that they may have evidence of our faith. They have that evidence indeed, but the primary object of our good works is the salvation of others; and the rest, the shewing of our faith by our works, is only a means to that end. In this, as in every other case, true Christianity "seeketh not its own," but others.

66

We now come to the supposed necessary connection between salvation by works and self-merit. I say supposed necessary connection, because such a connection is altogether opposed to every true idea of good works. Good works are works of charity, in which the "One Good" is present moving us "both to will and to do of His good pleasure:" any other works, however good outwardly, are not really good, and therefore are not saving; and it is abundantly evident that God cannot move us of His good pleasure to do works which are full of the feeling of self-merit. Self-merit springs from self-love, and self-love cannot dwell together with the love of God, because they are opposites; but if the love of God be in us and move us to good works, those works are hallowed by the love they spring from, and self-merit is cast out. They, therefore, who do good works, as well as those who see them done, glorify our Father which is in heaven, by ascribing all the merit to Him, and thus they may humbly hope that they have in some measure attained to the state which our Lord meant when he said—“ Except your righteousness shall

exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." The righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees was full of self-merit; it was put forward as evidence of their faith "to be seen of men," and therefore was "filthy rags;" but this term of abomination is not applicable to the righteousness which is of God in us, although it is applied by many "orthodox" preachers in such a manner as to confuse all just distinction between the two. It would not be difficult to shew, that a vast amount of misconception concerning the meaning of the word salvation, and thence of confusion with respect to the primary elements of dogmatic theology, have sprung from regarding the dealings of God with man in redemption as purely forensic. Nothing intellectual which is called spiritual can savour more of the external man—of “ the rudiments of this world," than such a view. The errors which naturally arise from it might be shewn by a very rapid induction, but it is not my object now to point them out, and therefore I leave the subject with the expression of my sincere belief that theology, which is divine truth, will not always be less clear than geometry, which is human truth, and that it is not too much to hope that even the great mystery of the Trinity itself may be understood, by adhering to the Latin instead of the English creed.

I cannot conclude without saying how much I dissent from your assertion, that the most ardent professors of the doctrine of salvation by faith alone are, most of all men, distinguished by good works. My experience has been widely different, and I do not hesitate to say, that I have found them fuller of self-merit than other men, and less liberal, less tolerant, and less disposed to love their neighbour as themselves, many who make no profession. This proves a truth never hinted at by preachers, that if good works may be polluted by self-merit, so also may faith; that in fact there is as much danger of the one as the other, and that the doctrine of free grace is equally applicable to both, and equally necessary to sanctify both.

than

As my object is not controversy, but merely, as I said at first, to shew you some of a layman's thoughts, with a view to your turning them to some practical good, I make sure of your indulgence in perusing what I have really no time to put into a better form.

I am, dear Sir,

Yours very truly,

To the Rev. R. H.

H.