ward. Then he gave us another exhortation. But he made nothing of this. He was evidently out of the element in which his mind should act. Finally, he concluded by saying, "We will defer this matter till the evening."-The auditory was small, and, judging from its appearance, could not have understood half he said. He used recherché words, and talked about the schools, and scholastic theology, and the Arminians, and Beza's expositions, etc.

But I must stop here. I have put down a few things that I have seen and heard; I hope they will not be unacceptable to Yours sincerely,

you.

J. Q. DAY.

Supposed Evangelical Views in England.

THE Christian Observer for June, 1833, contains an article "On Works done before Justification," which may be regarded as expressing the views of that party in the Church of England who assume the name of Evangelical Christians. The article relates to a reform proposed by Mr. Wesley and by him established among the Methodists, of whom he was the leader. The writer says:

"After Mr. Wesley had preached for more than thirty years, he found, as he tells us, the direful heresy of Antinomianism springing up among his people; with a laudable view to eradicate which, several resolutions were passed in Conference, and among them the following:

"We have received as a maxim, that a man is to do nothing in order to justification. Nothing can be more false. Whoever desires to find favour with God should cease from evil and learn to do well; -so God himself teacheth by the prophet Isaiah. Whoever repents should do works meet for repentance; and if this is not in order to find favour, what does he do them for?""

The writer of the article makes the following observations:

"I need not, I trust, pause to show the unscriptural character and dangerous tendency of the statement, that men are to do works meet for repentance in order to justification' and 'to find favour with God.' Such a statement is inconsistent with that fundamental doctrine of religion, the free justification of man

kind by virtue of the Saviour's obedience unto death, without any human works or deservings.... The statement above transcribed asserts that nothing can be more false' than to say that man is to do nothing in order to justification,' yet this is the doctrine of all orthodox Protestant Confessions, grounded on the declarations of Scripture and strongly expressed in the Articles of the Church of England."

It may be true that all the "Confessions" which this writer would call "Orthodox " and " Protestant" are in favour of his opinion, and the authors of those confessions may have supposed their opinion to be "grounded on declarations of Scripture;" still it may be true that their opinion was incorrect, and as false as it was believed to be by Mr. Wesley. I believe the doctrine to be untrue, that it tends to Antinomianism, and that it has done much to bewilder the minds of Christians. I am not acquainted with a single "declaration of Scripture" which seems to me even to favour the doctrine; but much to the contrary.

Justification is supposed to imply the pardon of sin, as well as the approbation of God. What saith the Scripture? "Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." In a multitude of instances particular duties are enjoined, and encouraged by promises of Divine favour; such as the following: "Ask, and it shall be given unto you. Seek, and ye shall find." "Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." It is also said, "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted." "To do good and to communicate, forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." "Not every one 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." "But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby." -Acts iii. 19. Matt. vii. 7. Luke vi. 37; xviii. 14. Heb. xiii. 16. Matt. vii. 21. Ezek. xxxiii. 19.

That believers are not to be justified and rewarded according to what Christ has done and suffered is manifest from a multitude of texts of the following import: "Blessed are they who do his commandments that they may have a right to the tree of life." "For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." It is at the final reckoning that men are to be justified or condemned, and the decision is to be according to every man's works, and not according to the works

of Christ. If it shall be found that such has been our faith in him and our love to his precepts that we have forsaken the ways of sin, obeyed his commands, and thus proved ourselves to be his disciples indeed, our faith will be counted to us for righteousness; and on this ground we shall be justified or approved. But whatever may have been our doctrinal opinions, if it shall be found that they did not work by love and purify our hearts, that, notwithstanding our professed faith in Christ, we lived and died in sin, we shall be weighed and found wanting, Rev. xxii. 14. 2 Cor. v. 10.

How perplexing must it have been to many humble Christians to be taught that "a man has nothing to do in order to justification," when the Bible so constantly teaches that every man shall be rewarded according to his own works!

The writer in the Christian Observer says:

"Good works, it is well remarked in one of our excellent Homilies, are 'good declarations and testimonies of our justification' but to make them its precursors, and to perform them, not as the offspring of faith and prompted by love, but in order to find favour,' is to put them most delusively out of their right place in the system of human salvation."

I grant that good works should be the "offspring of faith and prompted by love," and I am not acquainted with any good works which are not of this character. The writer, however, seems to be of the opinion that it is wicked and dangerous to hope that we shall be justified or approved of God on account of our obedience to the precepts of his gospel, but that it is right to rely on this obedience as evidence that we are in a justified state. But may we not hope that God will justify and approve such obedience as he has required, and such obedience as he has promised to accept and count to us for righteousness? Besides, what safety could there be in relying on gospel-obedience as evidence of a justified state, were it not that God has assured us that such obedience is pleasing in his sight, and that those who perform it shall be pardoned, accepted, and rewarded?

But let it be understood that I do not speak of faith, repentance, or good works, as anything which deserves the pardon of sin and the salvation of the soul, but as the conditions on which our merciful God has graciously promised these favours. The proper and primary ground of reliance is the love, the mercy, and the faithfulness of God, who has revealed

to us by his Son that he will forgive the penitent, exalt him who humbles himself, and save those who "do his commandments, that they may have a right to the tree of life." It is wholly of free mercy that he has revealed to us that he will save the sinner who turns from the evil of his ways and does that which is lawful and right. The supposed danger of hoping to be justified and saved on such conditions or grounds may be the subject of a distinct article.

-

NOAH WORCESTER.

The closing Paragraph of the Fifteenth Chapter of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

A friend has requested us to notice the closing paragraph of the fifteenth chapter of " The Decline and Fall," in which Gibbon alludes to the extraordinary darkness which was observed at the crucifixion of our Saviour, and insinuates his doubts of the truth of the account given us by the evangelists, because so remarkable an occurrence is not mentioned by the philosophers Pliny and Seneca, who lived in that age, and because, moreover, it did not excite "the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind." He thinks that it is exerting, to some extent, an injurious influence on young minds, and believes that it has never been formally answered. Our friend had probably forgotten the conclusive answer which Bishop Watson has given to the objection, in his " Apology for Christianity." But as the whole force of Gibbon's argument lies in his misrepresentations, and his manner of stating it is so insidious, we have concluded to examine his assertions more in detail than Bishop. Watson has done. We quote the whole of the passage to which we have referred :

"Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the life-time of

* An Apology for Christianity, in a series of Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq. By R. Watson, D. D., F. R. S.

Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects or received the earliest intelligence of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe. A distinct chapter of Pliny is designed for eclipses of an extraordinary nature and unusual duration; but he contents himself with describing the singular defect of light which followed the murder of Cæsar, when, during the greatest part of the year, the orb of the sun appeared pale and without splendour. This season of obscurity, which cannot, surely, be compared with the preternatural darkness of the Passion, had been already celebrated by most of the poets and historians of that memorable age."

We have no sympathy with those who pass lightly over the faults of Gibbon. If he was a skeptic, it is not the dictate of charity, on that account alone, to denounce him. Had he openly expressed his doubts, a generous mind would applaud his candour. His sneers and sarcasms may be overlooked. But we cannot so readily pardon his unfairness, the impudence with which he presumes on the stupidity of his readers, nor the meanness which could stoop to petty tricks of language to infuse into the minds of others the doubts which he wanted either the honesty or the courage to avow. The passage we have quoted is one of those insidious paragraphs for which he is noted. The aspect of candour which it wears draws away the attention from its disingenuous and unfounded assertions. We shall examine it in detail, premising that we must beg the indulgence of our readers for devoting so much space to an investigation which in their opinion may require so little.

1. Gibbon tells us that both Pliny and Seneca have recorded all the great phenomena of nature which their indefatigable curiosity could collect. He might have known that such a record was not the object of either the one or the other. Pliny tells us, in his epistle to Vespasian, that “he had undertaken to consider all those subjects which the Greeks include in the circle of the sciences," or, in other words, to make a Cyclopædia. He treats of all subjects, from kitchen-herbs to the revolution of the planets. Of course,

* Plin. Hist. Nat. Lib. I. Ad Vesp. Præf.