him miserable through life, stinging his conscience without supplying strength to resist sin, he could not repose upon it in a dying hour. He was wretched because he could not ascertain whether his good works had risen to that exact point of the scale at which, to use Dr. Nicholls's expression, upon the conditions of a remedial law, in virtue of the merits of Christ, "God would justify his imperfect performances;" but he at length found peace of soul in renouncing them altogether in the matter of justification, and exercising "faith in the sacrifice of Jesus." We earnestly counsel our correspondent to weigh well Hooker's Sermon on Justification; or, if he is not afraid of names, and can separate what is substantially scriptural from some overstrained statements, such a work as Luther's Treatise on the Galatians. The system which he thinks reconciles difficulties, leaves them just where they were; it is, as Hooker calls it, "the maze which the papists do tread." Our own Reformers unequivocally oppose it, as did St. Paul before them. And among the divines who repudiate it are many whom our correspondent must allow to be good churchmen; as, for example, Bishop Beveridge, who says: "The Apostle reckons up Faith, Hope, and Charity, as three distinct graces, 1 Cor. xiii. 3. But elsewhere the same Apostle tells us that Love, or Charity, is the fulfilling of the whole law. And therefore nothing can be more plain than that Faith was really a distinct thing from Obedience in the Apostle's account. Indeed, they differ as much as the cause and effect do; for faith is the instrumental cause whereby we are enabled to perform obedience, for it is by it that our hearts are purified, Acts xv. 9. yea, and they have different objects too; for obedience respects only the commands, but faith looks only to the promises of God made to us in Jesus Christ. Hence, although faith be always accompanied with obedience and good works, so as that it can never be without them, yet in the matter of our justification, it is always opposed against them by St. Paul, Rom. iii. 28. Gal. ii. 16. And, indeed, to look to be justified by such a Faith which is the same with obedience, or which is all one, to be justified by our obedience to the Law of God, is to take off all our hopes and expectations from Christ, and to place them upon ourselves, and our own performances. So that we may thank ourselves, and not Christ-or at least we may thank ourselves, as well as Christ if our sins be ever pardoned, or our persons justified before God. And therefore, this notion of faith overthrows the very basis and foundation of the Christian religion, making our salvation to depend altogether upon our obedience, without any respect at all to Christ." Bishop Beveridge, Sermon 134; "Salvation wholly owing to faith in Christ." Our correspondent will see that this eminent Anglican prelate did not consider that those who contend for the simple Scriptural doctrine of justification through faith, as opposed to the Romanist notion, which is essentially that of the Tractarians, are stickling for a distinction without a difference. We leave Mr. Faber to fight his own battles; but we surmise that he will be surprised at being informed that there is no real difference between him and Mr. Newman; at least that they agree in a certain tertium quid, which reconciles their respective views. So thought not Bishop Beveridge. He asserts, that "to look to be justified by a faith which is the same with obedience," is the same as "to be justified by our obedience;" and this is, however covertly, "to take off all our hopes and expectations from Christ, and to place them upon ourselves and our own performances." To the same effect speak our Anglican reformers, martyrs, and most eminent divines. But Hooker's admirable sermon above referred to sets at rest the point. He shews that the Papists fully admit all that our correspondent considers necessary to reconcile the two diametrically opposing systems. "They teach, as we do," says Hooker, "that unto justice no man ever attained, but by the merits of Jesus Christ." But was that enough? No; for, as Hooker shews, infused righteousness becomes inherent righteousness; and if we look to it in whole or part for justification, we set aside the righteousness of God in Christ. St. Paul had said the same long before. We fear that our correspondent is what he calls (it is not our word but his) a Puseyite" without knowing it, as many other persons are. 66 A scrap of our correspondent's paper was obliged to be omitted, the accidental effacing of a few words having rendered the sense imperfect; but we believe it is a quotation of a few lines from Bishop Hall. If so, we cannot but wonder that our correspondent should not discern that this venerable prelate concurred with Hooker and Beveridge in protesting against the doctrine that if we only say that our good works are wrought in Christ, and are rendered available only through his merits, then we avoid the unscriptural and popish figment of justification by our own righteousness. On the contrary, Hall declares, in his "No peace with Rome:" "But some may think this a mere strife of words [as our correspondent does] and not hard to be reconciled: for that which to the papist is inherent justice (righteousness) is no other to the Protestant than sanctification: both sides hold this equally necessary: both call for it equally :-True; but do both require it in the same manner? do both to the same end? I think not. Yea, what can be more contrary than these opinions to each other? The papists make this inherent righteousness the cause of our justification; the Protestants the effect thereof....... But what matters it, say they, so both ascribe this whole work to God? as though it comes not all to one to pay a sum for me, and to give it me to pay for myself. I know not how these things seem so little dissonant to these men's ears, which the Spirit of God hath made utterly incompatible." He adds further on : "But, say our modern Papists, Christ hath merited this merit of ours; neither can any other works challenge this to themselves but those which are done in God, as Andradius speaks; but those which are done in Christ, as our latter papists elegantly and emphatically speak. But what is this, but to cozen the world, and to cast a mist before the eyes of the unskilful? Our sins are dyed in the blood of Christ, not our merits; or if they also, hath Christ then deserved that our works should be perfect? How comes it about that the works of the best men are so lame and defective? Hath he deserved, that though they be imperfect, yet they might merit? What injury is this to God! What contradiction of terms! Behold now so many Saviours as good men! What I do is mine; what I merit is mine; whosoever gives me either to do or to merit." We must not trespass with further quotation; but we would urge our correspondent to study the whole argument; as also what the same author says upon the subject in his treatise on "The Old Religion." Our present question is not which system is right; though upon this Scripture is quite clear; but only whether the two systems converge, as our correspondent thinks, to the same issue. We can only wonder with Bishop Hall that "these things seem so little dissonant to some men's ears." Truly does Hall remark: "It is not the logic of this point we strive for; it is not the grammar; it is the divinity, what that is whereby we stand acquitted before the righteous Judge, whether our inherent justice [that is righteousness imparted to us] or Christ's imputed justice apprehended by faith." (Old Religion, C. I.) He had just said, "The Tridentine fathers, in their seven months debating of this point, have so cunningly set their words, that the error which they would establish might seem to be either hid or shifted; yet at the last they so far declare themselves as to determine that the only formal cause of our justification is God's justice; not by which he Himself is just, but by which he makes us just; wherewith being endowed by him, we are renewed in the spirit of our minds, and are not only reputed but are made truly just, receiving every man his own measure of justice, which the Holy Ghost divides to him, according to each man's predisposition of himself, and co-operation. And with it they denounce a flat anathema to all those who shall dare to say that we are formally justified by Christ's righteousness, or by the sole remission of our sins,' and not by inherent grace diffused in our hearts by the Holy Ghost; which terms they so craftily laid together, as if they would cast an aspersion upon their adversaries of separating the necessity of sanctification from the pretended justification by faith; wherein all our words or writings will abundantly clear us before God and man." This testimony is true; good works are not disparaged by being put in their right place; and it is an "aspersion," that the Scriptural doctrine leads to licentiousness, except as anything, however holy, may be perverted by a wicked mind. "How shall they who are dead to sin live any longer therein ?" DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY'S AND THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY'S "JEWELL'S APOLOGY." To the Editor of the Christian Observer. In comparing the Christian Knowledge Society's translation of Jewell's Apology with that published by the Religious Tract Society, I find some notable variations; among which is the following. In Chapter II. section 13, the Christian Knowledge version reads: "We say that baptism is THE sacrament of the remission of sins;" whereas that of the Tract Society reads: "We say that baptism is a sacrament of the remission of sins." Perhaps yourself, or some of your readers, could inform me which is the proper rendering. It is obvious that the difference may be made to involve points of doctrine upon which the two societies might disagree. N. R. G. *** The Latin language having no article, a translator is often obliged to determine, to the best of his judgment, from the context, or other considerations, whether the definite or the indefinite article ought to be used. We will give the original of the passage referred to, and the two translations, and also another translation lately published at Cambridge; and will add the text and translations of the corresponding clause of the next paragraph, relative to the other sacrament. We should, however, mention, that though for convenient reference we speak of the Christian Knowledge and the Tract Society's respective translations, they are not, and do not profess to be, new translations; but are only reprints of the old well-known translation; a circumstance which renders the discrepancies alluded to by N. R. G. the more remarkable. Orig. Latin. C. K. Version. Et baptismum qui- R. T. Version. We say that baptism is a sacrament of the remission of sins. Camb. Version. We acknowledge baptism to be THE sacrament of the remission of sins. Eucharistiam esse sacramentum; hoc est symbolum conspicuum corporis et sanguinis Christi. We say that the eucharist is THE sacrament, or visible symbol, of the body and blood of Christ. We say that the eucharist is THE sacrament or visible symbol of the body We acknowledge the eucharist to be a sacrament; that is, a visible token of the body and blood of Christ. Which of these renderings is the right one? Jewell had said, "We acknowledge two sacraments, as properly entitled to that name; baptism and the eucharist." What he means therefore to lay down in the two passages above quoted, which we will transpose for the sake of the explanatory "hoc est" in the second, seems to be; "We acknowledge the eucharist as the sacrament (in other words, as the outward and visible sign or symbol) of the body and blood of Christ;" and "We acknowledge baptism as the sacrament (that is to say the outward and visible sign or symbol) of the remission of sins." Both passages should have either the definite or the indefinite article; and the Christian Knowledge version is thus consistent; whereas the other two versions are not so. The Cambridge version makes the eucharist to be " A sacrament; that is, a visible token of the body and blood of Christ;" but then it should have made baptism to be also "A sacrament; that is, a visible token of the remission of sins." This rendering would make Jewell define a sacrament to be in the one case a token of the body and blood of Christ, and in the other a token of the remission of sins; whereas what he must mean is generally that a sacrament is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace;" whatever the grace may be; THE sacrament of the Lord's Supper being such a sign of one grace, and THE sacrament of baptism, of another. It would indeed make a good sense to use the indefinite article in both places, with some explanatory words, as follows: "The eucharist is a sacrament; that is, an outward symbol of a spiritual grace, and the grace symbolised by it is the strengthening of our souls by Christ's body and blood; and baptism is also a sacrament, that is, an outward symbol of a spiritual grace, and the grace symbolised by it is the remission of sins;" but the Latin does not express all this; and it would also be tautological; for it had just before been asserted that baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacraments; and the only object of the clauses in consideration is to shew of what they are sacraments; that is, what they respectively sign and seal. The definite article therefore seems best; but the translator was led to the indefinite in the second passage by the hoc est. The Religious Tract translation reverses the articles as given in the Cambridge translation. If this was done with some theological bias, it was grossly unfair; and the Committee ought to be called to account for it. They say, "The translation given in this volume was printed in the year 1685; it was grounded upon that of Lady Bacon, which had been examined and approved by Bishop Jewell himself. Some corrections have been made on reference to the original." What these corrections are, the Committee do not specify. They had just before declared that Jewell's Apology contains "expressions here and there which would not be employed by Protestant advocates at the present day, and recognizes some principles, such for instance as the authority of Councils, which have been controverted among Protestants;" and with this prejudice upon their minds, they undertook the delicate task of altering the current translation, grounded on that examined and approved by Jewell himself; and of giving their alterations without specifying them, so that no reader, who has not the edition which they print from, and the Latin text, and time and curiosity to collate them, can tell what the Society's Committee is pleased to call "correction." We honour the Society's gigantic labours in issuing vast numbers of devout, Scriptural, and edifying publications; so that it is with pain we have been several times obliged to notice the unfair and party-spirited alterations or omissions in its reprints of old books, in order to rectify them to the latitude of modern dissenterism; and the passage under consideration adds another item to the catalogue; for on turning to the edition of 1685, which the Committee profess to follow, we find that the reading is, "Baptism is THE sacrament of the remission of sins;" which the Committee have silently altered to "Baptism is a sacrament of the remission of sins." Thus have they changed the rendering "examined and approved by Bishop Jewell himself;" the rendering also of 1685; the rendering which has been since used in the Christian Knowledge edition, and the Cambridge translation; and this without a shadow of pretence of its being a correction "made on reference to the original;" for the original has no article before "Sacramentum;" and in the very next sentence, in the corresponding clause relative to the Lord's Supper, the Committee have retained the definite article; so that in making one definite and_the other indefinite, the Latin being the same in both places, they must have been guided by a determination not to allow Jewell to call baptism "THE sacrament of the remission of sins." Why they should be reluctant to use that expression, it is not for us to divine; we see no objection to it, for "the remission of sin, and (as the words go on) that ablution which we have in the blood of Christ," are the spiritual grace of which baptism is the outward symbol. But whether the phrase displeases them or not, what right had they to alter it ? Is Jewell to bend to their opinions? We well know what rebukes we always expose ourselves to, and from some churchmen, when we allude to the party-spirit of the Religious Tract Committee; but we shall never cease to protest against the practice of mutilating old writings without acknowledgment, and passing them off as veracious documents. We have proved that the Society has done so in many instances, and in some in a manner which involves a breach of veracity. We need go no further than the volume in our hands in proof of this statement. It is distinctly affirmed, that "the translation given in this volume was printed in 1685;" only "some corrections have been made on reference to the original." This conveys, and is unquestionably meant to convey, to the reader the belief that there is no alteration in the reprint of 1685, except what is at least honestly, if not correctly, intended to bring it nigher to the original. If then any liberty has been taken with the text which does not come within this limit, and which the committee will not dare to affirm comes within it, or was meant to do, the reader is deceived, his suspicions being lulled by the fallacious statement. Take then the following example. We have often mentioned that among the truth-sacrificing concessions upon which the Society is based, one is that all Christendom shall truckle to the sect of the Anabaptists-we call them so, because to give them their self-assumed name of "Baptists" is to repudiate our own baptism. We believe that our infants are really and scripturally baptised; and if so, to administer the sacrament of baptism to them when they grow up, is ana-baptism, that is re-baptism. But the Tract Society's Committee are under a compact not to publish any thing which may offend this sect; a sect which is always forward to disturb our churches and our religious institutions with its violent and |