"mental to our justification. And the more it is to "be admired, because that sentence or term (so fre

quently in their mouths, and so often pressed by "them as the very basis of their hope and confidence) "to wit, the imputed righteousness of Christ, is not "to be found in all the Bible, at least as to my ob"servation."*

"That it is by this revelation of Jesus Christ, and "the new creation in us, that we are justified, doth

evidently appear from that excellent saying of the "apostle included in the proposition itself, Tit. iii. 5.

According to his mercy he hath saved us, by the "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy "Ghost, &c.' Now, that whereby we are saved, "that we are no doubt justified by; which words

are in this respect synonymous. Here the apostle "ascribes the immediate cause of justification to this "inward work of regeneration, which is Jesus Christ "revealed in the soul, as being that which formally "states us in a capacity of being reconciled to God; "the washing or regeneration being that inward "power and virtue, whereby the soul is cleansed, and "clothed with the righteousness of Christ, so as to "be made fit to appear before God."†

"If no man can be justified without faith, and no "faith be living, nor yet available to justification

* Ibid. pages 214, 215.

+Ibid. page 225.

S

"without works, then works are necessary to justifi"cation." *

“There is a great difference betwixt the works of "the law, and those of grace, or of the gospel. The "first are excluded; the second not, but are necessary. "The first are those which are performed in man's

own will, and by his strength, in a conformity to the "outward law and letter; and therefore are man's

66

own imperfect works, or works of the law, which "makes nothing perfect;' and to this belong all the "ceremonies, purifications, washings, and traditions "of the Jews. The second are the works of the 'Spirit of grace in the heart, wrought in conformity

66

66

to the inward and spiritual law; which works are "not wrought in man's will, nor by his power and "ability, but in and by the power and Spirit of "Christ in us, and therefore are pure and perfect in "their kind, and may be called Christ's works, for "that he is the immediate author and worker of "them. Such works we affirm absolutely neces"sary to justification, so that a man cannot be justi"fied without them; and all faith without them is “dead and useless, as the apostle James saith."†

I have made these extracts copiously, and, if I do not greatly deceive myself, impartially,—that is, so as to exhibit fairly, and as clearly as their own in

* Ibid. page 229.

† Ibid. page 231.

herent and palpable inconsistencies will admit, the views of the author. The subject is a vital one; resembling, in the Christian system, those parts in the corporeal frame, in which a wound, or any material disorganization, is invariably fatal. And the first thing I have to request of you is, that you would compare the doctrine taught in these extracts with that contained in the extracts from J. J. Gurney; and, having done so, to ask yourselves the question, whether both can possibly have been the dictate of the same Spirit. It is impossible you can read the two, however hastily, without being struck with the difference, not in mere phraseology, but in the essence of the sentiment. Now, if there be any class of men amongst you, whom we should expect, more than others, to be under the guidance of that immediate inspiration for which you contend as the privilege of New Testament believers, it is surely your eminent and generally accredited writers. But then, the Holy Spirit cannot contradict himself; and if Robert Barclay and Joseph John Gurney contradict each other,—both may be wrong, but it is clear that both cannot be right; and that by the one, or by the other, the Spirit of the Lord has not spoken. The question, it is true, is of comparatively little consequence, whether they do or do not agree with each other; the grand point to be ascertained being, which of them, or whether either of them, agrees

with the apostles of Christ. I conceive the statement of the doctrine of justification given by Mr Gurney to be substantially that of Scripture,-clear, simple, satisfactory. That given by Barclay appears to me distinguished by a most extraordinary confusion of ideas, and, as far as its principles can be at all distinctly ascertained, subversive, materially if not utterly, of the apostolic gospel. This is a heavy charge; but I do not make it lightly. I shall leave you, however, in the meanwhile, to compare the views of Barclay, for yourselves, with the unerring oracles of divine truth; that you may bring your minds to the perusal of my next letter with a seriousness proportioned to the deeply interesting nature of the subject. I cannot but feel confident, that, if you examine these oracles aright, I shall be able to carry you along with me in my vindication of the heavy judgment which I have ventured to pronounce on Barclay's representations of it.

Yours respectfully,

R. W.

LETTER VI.

ON BARCLAY'S VIEWS OF JUSTIFICATION.

RESPECTED Friends,

in my last

HAVING laid before you letter, copious citations from the "APOLOGY," on the all-important subject of the Bible doctrine of justification, I concluded it with a charge, which I admitted to be a heavy one, but which I could not then consent to modify;—namely, that, while the statement given by Barclay is "distinguished by a "most extraordinary confusion of ideas," it appears to me also, "so far as its principles can be distinctly "ascertained, to be subversive, materially if not ut"terly, of the apostolic gospel."-This heavy charge I cannot now, any more than formerly, consent to modify.-Leaving, then, for subsequent notice the source of the confusion and the error, which it is not difficult to detect in the leading principles of ancient Quakerism, observe, in the meanwhile :

1. In Barclay's statement, explicitly and by pervading implication, justification and sanctification are

3