are confidered to be (in the words of her service) in the number of God's faithful and elect children;' in the fame fenfe, in which the members of the feveral churches collected by the apostles are stiled the faithful in Christ Jefus,' and elect of God.' Like them they are by divine grace elected to the privileges of the Golpel Covenant. They are confequently placed in a state of present falvation, and must, therefore, for the time being, be justified. Aud neither our reformers knew, nor does our Church know, any other justification but that originally conveyed by the facrament of baptism; which, when lost, as it is continually liable to be by the fubfequent conduct of the party, is, through grace, to be recovered by the fame means which qualified for its original poffeffion; namely, repentance and faith, accompanied with renewed obedience." (Pp. 258. 260, 261.)

Many pages are employed by Mr. O. for the purpose of inftructing thofe divines against whom he writes in what sense our Reformers are to be understood, when they affirm that men are faved "without works by faith only." But thefe divines understood the reformers much better than Mr. O., who perpetually fees them through a Calviniftic medium. The reformers, by all the modes of expreffion which they used on this fubject, meant nothing more than to exclude the Popish doctrine of merit, and to attribute our falvation wholly to Chrift. Mr. D. however, with other divines, is accused of not being Proteftant enough to reject this Popish doctrine," although on fome occafions, he verbally difclaims it." And the ground of the charge is, that he talks of works and obedience to the moral law, as conftituting men relatively worthy; and giving them a right of grace on the part of God to the tree of life; and of God becoming their debtor." This Mr. O. calls ftrange doctrine; but, as Mr. D. obferves, it can be strange to none," but to those who are strangers to their bible for there the doctrine is to be found in more places than one." (p. 275.) On this head Mr. D.'s vindication is eafy. But in order to it, he is here, as well as in many other inftances, obliged to produce the ipfiffima verba of his own writings to which reference is made; and, in the prefent cafe, he lays open fuch a scene of mifreprefentation on the part of Mr. O., and fuch a total contempt of fair quotation, as excite indignation mingled with pity.

"At the fame

time," fays our author, "in juftice to Mr. O. it must be observed that he is understood, in the world, not to be fo much the independent writer for, as the public reporter of, a party; that the documents which his publication exhibits have been furnished from various quarters; his chief office having been that of arranging, and giving the lucidus ordo to the difcordant mafs of materials with which his friends had fupplied him. Should this, as from that part of Mr. O.'s publication now immediately before me, I should in charity conclude must have been the cafe, Mr. O. may have been unintentionally led into errors by too implicit a confidence in the honefty of his affistants.— Such a plea for the numberlefs garbled quotations to be met with in his publication, a regard for Mr. O.'s reputation, as a clergyman, difpofes me moft readily to admit." (Pp. 281, 282.) Whether Mr. O.

and

and his friends will confider the fuppofition here mentioned as an honour or an infult, we neither know nor care. But lure we are that, for Mr. O. as an individual the truth of it would be the best apology that can be made. Should the fact be as is here fuggefted, and as we ourselves have been tempted to fuípect, it would account for the different parts of his book, which has much the appearance of a piece of patch-work, hanging loofely together. We might then imagine that, for fear of difobliging his friends, Mr. O. was under the neceffity, in oppofition to his own better judgment, of inferting paffages which had better been left out, and of finding the best fituation which he could for contributions which refused completely to harmonize.

Mr. O. (p. 215.) charges our author with maintaining, "that admiffion into Chriftianity places men in a state of poffible falvation; but that whether this becomes a real, actual, and difcriminating falvation to the believer, depends wholly upon his works ;" and for proof he refers to the Guide to the Church. (p. 287.) But the words in italics are not Mr. D.'s: and are inferted only to make out the fenfe for which Mr. O. wifhed to render him refponfible. That the falvation of any is only poffible, Mr. O. we know, does not believe: for Calvin's elect have certainty of falvation. But this is not the doctrine either of the bible, or of the Church of England: Baptized infants, dying in infancy, are certain of falvation; not fo adults, who may fail of it by their own mifconduct. And that falvation can be only poffible, which, by the fault of the party, may be prevented from effectually taking place. This doctrine, which Mr. O. ftyles "the notorious divinity of Mr. Daubeny," is fhewn, from St. Peter and the Apoftle to the Hebrews, as well as from the Liturgy and Homilies, to be good, found, and orthodox divinity. Mr. O. too reprobates the pofition, maintained by fome of his opponents, "that faith in the merits of Chrift fupplies the defects of our obedience." When he paffed this cenfure, he had furely forgotten the language of the homily, that "in Christ every true Christan may be called a fulfiller of the law, for as much as that which their infirmity lacked Chrift's juftice hath fupplied."

But nothing has more offended Mr. O. than Bishop Bull's making works a condition of falvation*. "But to me," fays our author, "the words covenant and condition appear fo neceffarily connected, that I can form no idea of the one independent of the other." (p. 290.) Every person who enters into the church by baptifm, as he well obferves, muft, either by himself or by proxy, engage in a previous folemn profeffion of faith, repentance, and obedience. If fuch an engagement be neceflary to confer a title to the privileges of the baptifmal covenant, its performance mult, a fortiori, be neceffary to secure the continuance of them. "Faith, repentance, and obedience, then, though not the caufes by which falvation is produced, are ftill

* See ANTI-JACOBIN REVIEW, Vol. XV. Pp. 277, 278.

D 2

thofe

thofe circumftances or conditions without which, in conformity with the plan of the divine covenant, falvation will not take place." (ibid.) Our author has very clearly fhewn, that the XIth article of the Church of England, on which Mr. O. feems to have maintained that faith is the only condition of juftification, warrants no fuch inference. The article is evidently built on two celebrated paffages of St. Paul, (Rom. iii. 28. Gal. ii. 16.) which muft, therefore, be properly explained before the article can be rightly understood. This explanation our author has given in a brief and fatisfactory view. Faith alone, he contends, is mentioned in the article, because the article fpeaks only of the meritorious cause of juftification, in oppofition to human works of every kind. The difference, therefore, between our author and Mr. O. is this. Mr. O. infifts that faith is the only condition of juftification, apparently on the ground that no other condition is expreffed in the XIth art cle. So far as the phrases per fidem and fola fide apply to the fubject of the article, Mr. D. agrees with him. But Mr. D. further maintains, that faith and works, confidered with a view to man's final juftification at the day of judgment, are equally conditions, and that they were fo confidered by our reformers, who, if they had been fpeaking of this fubject, would to the words per fidem, now in the article, have added per opera. For faith and works were equally regarded by them, not as meritorious causes, or, properly speaking, as any caufes at all, but, agreeably to Bishop Bull's diftinction, as "caufæ fine quibus non;" as conditions, which, though shut out from the office of justifying, are still neceffary to be prefent in him that is juftified; as qualifications, in short, without which man's final juftification will not take place.

By means of this diftinction our ingenious author very easily reconciles St. Paul with St. James.

"St. Paul," he fays, "was writing about that justification conveyed to the party on his admiffion into Christianity by baptifm, to which faith only was the requifite title, according to the established principle on which the Evangelical Ministry uniformly proceeded, namely, believe and be baptized. Whereas St. James was fpeaking of the condition of the fame party, fublequent to that admiffion; and of those works of faith neceflary to qualify him for his final justification. The Christian, then, is to be justified by faith, without works which bear any correfpondence with thofe meant by St. Paul, becaule they were works of legal obedience, which fet up a meritorious claim, on their own account, to justification. At the fame time, he is not to be justified by faith, without the works meant by St. James; these works being the works of evangelical obedience, acceptable only through Christ, and without which faith is dead." (Pp. 298, 299.)

This appears to us a very happy ftatement; and it correfponds exactly with that of Mr. Pearfon, who, in his first letter to Mr. Overton, (p. 24.) thus exprefles himself: "The whole difference of meaning between St. Paul and St. James, amounts to this-that St. Paul is fpeaking of the meritorious caufe of our being admitted into a Atate of falvation; and that St. James is speaking of the conditional

caufe

cause of our continuing in a state of falvation, and of being finally faved.”

To maintain, therefore, that faith is the only condition of justification, to the exclufion of thofe works which alone render it a valuable condition, is to mifrepresent the doctrine of the Church of England; and why those works, without the performance of wh ch juftification is not finally to be obtained, ought not to be called a condition of obtaining it, is fomewhat difficult, we think, to conceive.Cranmer, it is true, in the homily "of falvation" has, accumulated, the strongest expreffions which he could find to oppofe the Romish doctrine of merit, that error, as Bithop Bull has called it, "toto animo deteftandus." But he has no where, even in the homily, given countenance to Mr. O.'s notion; and in the "Inftitution of a Chriftian Man," under the article Juftification, he has explicitly taught the oppofite doctrine. There it is faid that this bleffing is granted for the merits and fatisfaction of our Bleffed Saviour; that our pardon stands upon this ground; and that no good works, on our part, could reconcile us to God, procure his favour, and preval for juftification.

However," it is added, "this benefit is fufpended upon conditions; fuch as reliance upon the Divine goodness, oblerving our Saviour's commands, and performing the offices of justice and charity." To the authority of Cranmer Mr. D. forbears to add that of Bfhop Bull, because with Mr. O. it would go for nothing: though, in our opinion, the Church of England never boafted of a greater or more eminent divine. But our author thinks that Mr. Ö. must respect the fentiments of the late amiable Bifhop Horne: and we are fure that he refpects those of the venerable Bishop of London. From both thefe prelates Mr. D. gives paffages which exprefsly contradict Mr. O., and teach the doctrine which he himself maintains. (Pp. 306, 307.)

Mr. D.'s ftrictures on Mr. O.'s feventh chapter, which relates to good works, open thus:

"The chapter on which we are now entering appears fo foreign from the fubject professed to be undertaken, that it might, without injustice to my reader, be paffed over unnoticed. An apology for thofe Ministers whose cause Mr. O. advocates did not nece Tarily lead him into the contents of the prefent fection," intituled, Concerning the Standard of Morals; "for, let the charge against them be what it may, a counter-charge against their fup pofed opponents cannot be admitted as a proper fet-off against it. This is to recriminate, but not to disprove: a mode of proceeding which indicates, generally speaking, either the weakness of a caufe, or the little judgment of its manager. In the prefent cafe, Mr. O., I am inclined to think, would have done more credit to himself, as well as more fervice to his clients, had he confined himself to the character in which he profeffedly committed himfelf to the public; as the apologist of a fuppofed mifreprefented body, without affuming that of the general accufer of his brethren. It might have occurred to Mr. O. that the evidence delivered by him, in the pre ent fection, relative to the principles and characters of his opponents, is that kind of ex parte evidence which can constitute no standard of judgment to the mind of any candid or confiderate perfon. For this chapter, when taken together,

D 3

together, contains no more than the unqualified eulogy pronounced by Mr. O. on himtelf and his friends, contrasted with the indifcriminate condemnation, which he has thought proper to pass on thofe against whom he has taken up his pen." (PP. 317, 318.)

These are impreffive and juft remarks, of which the truth and propriety will be queftioned by none who have read Mr. O.'s book, ex"the True Churchmen" and their faithful adherents. This cept chapter, in reality, is one continued calumny against the general body of the English clergy. But his eagerness to criminate has led him into ftrange inconfiftencies. He had formerly accufed his opponents of laying fuch ftrefs upon morality, as to build, in a great degree at leaft, the hopes of falvation on human merit. The object of this fection is to reprefent them as enemies to morality in all its branches. As preparatory to this, he is at great pains to inftruct us what the church confiders as conftituting morals, for, as our author elsewhere truly remarks, it has been obferved that it is a practice with Mr. O. to enter into laboured demonftrations and defences of the most acknowledged truths; with the view, as it fhould feem, of leading his more ignorant readers to believe that the oppofers of his particular opinions deny thole general truths." (p. 228.) The clergy are here condemned, in a body, of teaching doctrines equally deftructive both of the first, and of the fecond, tables of the law. They are accufed not only of want of decency, candour, veracity, and Chriftian charity; but of vindicating, and even pleading for, the violation of the laws of the land, the laws of the church, the exprefs condition on which they are inftituted to their benefits, [benefices, we prefumme], the admonitions of their ordinary, their own folemn oath, and every motive that can bind the confcience or influence the conduct of an honest man." (Ov. p. 255) Such is the ftyle in which this mild and moderate Calvinist permits hi felf to talk of his Right Reverend Fathers and his Reverend Brethren for the charge is an indifcriminate one, moft evidently ins tended to attach to all of them who belong not to the tribe of the True Churchmen." Mr. D., however, confines himself principally to his own defence. "It requires," fays Mr. D., "the utmost stretch of Mr. O.'s charity to believe any profeflors of Chriftianity in a ftate of faivation, who differ from him in external matters; at the beft, he maintains, they can only be left to the uncovenanted mercies of God." But the pages of the Guide to the Church, to which Mr. O. reters, relate entirely to the effential advantages connected with receiving the faciaments in communion with the Church, and from the hands of perfons duly commiffioned. The Church fays, that "they that receive baptifm rightly are grafted into the Church;" and that no meetings, affemblies, or congregations, of the King's born fubjects, but thofe of the established Church, may rightly challenge to themselves the name of true and lawful churches." With Mr. O., however, it seems the difference between being rightly and not rightly baptized is a difference only" in external matters;" fo that whether

Mr.