as, the doctrine of original fin is reprefented as making God the author of fin, and furnishing £nners with an apology for their iniquities; and it is from this fuppofed tendency of the doctrine that almoft all Dr. Gleig's arguments against it are derived.”

Is this tendency, then, of the foregoing notions only fuppofed? So, at leaft, our critic feems to fay, with the common good faith of thefe pious true Churchmen. But if the notions are taught, the tendency is real; and we maintain that they are not only taught, but, to the high difhonour of God and of religion, moft vehemently inculcated, in their utmoft latitude, as the very marrow of the gofpel of Chrift. Of fuch a theory of original fin, every man of understanding, fenfe, and benevolence, muft, of course, declare his utter abhorrence; and this theory alone has Dr.' Gleig attacked. The Reviewer, however, has quoted, on this fubject, from Dr. Gleig's third fermon, a fhort extract which, as being the only foundation of his charge, we judge it requifite to lay before our readers.

The Doctor, towards the beginning of the fermon, obferves that angels as well as men have finned; but that to say that either were impelled to fin by the depravity of their nature, is a blafphemous reflection on him who created all things: that the human powers are indeed lefs perfect than the angelic powers, and that, therefore, lefs will be required of men than of angels; but that if either men or angels tranfgrefs the law under which they are refpectively placed, the tranfgreffion cannot proceed from constraint or neceffity of nature, but from their own criminal inattention, or deliberate perverfenefs. After fome intermediate obfervations occurs the obnoxious paffage quoted by our critic, of which the tenor is as follows:

"But do we not derive, from our firft parents, a conftitution, both of body and mind, much lefs perfect than that which they derived from the immediate hand of their Omnipotent Creator? And is there not in every defcendant of Adam, an innate and infuperable propenfity to fin ?"

To thefe queftions, which have been often put, very different anfwers have been given, which have excited violent diffenfions in the Church of Chrift; and yet it is not easy to conceive questions of less importance either to the faith or to the practice of a Chriftian."

"We derive nothing from our firft parents, more than the oak derives from the acorn, but by the will of God holy and good; and if our natural powers be indeed lefs perfect than theirs were, either thefe powers are rendered equal by divine grace, or we have the affurance of our Saviour that lefs will be required of us than would have been required of them, had they continued in their ftate of perfection."

This is the dangerous and fatal paffage which, in regard to the doctrine of original fin, is to fix on Dr. Gleig the brand of herefy. But how is the herefy of this paffage proved? Why, nothing is fo eafy: as, for inftance, thus: 1. "The foregoing extract speaks pretty plainly for itself." 2. “Dr. Gleig's expreffions are not very luminous. There is, however, light enough to fhew the heterodoxy of his fentiments." These are the words, the ipfiffima verba, of the Chriftian Obferver, relating not to different paffages, but to the fame identical paffage, of Dr. Gleig's fermons. And who but muft admire his logical deduction, the confiftency of his conceptions, and the cogency of his argument!

But,

But, if our critic cannot reafon, he can, at leaft, infinuate and mifreprefent. He requefts the particular notice of his readers to Dr. Gleig's affertion that we derive nothing from our first parents, more than the oak derives from the acorn, but by the will of God holy and good" And what is the import of this requeft? Why, his readers must believe, on his bare infinuation, that the affertion contains fome damnable heresy, though he cannot tell what; for this writer, it feems, can wind a herefy at the diftance of fifty thousand miles, though he cannot fmeli it juft under his nofe. But the Christian Obferver will not dare to deny the truth of Dr. Gleig's propofition, either in whole or in part. The critic next affirms that Dr. Gleig "makes it a matter of question, whether our natural powers be, indeed, lefs perfect than thofe of our first parents." Whether this affirmation be the effect of ignorance or of defign, we leave our readers to judge; but a groffer mifrepresentation we have never feen; and a groffer falfehood, in point of fact, it is impoffible to advance. Dr. Gleig, as will be obvious to every one, does NOT make the subject a matter of queftion; for he does not enter into the question at all. He exprefsly fays that it is not easy to conceive a question of lefs importance,' " and that it is of no confequence whatever whether we be more or lefs perfect than Adam was.' But, continues our critic, Dr. Gleig "leaves it undetermined, whether our powers are rendered equal to theirs by divine grace, or I fs will be required of us, than would have been required of them, had they continued in their fate of perfection." Now why any man fhould incur the difpleasure of the Chriftian Obferver for not determining a point, of which the determination was altogether indifferent to his argument, fome, perhaps, may be at a lofs to comprehend. But to thofe who know thefe Calvinifts thoroughly, the reason, we apprehend, can be no fecret.

The avowed object of Dr. Gleig's third fermon is to fhew that all Christians are poffeffed of power to perform their duty; and this, he contends, is equally the cafe whatever notions we entertain of the corruption of human nature. If our natural powers were degraded by the fall, (and Dr. Gleig does not even infinuate the contrary,) they are restored by grace, fo that now we are not, (to fay the leaft,) in a worse fituation than Adam was. To every Chriftian, according to Dr. Gleig, a degree of grace is afforded fufficient, provided only that he will cordially co-operate with it, to enable him to work out his own falvation; hinc ille lachrymæ. A Calvinist admits neither the co-operation, nor the univerfality, of faving grace. In his fcheme, fuch grace is confined to the elect, in whom, without any concurrence of theirs, it operates by an irrefiftible, and, properly speaking, a mechanical impulfe. A Calvinist, therefore, can never allow that every man may perform his duty; and the real herefy of Dr. Gleig confifts, not at all in denying original fin, concerning which he does not even hint his opinion, but in afferting the doctrine of UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION, and that every Chriftian may be faved if he will. The Chriftian Obferver, however, it is probable, imagined it rather a matter of prudence to diffemble his own difbelief of this doctrine. at all events, it will hardly be thought a great proof of his wifdom to have brought, against Dr. Gleig, a charge of herefy, in a point which the Doctor repeatedly declares that he has no occafion whatever to difcufs.

But,

Our critic, however, has a notable quibble on the word infuperable. Although," he fays, "it be true that the question has often been put

whether

whether there be not an innate propenfity to fin in every defcendant of Adam, it has not been much queftioned whether this propenfity be an infuperable one. Most people, indeed all whom we have heard or read of, believe it to be fuperable; and it is the great business of religion, and the immediate and declared purpose of divine grace, to overcome this innate propenfity in man." What? in all mankind without exception? Why no. But in all Chriftians then? The Christian Observer will not fay fo. It is, according to his principles, the purpose of grace to overcome this propenfity in the elect alone. In all others, therefore, denominate them reprobates, or what you will, the innate propenfity remains infuperable.

Of the great Proteftant doctrine (as it has been called) of juftification by faith only, it is plain that this Reviewer does not comprehend even the very firft elemental principles. His petulance, however, is equal to his ignorance; for the following is the ftile in which our Ariftarchus decides on the merits of Dr. Gleig, in fo far as the fubject of this doctrine is concerned. "On a topic which has been fo profufely difcuffed, it would have been unreafonable to expect any thing new; but Dr. Gleig's obfervations are not only not novel, but they tend to re-involve the subject in difficulties from which it has before been extricated. A want of perfpicuity and precifion both in his ideas and his language appears equally in his statement of the doctrine which he oppofes, and in his explication of the doctrine which he maintains. He is not always confiftent with himself; and fome paffages appear to contradict each other."

What the difficulties are in which Dr. Gleig has re-involved the doctrine of juftification by faith, it were furely unreasonable to ask a critic who appears to fuppofe that he is enlightening his readers when he is only ftringing together identical propofitions, and who seems not even to underftand the meaning of a very familiar term. It is needlefs to dwell on the wife and fagacious remark that "in a writer who is not always confiftent with himself fome paffages will appear to contradict each other," because every perfon must inftantly perceive its importance. But we must request it to be attended to that our Reviewer has declared from the chair of criticifm, that, on the subject of juftification by faith, Dr. Gleig's obfervations are NOT NOVEL. In proof of the juftnefs of this critical decifion, we shall now produce, from the following page of our Reviewer's strictures, two fhort quotations, the one relating to a particular paffage, the other relating, it would feem, to the volume in general.

"There is one paffage in the fermon on juftification, to which, whatever other recommendation it may want, we must unreservedly allow the merit of ABSOLUTE ORIGINALITY."

"Dr. Gleig tells us (p. 363.) of his having heard a man criticising fyftems of theology in a fhop-door, in the hearing of the multitude on the street.' If Dr. Gleig's fyftem of theology were among the number of those which the man in the fhop-door criticifed, we cannot wonder that the multitude in the street fhould ftop to hear his difquifitions; for THINGS NEW AND STRANGE have great attractions for the vulgar.'

UTRUM HORUM MAVIS ACCIPE. " HE IS NOT ALWAYS CON

SISTENT WITH HIMSELF; AND SOME PASSAGES APPEAR TO CONTRA

DICT EACH OTHER. (Chrift. Obferv.)

The firft paffage from Dr. Gleig on this fubject which falls under the lash of our critic, is as follows: "But though faith in Chrift be abfolutely neceflary to the juftification of a Chriftian, it will not alone justify

him. Though it is undoubtedly his first duty, it is not the whole of his duty; for the commandment of God is, that we fhould not only believe on the name of his fon Jefus Chrift, but also love one another as he gave us commandment." On this the critic's chief obfervation is: "The reader will not overlook the weakness of the reafoning employed in this paffage; the fum of which is, that faith alone will not justify the Chriftian, becaufe faith is not the whole of his duty." The weakness of the reasoning, we apprehend, will be obvious to none except those whofe intellects, and knowledge of divinity, are nearly on a level with this Reviewer's; who, if he meant to affirm that the fimple virtue or grace of faith is the only condition required on our part to entitle us to the benefits of the Chrif tian covenant (for that is the real import of being juftified) may be filed hæreticorum facile princeps. This licentious notion, though adopted by his party, is as oppofite to the doctrine of fcripture and of the Church of England as light is to darkneís. "But the main object of attention," continues our Reviewer, "and that to which we more particularly call the confideration of the reader, is Dr. Gleig's affertion that faith alone will not justify us. We have heretofore read in a book, whofe authority Dr. Gleig will not impeach, that we are juftified by faith only."

To this notable argument, which our Reviewer, no doubt, seems unanswerable, Dr. Gleig, we think, has only to reply that he has heretofore read in a book whofe authority the Chriftian Obferver will not impeach, the following words: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man fay he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith fave him? .. Ye fee then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." But fuch a reply, though the Christian Observer is entitled to no other, would contribute nothing to the elucidation of the subject. The Chriftian Obferver knows, or ought to know, that concerning the authority of both the foregoing affertions there is, among divines of the Church of England no difpute, and that the only question is concerning their meaning. Had he, therefore, intended to fay any thing to the purpose, he would have told his readers in what fenfe both are true, and confiftent with one another. On this fubject we would advife him to ftudy Bifhop Bull's Harmonia Apoftolica, with its feveral defences. In the mean time we recommend to his notice the opinion of another eminent divine, which the limits of our article will permit us to copy. This author, fpeaking of the reafoning of St. Paul on the fubject of juftification by faith, fays,

The general form of the argument is this; men are finners; therefore cannot be accounted juft, without an act of mercy in the Judge of the world." He then proceeds thus:

"Is not our doctrine contrary to that of St. James? who fays, can faith fave him No; the moft that can be allowed is, that the reasoning of James is intended for different circumstances from that of Paul; or that it is intended to fupply what common fenfe would always fupply, if no evafion of duty was in view. But I doubt whether even fo great a difference as that need be allowed between these facred writers. Let us fuppofe them to confer.--Paul. We are juftified by faith.---James. Will he be justified who does no good works?---Paul. No; I did not say that; I have faid, the wicked will be punished.---James. You did not mention works with faith ---Paul. No; but I plainly meant to addrefs myself to Jews and Heathens, and to declare to them that, when they had performed what they called good works, their eternal falvation must fill depend

upon

upon the divine mercy: to thofe who profefs to neglect good works I have faid nothing.---James. Then we agree; or, at least, we do not disagree. You fay, fuch works as Jews and Heathens have been found to perform, cannot fave them: I fay, nothing will fave them if they do not strive to live well." (Hey's Lectures, Vol. III. p. 277.)

We must however do our Reviewer juftice: "We are aware," he fays, "that to contraft affertions does not elucidate doctrines ;" and he is defirous to furnish Dr. Gleig with a brief, comprehenfive, and perfpicuous statement" of the doctrine. "When orthodox Chriftians affert the ancient doctrine of juftification by faith alone, they mean, as an old writer well expreffes it, juftificatio per fidem solam, fed non per fidem folitariam, that is, as the fame writer well tranflates it, juftification by faith alone, but not by that faith which is alone." We may here, with great propriety, adopt the words of Bishop Bull on a fimilar occafion: "Audio quidem optimi Patris verba; fed de fenfu ejus adhuc quæritur." But the fenfe in which the original reformers maintained that men are juftified by faith only," or, as our Homily on Salvation fometimes expreffes it, " by only faith," we fhall give in the words of this great divine; who has not only afferted, but proved, it to be the fenfe of all, or, at least, of the most refpectable reformed confeffions. Of these he says:

Quippe etiamfi illæ quoque doceant, ex fide folâ fine operibus hominem juftificari; effatum tamen illud eo fenfu explicant, quem nos pronis ulnis amplexamur. Scil. difertis verbis monent confeffionum authores, fententiam iftam figurate accipiendam effe, ita ut in fidei nomine gratia, quæ ei ex adverfo refpondet, intelligatur, atque idem fit fola file juftificari quod folá gratiâ, non ex operum merito, juftificari: ac, propriè loquendo, fidem cæterafque virtutes bonaque opera ad juftificationem æque valere atque effe neceffaria: nec quicquam majus fidei in ifto negotio tribuendum, quam cæteris virtutibus: adeoque fe, quatenus a juftificatione bona opera excludunt, eatenus et fidem ipfam rejicere. Quicquid igitur feu caliginis, five erroris, accreverit huic luculentiffimæ de juftificatione hominis doctrinâ, quatenus ea a Proteftantibus hodie docetur; illud fere totum privatorum quorundam theologorum hallucinationibus, qui purioris ac primitivæ (fi ita loqui fas fit) reformationis fententiam perperam acceperunt, imputandum eft." (Harm. Apoftol. Differt. I. Cap. vi.

Sect. 1.

66

The notion which is meant to be inculcated by the Chriftian Obferver, namely, that faith is the only condition of juftification, is in truth one of the moft pernicious errors which have ever been broached in the Chriftian Church, and the foundation of the most abominable antinomianifm, as may be seen in Crifpe and many others. It is the error, however, of private divines, and not of the Church of England. By the expreffion, "we are juftified by faith only," our original reformers meant the fame as by we are juftified freely, without works :" and by this latter expreffion they did not understand that good works are no condition of our juftification, but only that they are not to be accounted the meritorious caufe of it. The Chriftian Obferver may fee this proved, to a demonftration, by Bishop Bull, Har. Apoft. Diff. II. Cap. xviii. Sect. 6, and confirmed, Apol. pro Harm. Sect. 5. But, in reality, to place the fentiments of the Church of England, on this fubject, beyond the limits of controverfy, nothing more is requifite than a fingle fentence of the Homily on Salvation, to which we are expressly referred by the XIth Article, and APPENDIX, VOL. XVIII. which

Kk