that, on the fubject of juftification, fhe holds opinions diametrically oppofite to thofe of our evangelical Calvinifts; and that the confider's good works as the appointed and indifpenfible condition of man's juftification, whether firft or final. We, therefore, fay that Mr. O. and his friends, if they "fecure the interefts, and inculcate the neceffity of morality," (p. 273,) muft do it from confiderations altogether diftinct from thofe employed by the Church of England; and that, in this cafe, it will avail them nothing to attempt to fhelter themselves under her authority.

The Church of England, though the uniformly infifts on the neceffity of grace to enable men to work out their own falvation, yet is far from the wild abfurdity of making them mere machines, or, as Mr. O. very cautiously denominates them, "creatures left to be influenced by motives which are certain in their effects," (p. 355,) in whom the fpirit of God does all, while they themselves are capable of doing nothing. Mr. O. indeed endeavours, by ufing foftened expreffions, to palliate the difgufting harfhnefs of this doctrine; yet he cannot but know that fuch fneaking prevarication is difhonourable and unmanly. If he has adopted, and is determined to maintain, the Calviniftic tenet of arbitrary election, why does he meanly fhrink from its neceffary and unavoidable confequences? He who holds. Calvinistic election must likewife hold irrefiftible grace, reject the freedom of human actions, and confider man as no more than a pasfive organ or inftrument in the hand of God. There is no point, accordingly, on which Calvin is more decided than that God is not a Co-OPERATOR, but the SOLE OPERATOR, in the whole economy of man's falvation. "Ad id autem quod dicere folent, poftquam primæ gratiæ Dei locum dedimus, jam conatus noftros fubfequenti gratiæ CO-OPERARI, refpondeo. Si hominem a Seipfo fumere volunt unde gratie COLLABORET, peftilentiffime hallucinantur"" (Inft. lib. 2. cap. 3. fec. 9.) Is this the doctrine of the Church of England? Mr. O. knows that the diffimilitude is not greater between light and darkness; for the teaches expressly that the grace of God works along with our will; (Art. X.) that all men fhall give account for their own works (Athan. Creed); and directs us to pray for God's merciful affiftance and continual help. (Coll. in Poft. Comm.)

The Church of England, therefore, holding, as fhe does, that man may refift the grace of God, or co-operate with it as he choofes, and that good works are the neceffary condition of falvation, moft evidently fecures the interefts of morality, and can urge all its fanctions with perfect confiftency, and full effect. But how a Calvinist can urge them with either, we are altogether incapable of comprehending. The fanctions of a law, as we understand them, are confiderations of intereft or of damage, in other words rewards and punifhments, propofed as motives to free and rational beings, who have power to obferve the law or not, and intelligence duly to weigh the confequences of obedience or difobedience. But if you place certain perfons in fuch fituations that fome of them cannot poffibly keep

Cc 2

the

the law, while others cannot poffibly break it, all motives addreffed to both are impertinent. Rewards and punifhments, in fuch a cafe, become words without meaning, and all exhortations to obedience downright mockery. It is obvious, however, that the cafe fuppofed is exactly that of Calvin's reprobate and elect. Of confequence it is a felf-evident truth that the Calvinistic principles DO UTTERLY SUBVERT AND RADICALLY DESTROY THE SANCTIONS OF MORALITY.

We are well aware that the language of thefe evangelical minifters is frequently enough at variance with their principles; fo much fo that perfons unacquainted with their fyftem would never fufpect that fuch principles were held by them. Witnefs the following paragraph of Mr. O.

"Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we perfuade men, Believing ourselves the awful reality of God's folemn denunciations against thofe who obey not the gospel, we entreat fuch characters to flee for refuge to the hope this gofpel fets before them; to flee unto him who is exalted to be a prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance and forgivenefs of fins. As though God did befeech them by us,, we pray them in Chrift's ftead, to be reconciled to God. While, on the one hand, we exhibit to them the blessedness a perfeverance in their prefent courfe would forfeit, and the nobler motives of the gospel, in order to allure them to repentance; on the other, we folemnly warn them to flee from the wrath to come; and conftantly affure them, that except they repent, they must all perish." (P. 301.)

What plain unlettered Chriftian, who had drawn his notions of religion from his bible and prayer-book, would hefitate to fay, on hearing fuch fentiments, that the perfons who utter them must be found and truly orthodox divines? Could he poffibly fufpect that, on the contrary, all their fundamental tenets convert the whole fcheme of Chriftian redemption into a mafs of complete abfurdity and nonsense? Yet it is not more demonftrable that the three an*gles of every plane triangle are together equal to two right angles, than that all fuch addreffes from the mouth of a Calvinift are merely vax, et præterea nibil.

Mr. O. likewife contends that his clients fufficiently inculcate the neceffity of morality. Our readers, however, will be pleafed to recollect that we have already endeavoured to make it evident that the only neceflity of morality which their fyftem admits, is not a moral, but a physical neceffity, arifing from God's irrefiftible working in the hearts of the elect. Their scheme, in fact, though it takes its origin - from a different fource, lands us, at laft, in as intricate, and hope-Jefs a labyrinth of fatalifm as that of Voltaire, Priestley and Hume; nor do we perceive a fingle reafon for choice between being made irremediably happy or miferable by a neceflary chain of blind natural causes, and by the arbitrary, capricious, decrees of an intelligent agent.

With regard to the declaration in the XIIth Article, that "good works do fpring out neceffarily of a true and lively faith," on which Mr. Q. seems, in this fection, to lay peculiar ftrefs, it is certainly, when understood in the fenfe in which the Church underftands it, calculated to have a highly beneficial influence on action, and prefents, on her principles, a very strong and powerful motive to virtue. Her own explanation of it is clear and decifive: "Deceive not yourselves," the fays, "thinking that you have faith in God,when you live in fin; for then your ungodly and finful life declareth the contrary, whatfoever you fay or think." (Hom. on Faith.) This “You must be fruitis found, evangelical, and practical doctrine. ful in bringing forth good works, or elfe, whatever your perfuafion may be, you cannot poffibly have true faving faith, and, of course, you cannot poffibly be faved," is, undoubtedly, when addreffed to free moral agents, who have the power of working, a very excellent fanction of morality. But, whatever Mr. O. may pretend, this is not the view of the Church's declaration which is generally given by gofpel preachers. Mr. O., it is true, can here again talk in language well fitted to remove fufpicion from his party; language to which no real Churchman will object, and from which any one uninftructed in the controverfy muft naturally conclude that these pure and holy evangelical minifters have been dreadfully calumniated "On our fyftem," he fays, " no perfon is warranted to confider himfelf a true believer, and confequently in the favour of God, who has not a fuitable conduct." (P. 282.) "If true faith is condered as thus neceflarily productive, none, it is manifeft, are warranted to fuppofe themselves poffeffed of it, but in proportion as they experience its fruits and effects." (P. 283.) All this is excellent; but it is nothing more than an inftance of what has fometimes been called the LANGUAGE OF ACCOMMODATION; by which, in plain English, is meant a barefaced attempt to deceive the world. We, who know them intus et in cute, deny that this is the ufual ftile of teaching employed by thefe Calviniftic divines. No: their favourite topic of exhortation is "Get juftifying faith, which is all in all: you need not much concern yourselves about good works: thefe are of very fubordinate confequence in the character of one of God's elect; and, befides, they will neceffarily follow of courfe." By juftifying faith, too, it is always intimated that nothing more is intended than a firm perfuafion that we ourfelves, as individuals, are included among the elect of God, and juftified by the righteoufnefs of Chrift imputed to us. This perfuafion will fanctify, and confecrate, as it were, our worft, as well as our beft, thoughts, words, and actions. And thus their hearers are carefully prepared for the reception of that ultimate and moft fublime principle of the creed of Calvinistic methodifm, That God fees no fin in his faints; or, as Sir Richard Hill very plainly expreffes it, that "whatever lengths one of the elect runs, whatever depths he falls into, he always ftands abfolved, always complete in the everlafting righteoufnefs of the Redeemer." (See Daub.

Cc 3

Append.

Append. p. 287.) Thus the godly are taught to believe with Luther that fins are to be diftinguished, not according to the fact, but according to the perfon; and with Sir Richard Hill that, while David was giving orders for the murder of Uriah, and committing adultery with that officer's wife, his perfon was as much in the favour of God as at any other period of his life. Is this, we afk, the doctrine of the gofpel, or does it really furnish a good fanction of morality?

Mr. O., we doubt not, will here difown the unguarded confeffion of his friend the baronet; yet, in our opinion, Sir R. Hill is, in point of honourable refpectability, as much fuperior to Mr. O. as ingenuous honefty and candid good faith are fuperior to low cunning and artful diffimulation. For we will venture to tell this evangelical minifter that his efforts to difguife the fyftem of preaching pursued by his tribe is highly difcreditable to his own character, and will not impofe on a fingle perfon of common difcernment and obfervation. He repeats, indeed, in fpite of truth," on whatever grounds the Church can enforce morality, confiftently with the doctrine of juftification, we can confiftently imitate her." (P. 294.) And, by way of defiance, he fubjoins, "that on all proper occafions we do thus enforce it, our opponents will not readily difprove." But Mr. O. is mistaken. We can readily difprove it; or rather, we can easily prove the reverfe, partly by the confeffion of the parties themselves, but chiefly by the vifible and notorious effects produced on their followers. The belief of the hearers is undeniable evidence of the nature of the principles inculcated by the teachers; and it is matter of fact which cannot be denied that the hearers of thefe evangelical minifters confine their ravings about religious attainments almoft exclufively to the topic of faith, and exprefs themselves very disrespectfully of virtue. Nay the very diftinction which they make of the clergy into LEGAL and GOSPEL PREACHERS is fufficient to put this fact beyond a doubt. In general, therefore, it may, on this fubject, be fafely affirmed that, however plaufibly our author may declaim in defence of the conduct of his brethren, the charges brought against them are, in practice, well founded. Their doctrine has a manifeft tendency to produce, and we fee that it really does produce, in the minds of their adherents, a fupercilious contempt of morality, while it is the fruitful parent of wild enthusiasm, prefumption, and uncharitablenefs. The notions of Chriftians have, it feems, undergone a very woful change fince the time of Chillingworth. "There is no proteftant," fays that great man, "but believes faith, repentance, and univerfal obedience, are neceffary to the obtaining God's favour, and eternal happiness." But we have feen even Mr. O. himfelf denying the neceffity of the two laft conditions, and condemning Bithop Bull because he afferted it. "I never knew," continues Mr. Chillingworth," any proteftant fuch a Solifidian but that he did believe thefe divine truths: That he must make his calling certain by good works; that he must work out his fal

vation with fear and trembling; and that while he does not fo, he can have no well grounded hope of falvation: Ifay, I never met with any one who did not believe thofe divine truths; and that with a more firm, and with a more unfhaken affent, than he does, that himself is predeftinate; and that he is juftified by believing himself juftified." The prefent times can furnifh many thoufands of fuch Solihidians among the godly difciples of our evangelical minifters.

Refpecting the last ground mentioned by our author, on which he fays that his friends enforce good works, namely, "That our eternal fate of felicity in heaven will be proportioned to our degree of fruitfulnefs in thefe works, (p. 290); we obferve that here again Mr. O. disclaims his best friends, whofe indifcretions indeed, to fay the truth, are exceedingly troublefome to him. The doctrine is, undoubtedly, fcriptural; and to those who believe that our good works are a condition of falvation, a moft forcible fanction of morality. But to those who do not believe this, it is no fanction at all. We had afferted (Anti-Jac. Vol. II. p. 37,) that this doctrine militates against the Calvinistic notions of election; but this, our author fays, "it will require no ordinary ingenuity to fhew." (P. 290.) We conceive, on the contrary, that nothing is more plain. The doctrine fuppofes degrees of reward; and reward, of neceflity, fuppofes the works rewarded to be our own works. But, in the fyftem of Calvin, thefe works are the pure effects of the invincible grace of God, who can certainly produce, with equal eafe, the higheft, as well as the loweft, degree of fruitfulness. Accordingly Mr. O. asks, “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the fame lump to make one veffel unto honour, and another unto difhonour? Some for nobler, and others for meaner purposes?" (p. 291): thus amply confirming the truth of our affertion, at the very moment that he pretends to overturn it. He talks, indeed, in a loose and confufed way, of good works being rewarded; but he is very evidently puzzled by the doctrine. That different degrees of bleffednefs in the faints will exactly. correfpond with their different characters and attainments here, "feems naturally," he fays, " to follow from the confideration that good works will in any fenfe be rewarded; a doctrine which none,' he is forced to confefs, who admit the authority of fcripture, can. queftion." (Ibid.) But his very phrafeology proves that he knows not in what fenfe this reward is poffible; and his indecifion on the fubject may easily be forgiven: for, on the principles of his party, it is not poffible in any fenfe. We, therefore, with perfect confidence, repeat, that the doctrine of a gradation of blifs, correfponding to men's different attainments in holiness, which makes good works a neceffary condition of falvation, and men's future happinefs dependent on their own perfonal exertions, is utterly fubverfive, by undeniable confequence, of the Calvinistic tenet of unconditional election.

[To be concluded in our next.]
CCA

Account