quires; that they cannot place him in a ftate of Christian perfection, but that he can achieve a great deal toward this end; and that something must be first done by him, in the work of converfion and falvation, is moft ftrenuously infifted upon. Sometimes they fuppofe him capable of performing fuch good works as naturally make him inclined to embrace the gospel; at others, such as may recommend him to God; and at others, fuch as render him worthy of the Divine favour and election: Our church teaches, that he has no power to do what is really good; that without Christ he can do nothing in the work of his falvation; that of himfelf he is unable even to think a good thought; that he cannot make himself righteous either in the whole or in part; that he cannot even prepare himself to faith, &c.; that his best natural works neither render him meet to receive grace, nor deferving of it, nor are pleafing to God, but are, in fact, themselves fins.

This then is the agreement with our Articles, Liturgy, and Homilies, of which thefe Churchmen boast! In this manner do they teach the doctrines contained in these formularies as they were first delivered by our Reformers!

But there is another affertion in the propofition under difcuffion equally well grounded. We, they fay, "teach MORE than these doctrines 1.'

We answer then in respect to the present fubject, Is the thing poffible? Is it poffible to use stronger language upon it, than what has been produced from the authentic writings of the church, and her chief founders? We can only teach, that every man who is born, confidered independent of the grace of God, and in refpect to fpiritual concerns, is wholly corrupt, utterly impotent, under the wrath of God, and liable to everlasting torments; all which in the very fulleft manner is done here. This charge, how

(h) See above, p. 13.

L

ever, it will be remembered, includes those who only proceed Arminian lengths. It fhall be admitted that the language of the church which has been adduced is popular; that the paffages have been felected from other language which appears to qualify and foften them; and that fome of them are the exaggerated expreffions of penitence. But who needs reminding, that whatever allowances may, and ought to be made on these, and fuch like confiderations, are equally applicable to what is quoted from our writers? But by what evidence is the acculation fupported? From what part of a late popular Work, againft which it is madę with fo much confidence, can a fingle fhadow of this evidence be produced? We hear much of its " fuperabundance of orthodoxy1;" of its "going beyond the creed of the church of England";" of its " tendency to a particular fpecies of enthufiafm";" of its "bias toward a fanatical fect°;" and of certain parts of it being "more favourable to enthusia/m than to practical Chriftianity :" In what part of it then, we ask, is there a fingle fentence or expreffion that exceeds the language of the church on the prefent fubject? We defy the united body of thefe divines and critics to fhow: We defy Mr. Ludlam to fhow any fuch excefs in the immediate fubjects of his attack, the "Scripture Characters," and the Works of Mr. Milner: We defy Dr. Croft, Dr. Paley, Mr. Daubeny, Mr. Polwhele, and the whole host of our opponents to fubftantiate their charge in respect to this doctrine, from the Works of any Author within the limits of our apology.

Is it not then, fo far, pretty clear to whom the charge of "grofs mifreprefentation" belongs? Nay, were that com

(i) Above, p. 97.

(k) Mr. Wilberforce's Practical View. (m) Ibid. Review of (n) British Critic for September, 1797.

(1) Critical Review of ditto, June, 1797.
Wakefield's answer.
(0) Ibid.

(p) Daubeny's Guide, p. 313.

patible with the doctrines of our church, might we not almost be indignant at thefe Gentlemen? How can they come forward, in the grave character of divines, to criminate others who are innocent, upon the very points in which they are so notoriously guilty themselves? If this has not been proved with regard to the prefent doctrine, how fhail we be able to prove any thing? And if it has, it will be easy to prove the fame concerning any other fundamental doctrine of the church; they will all neceffarily take their different complexions according to our different ideas here.

L

CHAP. V.

The investigation continued with respect to the doctrine of REPENTANCE.

OUR next particular examination of thefe different

claims of adherence to the genuine tenets of the Church of England, shall respect the important doctrine of REPENTANCE. It is indeed an obvious confequence, that the difference of opinion on this head will be proportionable to that on the preceding doctrine. In proportion to men's ideas of the extent, the evil nature, and evil confequences, of their depravity, will, of course, be their folicitude respecting it, and their notions of converfion from it. A few particulars fhall however be noticed relating to this point.

Our ideas then are, that a feeling and practical conviction of human depravity is effential in Chriftianity. This conviction, we think, may jufily excite unfeigned forrow, and deep anxiety in the foul. And, it is our opinion, that in order to falvation, a change of mind, of views and difpofition, must be effected in every perfon, wherever born, however educated, or of whatever external conduct. Is it faid, this change is effected at our baptifm? We answer; Have you then indeed kept your baptifmal vow? Have you in the uniform and habitual tenour of your life been "renouncing fin, the world, and the Devil; following the example of our Saviour Chrift; and daily becoming more like unto him?" Have you indeed experienced the inward and fpiritual grace, of which " the washing of water" is the external emblem, "a death unto fin, and a new

birth unto righteousness?" And, are your views, tempers, and pursuits indeed fuch, as in scripture every where characterize the regenerate children of God?

If fo, it is well: But if not; remember, we add, the Apostle's reasoning respecting circumcifion, that "if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcifion is made uncircumcifion":" See the account he gives of the utter inefficacy of that perfon's religion who was only "a Jew outwardly." Hear him affirm, that "In Chrift Jefus neither circumcifion availeth any thing, nor uncircumcifion, but a new creature." Confider alfo, we proceed, upon what high authority it is declared, that "if the root is made holy, the branches will be holy f;" that "a good tree CANNOT bring forth evil fruit," but that "evil fruit” is a certain proof of "a corrupt tree;" and that an evil conduct can only proceed from an "evil heart" Compare all this, with the conduct of the bulk of those who have been baptized, and then say whether they have not, in the fcripture sense of the words, evil and corrupt hearts; whether many of them are any more than Chriftians "outwardly;" for, that fuch persons live in the habitual practice of what the word of God deems evil, it is impoffible to deny.

This distinction between a mere nominal, hereditary, external religion, and real, practical, internal Christianity; between the mere form of Godliness, and the power of it, we cannot relinquish. All therefore who poffefs only the former, have need, we apprehend, to lay anew the very foundation of the doctrine of Chrifth. Such perfons we therefore exhort in the language of fcripture, to "repent and be converted i;" to "make the tree good" in order that the fruit may be good.

(a) See our Baptifmal Service, and Catechism.

(b) See

amongst other scriptures, 1 John, Chapters iii, v.; Rom. viii. Gal. v.