themfelves weary of this life "."

"Thus," it proceeds to say, “did David, Daniel, Efther, Nehemias, the Ninevites, and all the children of Ifrael, faft and repents"

Here then, I appeal to Dr. Croft, Dr. Paley, Mr. Polwhele, Mr. Clapham, Mr. Ludlam, and the whole body of those who profefs not to know what Experience means in religion, to fay, whether if any perfon, with the leaft pretenfion to decency of conduct, fhould seriously adopt this language, or by any means difcover this ftate of mind now, they would not confider him a Methodist; and whether if he confulted them as Divines, they would not think of a Strait-waistcoat for him?

And, I again appeal to every competent and unprejudiced judge to fay, which party teaches moft like the church of England on this fubject: we, who allow men to be ferious. in this most serious caufe; or they, who are fo disposed to flight, and even to ridicule real folicitude about the spiritual ftate: we, who urge the neceffity of a practical,radical, and general change of character; or they, who reft fo much upon hereditary diftin&tions, and external reformation, and, at the moft, require only fome very partial amelioration of heart and principles: we, who afcribe true converfion to God, to the agency of the Divine Spirit; or they, who confider it a work which is " eafy and natural” to man?

(r) Hom. on Fafting, p. 175. (s) Ibid.

M 3

CHAP. VI.

The question profecuted with regard to the doctrine of

JUSTIFICATION.

WE proceed to the doctrine of a finner's Juftification be

fore God. "How shall man be just with God? A more important inquiry cannot occupy the attention of rational creatures. All who fee and feel themselves in the condition described by the church, under the two preceding particuJars, will thus confider it. All others, as an eminent Reformer has well obferved, will only amufe themselves with ingenious trifling on the fubject.

It may here be premised, that this doctrine formed a principal controverfy between the Romanifts and the Reformers, and particularly between Gardiner and Cranmer c; that the whole body of the Proteftant churches were agreed upon it; and, that on this primary article they all difagreed with the church of Rome. It would therefore undergo the fulleft difcuffions, and we have the moft general and determinate conclufions upon it.

It is moreover already obvious, that on this point too, in eftimating the judgment of our church, we must keep in view her ideas of man's disease, especially her notions of his natural impotence in refpect to divine things. It follows indeed, of course, from hence, that she must either represent him as faved wholly by grace, or as not faved at all.

(a) Job ix. 2. Strype's Life of &c. Art 5.

feffional, p. 34.

(c) See

(b) Calvin Inftit. L. 3. Cap 12. § 1. Cranmer, p. 149. (d) See Corpus Confeffionum, (e) See Second Letter to the Author of the Con

The charge then, in refpect to us, is, that we afcribe too much to Grace, to Chrift, and to Faith, in this matter, and too little to Good works, to comparative Innocence, to Reformation, and other performances and conditions, on the part of man. We cannot, however, with our views of fcripture and of man's native powers, relax on the point. Our uniform doctrine is," That we are juftified By faith only," and "only FOR the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrift1.” And we think that we adhere moft punctually to the church in these opinions. But this is the subject of our present investigation. Let us then firft inquire,

2. Whose ideas most resemble hers with regard to what is meant by juftification?OUR views of this particular are fully expreffed by Archbishop Cranmer in his "Difcourfe of Juftification" on reviewing the Erudition of a Chriftian man. To be juftified, this Prelate here fhows, is to "have the forgiveness of our fins, to be reconciled to God, to be accepted, and reputed just and righteous in his fight." And, omitting altogether fubjects who are incapable of faith, this we conceive is effected when a man rightly believes.

Our Opposers talk of two juftifications," which they denominate "our first and our final juftification." The first, they teach, is all that is attainable in this life, and means "our admiffion into Chriftianity," or "a Chriftian fociety," and "belongs to all profeffed Chriftians without exception." Thus teaches Bishop Watfon, from Taylor the Socinian. Dr. Hey approaches infinitely near him. The above language is all equally his, except the last clause of the fentence. “Our church," this Divine alfo fays, calls "the admiffion into Christianity our first justification,"

p. 60.

(f) See Art. 11. (g) See Strype's Life of Cranmer, Appendix, (h) Tracts, Vol. iii, Taylor's Key, p. 360 and paffim.

and ufes "the word juftification as fynonimous to Baptifmi." This is the express doctrine of Mr. Daubeny. The confufion on this fubject he fays, is to be attributed to a want of "attention to the fenfe in which the word juftification, is ufed in the articles:" and adds, "the word juftification, as it was ufed at the Reformation, was confidered as fynonimous with baptifm :" and that accordingly, "By our juttification is primarily to be underflood our admiflion into Chriftianity." He then talks of "man's first justification," and his " final juftification ;" and fupports these notions by the arguments, and nearly the words, ufed by Dr. Fey.

In aufwer to one of thefe opinions, it may however fuffice to obferve, that no fuch diftin&ion can be found in any of the legitimate writings of our church. Certainly there is nothing like it in her articles and homilies on the fubject. And in refpect to the notion, that "juftification is fynonimous to baptifin; Dr. Hey himself allows, that "the word" is "feldom, if ever," ufed in this fenfe, except in our article and homilyk. And does not this circumftance render it highly improbable that it is fo ufed there? Does it not far more than outweigh the fingle expreflion" baptized or jufüfied" in the homily? Dr. Hey allows too, that there are fuch Beings as mere "nominal Chriftians," and that the 13th Article, which treats" of works done before juftification," is "chiefly intended for nominal Chriftians"," But, if baptifin, or the bare admiflion into the Chriflian religion, means the fame as juftification, what fenfe is there in this article, or in the doctrine it maintains, as applicable to fuch perfons? Can they who are already admitted into Chriflianity do works before they are adriitted into it? Or, can almost any member of our church, when almost univerfally they are admitted in their infancy, ever do fuch works?

(1) Nor. Lect. Vel. iii. p. 268, 270, (y) Ibid. and p. 583

p. 182.

(1) On Salva. part 3d.

334, 336. (z) Appendix, (k) Nor. Lect. Vol. iii. p. 336. (m) Nor. Lect. Vol. iii. p. 378.

But the notion is overthrown by their own hypothefis; namely, that it fuppofes "men to do their part faithfully;" and that we are then only "put into a way of being eternally happy, if all things go on well;" but that "we may lofe our way."-Now if this mean, that we may lofe our justification, and Dr. H. fpeaks of "our being reftored to it°;" then, if juftification be the fame as baptifm, in order to regain it, we must be re-baptized. "Juftification," he alfo fays, is fuppofed variable; fometimes increasing, fometimes decreasing P." But how can our baptifm vary,

"

and be increased and decreased z?

Even the paffage quoted from their favourite, though very illegitimate, authority, the " Neceffary Doctrine, &c.," is nothing to their purpose. This only mentions baptifin, as the way "by the which God hath determined that man BEING OF AGE, and coining to chriftendoin, fhould be juftitied 9" It certainly does not hence follow, that it is the way by which thofe who are not of age, and therefore not capable of faith and repentance, are justified. Our Church decides favourably, as doubtlefs the ought, on the condition of baptized infants, who die in their infancy. But all who arrive at maturity fhe fuppofes to be finners; and "they," the teaches, "who in act or deed fin after bap

(n) Ibid. p. 334, 336; and Daubeny's Appendix, p. 149.

(0) Nor. Lect. p. 268.

(p) Ibid. p. 335.

(z) Mr. Hooker, fpeaking of the Romanifts, fays, "The first receipt of grace, in their divinity, is the first juftification; the increase thereof the fecond juftification.....Unto fuch as have attained the firft juftification, that is to fay, the firft receipt of grace, it is applied further by good works, to the increafe of former grace, which is the fecond juftification. If they work more and more, grace doth more and more increase, and they are more and more juftified.” Disc. on Juftification, p. 19. But thefe notions Mr. H. mentions among. thofe in which the Romanifts differ from us, and after the mention of which he adds; "This is the myftery of the man of fin. This maze the Church of Rome doth cause her followers to tread, when they afk her the way of juftification."-Ibid.

(q) Nor. Lect. p. 336.