conclufively my reader will judge) that good works cannot be a condition of juftification, because the effect cannot precede its caufe, he is quibbling on the word juftification; because he cannot but know, that the doctrine to which he here objects, cannot militate against the Twelfth Article, because it refers to a different fubject; and that in fact it is objectionable only, because he is not willing to understand the divines against whom he writes, in the sense in which they mean to be understood.

After all, then, the argument Mr. O. has here methodically put together, and which may poffibly bring conviction to those who read only what fupports the opinion they have previoufly embraced, yields to the following fimple folution-that good works, which neceffarily follow after juftification in one fenfe, as neceffarily go before it in another: and there does not appear to me to be any but Calvinistic ground, on which Mr. O.'s reafoning in this cafe can ftand. According to the Calvinistic axiom, indeed, of "once justified, always justified;" it may be maintained, that good works cannot at any time go before juftification; juftification, in this cafe, being confidered as one continued act of indefectible grace, from the first conveyance of it in this life to its final confummation in glory. Suppofing the juftification of certain chofen individuals to have been thus definitively and unconditionally fettled by an antecedent decree in their favour, fuch juftifica

11

tion cannot, in their cafe, be subject to the contingency of fubfequent conditions. But as this is not the doctrine of the Church of England, I fhall not waste my reader's time in dwelling upon it. Should it be the doctrine of Mr. O., it will be more creditable for him to maintain it openly, that all his readers may know what is meant, than to attempt to fupport it indirectly, by the help of fallacious reafoning.

Mr. O. now proceeds to his conclusion, which is fummed up nearly in his usual style. "Enough," fays he, "must have been said to convince all impartial judges, that even this most favourable ground of our opponents is not fairly tenable, and that on this most important of all doctrines, (Juftification) they do not, as they would pretend, teach, as it is taught in the standard writings of our Church, and was taught by our Reformers. Whether regard is had to the nature of juftification and promife of juf tifying faith, or to the means by which juftification is obtained; their deviation from this acknowledged standard, and our strict adherence to it, are thus equally confpicuous. Our pofition, therefore, we conceive, is again established on a double basis, and that of our opponents doubly overthrown."

Recollecting himself, however, a little, Mr. O. afterwards condefcends to add the following qualifying fentence:" But whether our premises warrant this conclufion, or whether, at any rate, our claim

to Churchmanship is not the best founded of the two, let every competent judge decide."

Be it fo. The fcales of judgment are with the reader; let him hold them with an even hand, and adjust the weight at his leisure. "Fiat juftitia."

CHAPTER VII.

The Question of Adherence pursued in respect to the Doctrine of good Works; with a Vindication of our Tenets on this Head.

THE

SECTION I.

Concerning the Standard of Morals.

HE chapter on which we are now entering, appears fo foreign from the fubject profeffed to be undertaken, that it might, without injustice to my reader, be paffed over unnoticed. An apology

for thofe minifters whofe caufe Mr. O. advocates, did not neceffarily lead him into the contents of the present section; for let the charge against them be what it may, a counter-charge against their suppofed opponents cannot be admitted as a proper fet-off against it. This is to recriminate, but not

to difprove 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 for a supposed mifrepresented 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 present section, relative to the principles and characters of his opponents, is that kind of ex parte evidence, which can conftitute no standard of judgment to the mind of any candid or confiderate perfon. For this chapter, when taken together, contains no more than the unqualified eulogy pronounced by Mr. O. on himself and his friends, as minifters of the Church, contrafted with the indifcriminate condemnation, which he has thought proper to pafs on thofe against whom he has taken up his pen.

The rules which Mr. O., in cool reflection, laid down in his Preface, for the conduct of his publication, are as proper, as his violation of them, I am forry to fay, appears to be frequent:" It is not (fays the Preface) the writer's intention, that a fingle paffage fhould be applied to any divines who do not profeffedly hold the doctrine advanced in their works; or that they fhould be refponfible for

the doctrines of each other, any further than they profeffedly agree." And again; "Whatever is not proved by a whole body of evidence, rendered ftrong and invincible by the harmony and support of all its parts, and interpreted as it would be by plain honeft men of found understanding and fufficient information, shall be confidered as not proved at all." P. 8. It will be seen how far the chapter before us conforms to thefe equitable preliminaries. In p. 220 Mr. O. complains, that "the moft open clamour, the most frequent infinuation against the whole fyftem of the divines for whom he pleads, is, that they depreciate good morals." The method he has taken to do away fuch charge, is the oppofing to it a counter-charge; the object of which is to lead to the conclufion, that thofe divines who are generally ftigmatized by Calvinists as moral preachers, have, in fact, no pretenfions, either as writers or men, to any morality at all. In a former chapter, p. 97, he had observed, that they were enemies to the doctrine of grace:-"It is to the doctrine of falvation by grace, through faith in the Redeemer, (fays Mr. O.) under whatever form or name it is, to which, in reality, they at the bottom object:" And the principal object of the chapter on juftification is to prove, that these divines, and the author of "a Guide to the Church" in particular, build the hope of falvation, in a great degree at leaft, on the foundation of human merit. Admitting fuch to