given to hypocrify, or mere outward reformation; but he cenfures them, because they teach, that reformation of life is of more value in the fight of God, than internal feelings, and because they do not teach the neceffity of repenting of original fin!! His own notions of repentance are very clearly stated in the following words: "OUR ideas are, that a feeling and practical conviction of human depravity is effential in Chriftianity. This conviction, we think, may justly 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 difpofitions, must be effected in every perfon, wherever born, however educated, or of whatever external conduct. Is it faid, that this change is effected in us at our baptifm? We anfwer, have you then indeed kept your baptifmal vow? Have you, in the uniform and habitual tenor 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 spiritual grace, of which the washing of water is the external emblem, a death anto fin, and a new birth unto righteoufnefs? And, are your views, tempers, and purfuits, indeed fuch, as in Scripture, every where characterize the regenerate children of God?" P. 160. To these questions, we beg leave to answer, in the words of the church, that "though baptifm is a fign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an inftrument, they that receive baptifm rightly, are grafted into the church; the promises of forgivenefs of fin, and of our adoption to be the fons of God, are vifibly figned and fealed; faith is confirmed; and grace increafed by virtue of prayer unto God;" yet, after we have received the Holy Ghoft, we may depart from grace given, and fall into fin, and by the grace of God we may arife again, and amend our lives." Such is the condition of man under the Gofpel, whether his nature be depraved or not; and such must have been his condition in the highest ftate of perfection capable of improvement. But though every creature placed in a ftate capable of improvement, is of courfe liable to error and to fin, it is by no means our opinion, that, in order to falvation, a change of mind, of views, and difpofitions, muft be effected in him, whofe "foul thirfteth for God, whose flesh longeth for him," and who, in the ftrength of divine grace, labours, though with much human infirmity, to "work out his own falvation with fear and trembling," fenfible, all the while, that "it is God who worketh in him both to will and to do, of his good pleasure." To what should the mind, and views, and difpofitions of fuch a man change? So far from changing, he ought furely to "be stedfast and immoveable, always abounding in the work of of the Lord, and going on from ftrength to ftrength, till he come to a perfect man, unto the measure of the ftature of the fulness of Chrift." Why should we perplex ourfelves about the depravity of human nature, or what good can poffibly refult from unfeigned forrow, or deep anxiety in the foul on that account, we are unable to conceive. We did not make ourfelves; and can therefore feel nothing of that "* Godly forrow" for such depravity, which the Apoflle affureth us, "worketh in actual finners, repentance unto falvation, not to be repented of." If it be the author's meaning, that we fhould feel unfeigned forrow and deep anxiety, becaufe Adam entailed weakness and corruption on his pollerity, to what can this poffibly lead, but to the fecret execration of the memory of our common anceftor? Or, if he thinks that we have cause to be forrowful and anxious, because we have been "made a little lower than the angels," we beg leave to afk him, whether this be not, in effect to fay, that he has caufe to murmur against God? But Afpiring to be Gods, if Angels fell, Afpiring to be Angels, men rebel; OF ORDER, fins againft th' Eternal Caufe." From the doctrine of Repentance Mr. Overton paffes, in his fixth chapter, to that of Juflification, which he treats at some length, but with great obfcurity. The obfcurity is in part occafioned by his ule of undefined terms, which, in common language, have not now the precife meaning that they had im the age of our reformers; and, in part, by his inattention to the circumftances which introduced fuch terms into the Articles and Homilies of the Church of England, "Our oppofers." he fays, "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. Thus teaches Bishop Watfon, from Taylor the Socinian*. Dr. Hey approaches infinitely near him. Our church, this divine fays, calls the admiffion into Chriftianity our first juftification," and afes the word juftification as fynonymous to baptifm." 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 used in the Articles, and adds, the word juftification, as it was used at the Reformation, was confidered as fynonymous with *This is fo far from being true, that Bishop Watson makes an apology for republishing a work, containing the doctrine of a double juftification, though that work is greatly admired by the learned. See the third volume of his tracts. baptifm; baptifm; and that accordingly, by our juftification is primarily to be underftred our admiffion into Christianity. He then talks of man's first jultification, and his final juftification; and fupports these notions by the arguments, and nearly the words, used by Dr. Hey." P. 179. And is not all that Mr. Daubeny and Dr. Hey are here. faid to teach, ftrictly true? Read again, Sir, the third part of the Homily on Juftification, and confider duly and impartially the import of the whole paragraph, in which it is faid, "our office is, not to pafs the time of this prefent life unfruitfully and idly, after that we are baptized or juftified." When you have done this, be pleafed to recollect that, in the judgment of the church, all who, having been rightly baptized in their infancy, die before they commit actual fin, are undoubtedly faved; and you cannot fail to perceive, that the words juftification and baptifm, were fometimes used as synonymous by our reformers, unless indeed it be your opinion, that a man may be faved without being juftified! Mr. Daubeny does not contend for the use of fuch language now, though certainly not improper in itfelf; and had you quoted the whole page, in which he speaks of man's first and final juftification, we hardly think that you would have ventured, as you have done (p. 181) to trifle with your readers, by vainly attempting to make his reasoning on the fubject ridiculous. That the word juftification is used, in the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies, of the church, as well as in the tranflation of the New Testament, in various fenfes; and that some of thefe fenses are not now in common use, are facts, which cannot be controverted; though too little attention is paid to them, both by Calvinifts and by Anti-Calvinifts, in their fermons and other practical difcourfes. When Mr. Ludlam, as here quoted, fays, that the juftification of a finner in the court of heaven is utterly impoffible; when he pronounces unintelligible that definition of juftification, which reprefents it as the particular method laid down in Scripture, of honourably acquitting finful men before their God; and, when he adds that finful men, fo far from being honourably acquitted, cannot be acquitted at all, he utters fo many propofitions which are unquestionably true, if the words juftification and acquittal be taken rigidly in their proper forenfic fenfe. This is indeed acknowledged by our present author, who says, "The fact is, that confidered in its original import, and reftricted precifely to the practice of human tribunals, juftification is not only perfectly diftinct from pardon, but is abfolutely incompatible with it. A man cannot there be both pardoned and justified at once. To be pardoned, he must be supposed guilty; to be juftified, he must be fup C BRIT. CRIT. VOL. XXII. JULY, 1803. pofed pofed innocent. But in refpect to our cafe before God, pardon and juttification are always connected. We are pardoned as finners, for the fake of Chrift, "who paid our ranfom; we are juftified, as interated by faith in his righteousness, who fulfilled the law for us.” P. 186. After this acknowledgment, we might have expected to find the author enquiring, by a diligent collation of paffages, in what fenfe, different from the forenfic, the word juftification is ufed in Scripture, and in the ftandard writings of the church; but inftead of this, he labours in good earnest to show how the fins of his people are transferred to the person of Jefus, and his righteoufnefs imputed to them alfo," fo that finners may really be confidered as righteous before God! Mr. Overton, we doubt not, confiders it as extremely abfurd to talk of the qualities of bread and wine being really transferred to the fubftance of flesh and blood; and in this opinion we heartily agree with him, though our bleffed Lord exprefsly faid to the Apoftles, when he gave to them the facred bread and cup, "this is my body which is given for you; this is my blood which is fhed for you." But the doctrine of tranfubftantiation is not one whit more abfurd, than this mutual transference of righteousness and guilt from Chrift to the finner, and from the finner to Chrift. Nay, if there were degrees of abfurdity, we should not hefitate to fay, that the Calviniflic doctrine of mutual imputation is more abfurd and incredible, than the Romifh doctrine of the real prefence. We know perfectly and fully the very effence of righteoufnefs and of fin; but we do not know the fubftratum of body, nor how it affects the fenfes, fo as to produce, what modern philofophy calls the secondary qualities. Yet because the doctrine of the real prefence leads to impious confequences; because it belies the evidence of fenfe, and renders the credibility of miracles impossible; and because it is contrary to other doctrines of Scripture; all Proteftants take the liberty to understand the words of our Saviour metaphorically: and fince the doctrine of mutual imputation belies the evidence of reafon and confciousness; fince it is contrary to every notion, which we can form of the divine juflice, veracity, and omniscience; and fince without fome previous notion of God's juftice and veracity, we could rot admit miracles to be a proof of divine revelation, or even be certain of the truth of that revelation, fuppofing it to have come from God; may we not take as much liberty with the words of Lord Bacon and our reformers, as with the words of our bleffed Saviour, and understand metaphorically fuch expreffions as feem to teach a doctrine fraught with impious confequences. It is commonly faid, and well faid, that as Chriftians receive, from a worthy participation of the Lord's Supper, the fame benefits which they would receive, were it poflible for them to feat religiously on the real facrifice offered by Chrift on the erofs, therefore the confecrated bread and wine are called, with great propriety, that body and blood of which they are fymbols, for nearly the fame reafons that a bank bill is frequently called by the name of the fum of money which it eprefents, and for which it paffes current through the kingdom. In like manner Lord Bacon, who is here triumphantly quoted, might talk of the imputation of Chrift's righteou/nefs to finners, who, in confequence of a true faith in his blood, fhall, at the day of judgment, be received into the kingdom prepared for them from the beginning of the world; because thofe finners could receive nothing more from the hands of their merciful judge, were it indeed poffible to transfer Chrift's righteousness to them, fo as to make it really their righteoufnefs. We may venture, however, to affirm, that had Bacon and Cranmer dreamed that any human being could poffibly understand them as teaching a real transference, they would have expreffed themfelves differently; though, confidering the metaphorical flyle of the age in which they lived, their language is wonderfully guarded. But let us inquire into the fcriptural meaning of the word juftification, and we shall find all this impious nonfenfe about a literal imputation of Chrift's righteousness to the finner, and of the finner's guilt to Chrift, is the refult of ignorance or fhameful inattention. The Chriftian difpenfation, or covenant, is founded on the fall of Adam; and its object is, on certain conditions, to reftore to mankind what they had loft in him. This, we think, Mr. O. will not deny; for, though he has very different notions from ours refpecting the confequences of the fall, he quotes, with approbation, a great reformer, as obferving, that those who treat of juftification, without a reference to the fall, "will only amuse themselves with ingenious trifling." In our opinion, the fall brought mankind under the dominion of death in the literal fenfe of the word; and under that dominion, they might have been for ever left without having any ground for complaint or murmuring because they, who had no claim of right to life, could not furely pretend a claim of right to eternal life. It follows, therefore, as Mr. O. rightly obferves, that "man must be either faved wholly by grace, or not faved at all." Accordingly the ftupendous plan of redemption, into which even the angels defire to look, was the offspring of God's free grace; in confequence of which, by C 2 the |