to the divine favour, needs washing in the blood of Christ, previously to its acceptance by a holy God. This his Lordship must perceive on a careful reading of the whole passage: yet the clause gives some plausibility to a disadvantageous insinuation against the whole body. Thus at least the reader may be led to conclude that evangelical preachers do not inculcate the duties here mentioned; because Mr. Overton objects to their being inculcated from such a motive as that of ' recommending ourselves to the favour of God."' But would this be a fair conclusion? Can it be a justifiable insinuation?-Certainly such language seems an exhortation to them to "go about to "establish their own righteousness;" instead of warning them to "submit to God's righteousness," and to trust wholly in his free mercy, through Christ for salvation.

66

'Dr. Hey, treating of the way, in which pardon ' of sin is obtained, says, 'Repentance, I doubt 'not, always avails something in the sight of "God." Now the necessity of repentance in order to forgiveness Mr. Overton did not at all mean to deny; but he objected to language which at least seems to ascribe that to repentance which should wholly be ascribed to the righteousness and atonement of Christ, in one view; and to faith, as receiving that righteousness and atonement, in another view. Nothing "availeth in Christ Jesus, "but faith which worketh by love." 'We are ' often told, that repentance and reformation are 'sufficient to restore the most abandoned sinners to the favour of a just and merciful God, and to avert the punishment due to their offences. But

'what does the great herald and forerunner of 'Christ say to this? He came professedly as a preacher of repentance. If then repentance ' alone had sufficient efficacy for the expiation of sin; surely we should have heard this from him 'who came on purpose to preach repentance! But 'what is the case? Does he tell us that repentance ' alone will take away the guilt of our transgres'sions, and justify us in the eyes of our Maker? Quite the contrary. Notwithstanding the great 'stress which he justly lays on the indispensable ' necessity of repentance, yet he tells his followers, at the same time, that it was to Christ only, that they were to look for the pardon of their sins.' "Behold," says he, "the Lamb of God, which 'taketh away the sin of the world." And again, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting 'life; and he that believeth not shall not see 'life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."'— Perhaps on an expression which, separated from its connexion, might not appear very obnoxious, it would have been better to say nothing, or to say more by way of explanation: but it is much easier to find fault than to avoid faults.

6

A third is blamed for talking of works as ren'dering men relatively worthy.' He talks of works, obedience to the moral law, as consti'tuting men relatively worthy, and giving then, ' as he explains the latter of these scriptures, 2 a ' right of grace on the part of God; and of God 'becoming their debtor. A right of grace, and 'God man's debtor, (for this is what Mr. Daubeny

1

Bp. Porteus.

* Rev. xxii. 14.

6

' is enforcing,) is surely strange and incomprehen'sible doctrine! The apostle, however, is very intelligible and express on the subject. "To him 'that worketh" he allows," the reward not ' reckoned of grace but of debt:" "But if it 'be of works," he adds, "then it is no more of grace and if by grace then it is no more by ' works."'1 Now is there, either in the Bible or the Prayer Book, any thing like these words of Mr. Daubeny? In what indeed does his doctrine differ from that of the Papists, concerning works of condignity? Mr. Overton does not object to ministers inculcating obedience to the moral law; and urging the necessity of it as evidential of living faith, and for other important purposes: nay, on these topics he strongly insists,' and adduces many quotations from the works of evangelical clergymen, in support and illustration of his views. He objects merely to the manner in which it thus is insisted on, and the claims with which it is connected; and these, I am bold to say, are wholly indefensible. It is with real pleasure that I refer the reader to his Lordship's remark on the text, on which Mr. Daubeny grounds these exceptionable remarks, as giving, in my view, a scriptural statement of its real import. 2" Blessed are they that do his command"ments, that they may have a right to the tree of "life."3 This is a right not founded in the real merit of men, but derived from the gracious ' promise of God; not a claim upon God's justice, 'but a free gift of his mercy.' In the text also,

1 Rom. iv. 4. xi. 6. True Churchmen, p. 210, 211.

his Lordship says truly: ' If we believed that there was an intrinsic merit in our good actions, a real worth, which constituted a species of right to 'salvation, we should feel our obligation to our Redeemer proportionably diminished; our minds 'would be too apt to be puffed up with pride, and 'we should be in danger of losing the character'istic quality of a true Christian, the ornament of 'a meek and lowly spirit. This is the error of 'those who adhere to the church of Rome.'1 Who would have expected, after this, a vindication instead of reprobation of Mr. Daubeny's language?

'Mr. Benson also speaks out. His avowed ob'ject in preaching is, to persuade his audience to 'become worthy of election. If,' he says, (re'pelling the charge of some audacious opposer of his system,) we are accused of recommending 'the practice of moral virtues, as necessary condi'tions whereby we may, through faith in him who promiseth, render ourselves worthy the mediation ' of our Saviour; as we strenuously assert the doctrine, so also we glory in the charge.' He urges "the necessity of recommending ourselves to the

mercy of God, and rendering ourselves worthy 'the mediation of Jesus Christ, by holiness of 'living, and by an abhorrence of vice.' 2-Contrast 'with this our Article: Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, ' are not pleasant unto God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ: neither do

they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the 'school authors say,) deserve grace of congruity;

'Ref. 170.

True Churchmen, p. 211, 212.

yea rather, for that they are not done as God ' hath willed and commanded them to be done, we 'doubt not but that they have the nature of sin.' ' Now it may reasonably be hoped, that no dignitary of the church, who requires subscription to this Article, will deliberately vindicate Mr. Benson's language. It may be further affirmed, of a large class of these professed adherents to our Articles, that they certainly teach the doctrine of justifica'tion by works. These they represent as the condition of it, and as the chief means by which we 'must obtain it. We are required, Dr. Croft says, 'to consider good works as the condition, but not 'the meritorious cause, of salvation. Were we,

6

says Mr. Benson to his congregation, to utter 'those pressing calls, which elsewhere you may hear: Come to Christ, and throw yourselves on 'his mercy: come to him, bringing nothing but 'your sins, seek him not by your deeds, but seek ' him by faith were we, I say, to call you in such terms, we should but turn conspirators against 'the welfare of your souls. The call you desire 'to hear is uttered only to the righteous; he speaks comfort to the righteous.' 2-This quota'tion certainly implies justification by works: yet Mr. Polwhele's words relate directly not to justification, but to salvation. The eleventh Article is a sufficient refutation of the doctrine opposed by Mr. Overton; as are all the preceding quotations from the Homilies.- Mr. Polwhele exhorts us 'all to be aware, whatever our tenets may be, that nothing can afford us comfort at the hour of death,

Art. xiii.

2 True Churchmen, p. 212, 213.