demned, though at the same time repentant and ' obedient sinner, for the sake of what an all-gra'cious Saviour has done and suffered for him.'1

Supposing the quotation adduced to contain contemptuous language, (which I cannot perceive that it does, unless to suppose a fallible fellow mortal to be mistaken, be contemptuous language,) what has this to do with the evangelical clergy in general? Mr. O. has had to bear censures enough, from those who are considered as belonging to the same company with himself, to make him painfully sensible that they do not consider themselves responsible for his statements or manner. Quotations from one book, amounting in all to about a page or two at the most, are brought forward against a body of men, amounting to many hundreds, as evidence sufficient for the condemnation, not only of the author, but of the whole company, whether they approve of his publication in toto, or in any part of it, or not. What would our truly venerable judges say to such an ex parte evidence, if brought before them in any court of justice? Undoubtedly they would at once quash the indictment. Our books are numerous, and some of them widely circulated: from them our sentiments may be known; if our opponents choose to know them, before they attempt to refute them. Probably not ten of our whole body saw Mr. Overton's book before it was published. I am informed from undoubted authority that only one saw it; and no great number so much as knew that it was to be published. Whether his doctrine and man

1 Ref. 178, 179.

ner, or Mr. Daubeny's, be most scriptural, is another question: but certainly the evangelical clergy are no more to be involved in Mr. Overton's condemnation, if he be condemned, than all the rest of the clergy, in Mr. Daubeny's, should the verdict go against him. Some will think that the one, and some that the other has the best of the argument; and it is as naturally to be expected that I should say, 'Mr. Overton has never been fairly answered,' as that his Lordship should aver, that Mr. Daubeny has fully and unanswerably 'vindicated himself against the attacks of this ' writer.' But we are both fallible; and God must judge which of us is mistaken.-Whether the concluding language of this quotation be scriptural, or according to the doctrine of our Articles and Homilies, the reader must judge.—'Works 'the condition of salvation,' is not the language of the Scriptures, the Prayer Book, the Homilies, and the writings of our reformers: much less do we there meet with the following sentiment: "They' (works) will be considerations, on account of which God will be pleased to accept a fallen, 'condemned, though at the same time a repentant ' and obedient sinner, for the sake of what an all gracious Saviour has done and suffered for him.' -If these works be done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, they are 'not acceptable to God, but have the nature of sin :' if afterwards, they come too late, they follow justification, are the fruits of faith, and evidence it to be living; but cannot do any thing as to justification itself: for We are accounted righteous 'before God, only for the merit of our Lord and

'Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our

' our own works and deservings: wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome 'doctrine, and very full of comfort.' Now by what rule of judgment is that charged on any man as contemptuous language,' which, without any reproachful or contemptuous words, simply observes, that a clergyman of superior station in the establishment states the subject, in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with the doctrine of the Articles which he has so repeatedly subscribed ?—As I have vindicated Mr. Overton, I must be content, in this particular, to be acquitted or condemned with him but by what rule of equity are all other evangelical clergymen to be involved in the same charge, when scarcely any of them have committed themselves in the same manner

6

St. Paul therefore tells his Christian converts, that their faith might, or might not, be the means of their salvation; and consequently it only placed them in a state of possible salvation,' in a salvable condition;' and whether this state ' of possible salvation should become a state of ac'tual salvation,' depended upon their, "keeping in memory what the apostle had preached unto ' them."' 2

If the Corinthians had only a dead faith, it is evident that they had believed in vain.' But, I apprehend, this was not the apostle's meaning. Some at Corinth denied the doctrine of the resurrection, as literally understood: this, according to

1 Art. xi.

* Ref. 179.

the apostle, was equivalent to a denial of Christ's resurrection; but if Christ were not risen his atonement was not accepted; and, consequently, the preaching of even the apostles was in vain, and the faith even of true believers was in vain. Whether this interpretation.be admitted or not, it still remains wonderful that Christian divines cannot express their meaning without devising unscriptural terms. For where is a state of possible salva❝tion,' or 'a salvable condition,' found in scripture, or in our authorized writings? And is there any human being that can be excluded, while living on the earth, from the former? or any one, who hears the preaching of the gospel, or has access to the Bible, from the latter? We can have no objection to the apostolic exhortation; 2 and indeed there are few sermons in which many of us do not introduce it. But let it be observed, that it is not in order to being preserved in a salvable condi'tion,' or even in order to having some further hope of salvation, that it is urged; but "forasmuch "as ye know that your labour is not in vain in "the Lord."-The other scriptures also, which are adduced in the next page, 3 are constantly brought forward by the evangelical clergy in general, in their instructions and exhortations.-Good works are doubtless necessary: let it however carefully be noticed, that the controversy is not concerning this, (which both parties allow ;) but concerning the rank which they are to hold; the office which

1 Cor. xv. 14--17.

Matt. xvi. 27. John v. 28, 29. xiv. 12. 1 Cor. iii. 8. Phil. ii. 12.

Acts x. 35.

21 Cor. xv. 58.
Rom. ii. 6.

Jam. i. 25.

1 John iii. 7.

they are to perform or sustain; whether of recommending us to God; or as proving the sincerity of our professed faith and love; as the genuine expressions of our gratitude and our zeal; as those things in which the true Christian delights, and desires to abound; as glorifying God," and adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour;" and as profitable to our brethren and fellow creatures, whom grace teaches us to love and to desire to serve. This is the only point in debate: whereas our opponents argue against us under the mistaken supposition that we undervalue good works in themselves, and do not consider them as any essential part of Christianity. But that may be important, nay, essential to the building, which is wholly unsuitable to be in any degree the foundation of it.

Our Saviour, in his awful description of the proceedings of the last judgment, not only assigns 'eternal life to those who have performed acts of mercy to their fellow creatures, but expressly on ' account of those acts; "Come, ye blessed of my 'Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from 'the foundation of the world, for I was an hungered, ' and ye gave me meat." "Inasmuch as ye have 'done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Is it possible to read 'these passages of the New Testament, and to deny that works are clearly made the grand hinge on which our justification and salvation turn;' and not to be astonished that any person

professing belief in the divine authority of the scriptures, himself a minister of the gospel, should