To judge from this Appeal,' the evangelical teachers have really nothing to say for themselves. They advance charges, it should seem, without so much as attempting to substantiate them; and hold doctrines of which they offer not a syllable in defence. At least neither testimony nor argument does Mr. Mant condescend to notice, except now and then a very weak one propounded in a bad form. Whether this is to be ascribed to weakness or contempt is uncertain: but, to triumph as he does, without trying his strength with the forces of the enemy, is certainly not remarkably becoming. We would advise him by all means to ruminate on the character of Parolles. There seems to be a wonderful similarity in the temper of the two heroes; and Mr. Mant will have no little cause for self-congratulation if he comes off without some share of the disgrace.

It is, however, in describing the character of the Methodists, intellectual and moral, that our author exhibits the qualities of his mind in their greatest prominence. Human learning, says he, they detest and abhor, as a diabolical invention. They are proud, presumptuous, given to detraction and calumny. Among themselves they are quarrelsome, and to others intolerant. They are hypocritical, and hypocondriac. Nor are these spiritual vices compensated by the extermination of those of a sensual nature. For they are often of profligate lives, and libertine sentiments, and amorous complexions, p. 427-433. It is difficult which to admire most, the fatuity or impudence of a preacher, who could venture on such a description as this, in a public lecture, before the University of Oxford. Among the evangelical body must be ranked some of the brightest ornaments of this country. They can boast of genius, erudition, and virtue. As to learning and intelligence, the members of this body are at least upon a level with their neighbours in similar conditions. of life. No plans of charity and beneficence are set on foot of any importance of which they are not active assistants: and they are generally so pure in their principles, and so virtuous in their lives, that sensual and profligate persons, instead of mingling with them, are purged off and expelled. Any pretext indeed, for this writer's calumnies that exists at all, is no more than the shadow of what might be adduced for saying, of those who style themselves Orthodox churchmen, that the clergy are grossly ignorant of the plainest facts of revealed religion that they are scandalously prophane and intemperate, many of them being guilty of swearing, and others found inebriated while performing the most solemn offices of the church; that they neglect their parochial duties for the most

scandalous amusements, fox-hunting, horse-racing, boxing, and drunken reveling: that the people are such as might be expected from the priesthood, unacquainted with the principles and inobservant of the duties of religion, yet loud in their professions of regard for it, and most inveterate against all sectaries, dishonest, intemperate, prophaners of God's name, violators of the rest of the sabbath, sensual, passionate, calumniators, and revengeful. All this, might be asserted, with at least as much reason as any thing said by Mr. Mant to the discredit of the evangelical body but whoever should offer it as the description of a party, would clearly be guilty of most shameless defamation. If our author calmly reconsiders this part of his discussion, he will, we are sure, see cause to renounce his plan of judging of the general rule by its exceptions.

It is now time to take a closer view of these lectures. Assuming it to be the duty of Christian ministers to preach the gospel, no charge, Mr. Mant justly supposes, can be brought against them so heavy or disgraceful as that they preach it not. This charge when brought against the clergy, he maintains is unjust and to determine the matter, the appeal must be made to the scripture, which, as the Methodists must allow, it requires much caution, humility, and diligence to explain. Protesting, very needlessly, against some religionists who claim exclusively a supernatural illumination in the explaining of scripture, he lays down the principles of interpretation, by which, he thinks, the charge alluded to may be successfully repelled. These are, to adhere as far as possible to the literal sense o scripture; to make allowance for figurative and idioma tical expressions; to consult the original text, the context, and parallel scriptures; to explain obscure passages by those which are plain; and to consider the circumstances with which they are connected, the scope of the composition, and the general tenor of holy writ;-all which are laid down with great pomp and solemnity, as if they were not the professed rules by which every evangelical teacher expounds the word of God, and as if any member of the University of Oxford could be ignorant of them.

Having thus divulged the canons of interpretation, our vindicator proceeds in the second lecture, to apply them, in treating of Christian works. He expatiates so very much at large, and treads so often on the verge of contradiction, that it is not easy at first to say, what he defends, or what he condemns on this head. He cordially approves of the doctrine that we are justified by faith only.' p. 66. 'Yet says, I fear not to contend, that "do this and live;"

is no less the profession of the gospel than of law. Holiness of life, is, he maintains, a necessary condition, whereby the the blood of Christ becomes ultimately effectual for redemption.' pp. 96-109. To reconcile these contradictory statements, Mr. Mant has recourse to the conceit of a two-fold justification, the one taking place on the admission of persons by baptism into the Christian covenant, the other at the last day; the former conferred on us by faith alone,' which yet is not distinguished from good works,' and the latter obtained by Christian works co-operating with faith.' p. 90. In confirmation of this, he observes that Christians are represented as esteemed just for the merits of Christ, when they become partakers of the gospel covenant,' that faith is not distinguished from Christian works in the business of our acceptance with God, and that, from the general tenor of holy writ, it appears that good works are the condition of our final acquittal in the sight of God. This doctrine of a two-fold justification, borrowed by the orthodox divines, we believe from the Socinians, is in itself very crude, and meets in Mr. Mant with a very inept supporter.

The pardon of our sins-of the defects of our virtues, the perversities of our hearts, and the obliquities of our practiceis at least an ingredient in our justification. That these imperfect virtues and this defective practice, should form the condition on which their own blemishes are forgiven, it is difficult to conceive. This clumsy effort to supplant the doctrine of the Methodists, of the Reformers, and the Apostles, that we are "justified by faith without the deeds of the law," will never succeed with those who are sensible of their own imperfections.

But, if we mistake not, Mr. Mant himself overturns both parts of this doctrine. That the first justification cannot be by faith alone is evident, because, according to our lecturer, faith is not distinguished from good works,' and it is to misconceive the Apostle's reasoning, if we contend, that he designed to establish any distinction or opposition between faith and works, as parts of the same dispensation.' p. 83. The passages also, by which Mr. Mant attempts to prove, that our good deeds are the conditions of our final acceptance with God, equaly prove that they are the conditions of our present acceptance into his favour. For example, when St. Peter says, "in every nation, he that worketh righteously, is accepted of him," and St. James, "a man is justified by works, and not by faith only," it is impossible to assign a reason why these sentences apply not to the first, as well

as to the last absolution of our sins, and admission into the favour of God. But as from these principles of our vindicator, it is a natural consequence that the first justification is not by faith alone, he seems also to evince that the last is not by good works. In the eighth lecture he notices, in arguing against the abettors of perfection attainable in this life, the general tenour of the Old and New Testaments, which represent the sacrifice of Christ as necessary to every man, to make a continual atonement for actual sins.' To illustrate and confirm his doctrine, he introduces the pious Hooker, in his dying moments, when, not resting on his works as the condition of his acquittal at the tribunal of the Supreme Judge, but in the exercise of that faith which "excludeth our good works, so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made just by doing of them, and pointeth us unto Christ, for to have only by him re-mission of sins, or justification*," he said, Where I have failed, Lord, show mercy to me for I plead not my righteousness, but the forgiveness of my unrighteousness, for his merits who died to purchase a pardon for penitent sinners.'

This doctrine of a two-fold justification thus confuted by its advocate, can receive but little support from his arguments. For though some of the passages do, after our version has been mended for the purpose, seem to imply that the faithful were already justified, the conclusion Mr. Mant deduces hence, by no means follows. "That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law"-" that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by the faith of Jesus Christ," and similar propositions in St. Paul's epistles, are universal, verified as often as men are justified. If the primitive Christians on believing the gospel obtained the first pardon of their sins by faith alone,' is it not the natural conclusion that every successive pardon must have been, and the final absolution itself must be, obtained by the same means.

It is not true, as Mr. Mant maintains, that faith, when we are said to be justified by it, is not employed in contradis tinction to good works. Having quoted a passage from the epistle to the Galatians in which it is affirmed a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,' he asks whether it has the most distant relation to the works of a Christian life?' and whether there is any consideration to confine the faith of Jesus Christ to faith as contradistinguished from obedience?' p. 84. To this we might reply by asking whether the general proposition "we are

Homily-of the Salvation of Man.

justified by faith," in connexion with the exclusive phrases "without works," "without the deeds of the law;" the assertion that we are justified, by the faith of Jesus, "freely," "by grace," "by the blood of Christ ;" the fact that the law here mentioned is that which comprehends both Jews and gentiles, whose attributes are holiness, justice, and goodness, which shews us our offences, and which condemns the heathen-whether all these particulars do not exclude works of all kinds from the business of our justification, and exhibit faith as the only instrument by which we receive and retain that blessing.

As Mr. Mant affirms that the objects of his attack 'discourse so largely on the doctrine of faith alone, as to disparage, if not to condemn, morality,' and evidently wishes it to be believed that they do not insist largely and strenuously on the necessity of good works, we must, before we leave this branch of the subject, state distinctly, that the controversy turns not on the necessity, but the provinceof good works. As to their necessity both are agreed; but while the orthodox divines' maintain that they are the conditions of our justification, the evangelical teachers inculcate them and more successfully, if we may judge from observation, as the fruit and evidence of faith, the ornaments of the Christian profession, and the measnre of our future reward.

The third and fourth lectures are directed against the Calvinistic division of the Methodists. Whatever Mr. Mant has here produced that can be called argument is to be found in the fourth chapter of the Bishop of Lincoln's Refutation of Calvinism. Referring our readers to the valuable remarks of Mr. Scott and Dr. Williams, on that chapter for a view of the Calvinistic doctrine, and of what may be said in reply to Mr. Mant, we shall content ourselves with two or three brief remarks, not so much upon the eternal question of predestination itself, as on the manner in which it is treated in this Appeal.

The stale argument against the Calvinists, deduced from the intolerance of Calvin and some of his followers, Mr. Mant has had the imprudence to revive, without once re-, flecting how easily it may be retorted. He is a very unskilful controvertist, that employs an argument equally conclusive for or against his doctrines. Mr. Mant surely needs not to be reminded that Cranmer, whose religious principles, be will allow, were similar to his own, not only stretched the laws against the Papists to the very utmost; but readily acquiesced in the death of Lambert, and Anne Askew; induced Edward the sixth to consent, though with tears, to

1