and external works as unnecessary, in the same does he admit spiritual as necessary; but he rejects ritual works as unnecessary for justification, &c. The honest confession of the Harmonist, that the Harmony was written when he was very young, very dishonestly bandied about by Dr. Tully. Certain passages from the Harmony quoted unfairly by Dr. Tully, noted. The whole aim of the eleventh Chapter of the Justificatio Paulina, in which Dr. Tully endeavours to prove that our doctrine of justification is quite in accordance with the papistical, shortly answered. Charge retorted on the Doctor, and it is shewn that Dr. Tully's opinion on justification agrees very nicely with that of the Papists in the point where they are most papistical. Argument of the Harmonist vindicated, in which he had proved that St. James does not deny the sole office of justifying to a false, but to a true faith also, which was, that 'that faith which was in Abraham, was certainly a true faith, and not the shadow of faith:' but the faith itself of Abraham did not avail to justify him without works, &c. Contradiction falsely attributed to the Harmonist. An egregious calumny of the Doctor joined with remarkable dishonesty, noted. Bellarmine's opinion of the merit of good works, compared with that of the Harmonist.

SECTION IX.

ON THE DISSERTATION CONCERNING ST. PAUL'S MEANING IN ROM. vii. FROM VERSE 14.

(Page 360.)

Dr. Tully pretends in vain, 1. That the author of the Harmony has not many of the ancients agreeing with him in his interpretation of this chapter. 2. That nearly if not actually all the Fathers after Pelagius are opposed to the Harmonist. 3. That only one or two modern divines favour our opinion. It is shewn how plainly false all these assertions are. Besides Irenæus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Macarius, Basil, Maximus, Cyril, Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, pseudo-Ambrose, Theophylact, Ecumenius, Paulinus, Damascene, Sedulius, other remarkable testimonies are adduced for our opinion, not as yet observed by others, namely, six ancient doctors, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Marcus Eremita, St. Dorotheus, St. Pacian, and Ennodius. It is shewn that the interpretation of theologians of the day, with whom Dr. Tully agrees, is very far from the meaning and intention of Augustine. The Greek doctors, even after Augustine, constantly adhered to the primitively received and approved interpretation in the Catholic Church. Nor did all the Latin Fathers, after Augustine, receive his exposition. Amongst the Roman Catholics, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Isidore Clarius, Zeger, Toledo: on our side, Castellio, Musculus, Bucer, Grotius, Vossius, Amyraldus: amongst our countrymen, Jackson, Hammond, Taylor, Farindon and others, favour our interpretation. Dr. Tully in vain objects that our interpretation is opposed to the opinion of the Church of England. Reasons for our exposition taken from the very chapter, and our answers to the arguments of the opposite side, vindicated.

EXAMEN CENSURE.

PREFACE OF THE CENSURER.

THE specious title of this book filled me with desire to pro- PRE F. cure it; the desire and hope of finding the truth urged me, as soon as I had procured it, eagerly to devour it. But at the first opening of its pages I was displeased with what met my sight; scarcely did I believe my own eyes. I was determined at once to examine the whole accurately. The newness of the doctrine itself took me by surprise; but the bold opposition to the Apostle, worked up with such a mass of argument, astounded me. I could not help noting, as I read the Dissertations from beginning to end, what appeared at variance with Scripture, and reason guided by its light. With your leave, most learned Sir, I will speak my mind freely; and these Strictures, my brother, I humbly submit to your consideration, and the judgment of my superiors.

ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.

§ 1. It was not for you, my Censurer, to reproach me with the specious title of my book, when you have lately published a little tract on the same subject (few certainly are its pages, and narrow enough its limits, so small that scarcely have you room to touch on all the chief difficulties of the question, far less to explain them as the subject deserves) which you have embellished with nearly the same title. Which of us has played upon the reader with a specious title, I would willingly refer to an impartial judge.

of

§ 2. I cannot but wonder what caused you at the first outset your Strictures to make so much noise about a harmless writing. At the first opening of its pages you say you found something that displeased you; you scarcely believed your own eyes when you had read the book through attentively,

2

Object of the Harmonia Apostolica.

PREF. you were astounded. Heavens! what have I done? what have I taught? what monstrosity does the book bear with it? The aim, the object of the book, was to shew that good works proceeding from and in union with faith, are a condition (for I would not dare, with you, to speak at all more highly of any virtue of ours-you who attribute to faith in the work of justification an efficient causality) necessary to be fulfilled in order that a man may be justified by the Gospel covenant, procured and established by the Blood of Christ his Mediator. This, I contend, is the doctrine of St. James, and I maintain that St. Paul doth no where contradict it. Every where do I so openly renounce any merit in our works, that I scarcely acknowledge him to be a Christian, who contends for merit properly so called. In the work of justification and salvation I most willingly attribute every principal effect to the meritorious obedience of Jesus Christ, which was completed by His death. This alone hath satisfied Divine Justice. This alone hath rendered the most holy, most just God propitious to us sinners. This only hath been the cause that God on this best and most favourable condition hath promised us salvation, and that in heaven and for ever, which by no other means could we have obtained. Lastly, I have ever taught, that without the effectual grace and aid of the Holy Spirit, flowing from the side of our crucified Saviour, no man can perform this condition of the Gospel covenant. No anathema do I think can be too hard upon the heresy of Pelagius. But what mean you, when I recur to the praises of God's assisting grace in St. Paul's teaching, till I almost weary you? who would have expected, that for such teaching, I should have been thus shamefully handled, by a Christian, by a Catholic? who would call a man for so thinking, "most shameless, mad, impious, blasphemer," which are the titles you every where bestow upon me? Surely, no sober-minded man will deny, that in this question of justification, the main part of my teaching, at least, is Catholic; but if I have erred in any of the appendages or consequences, (so to speak,)— (which, however, you have not yet proved)—those who feel themselves to be but men, and are not insensible to human infirmities, will, I am sure, forgive me.

§ 3. But I now answer the charge of novelty in doctrine

which you allege against me, not only in the Preface, but PREF. repeatedly throughout your Strictures. I have no hesitation in appealing to those who are lovers of antiquity, who alone can be fair judges of what is old, what new doctrine, whether there is aught in the book that you have set yourself to tear piecemeal with accusations, that is at variance with the doctrines of the ancient Catholic Church, whose judgment and consent we are bound by an express canon of our English Church a scrupulously to follow in the interpretation of Scripture, and the deduction from thence of doctrines. But all is strange and new to you which agrees not with the arbitrary definitions of the systematizers, from whose stores you seem to have derived all your theology. Hence the wholesome doctrines of the ancients you reject and throw from you as new, while you embrace new doctrines as old. Would that you would learn from the advice of John Fell, that most pious and learned doctor, and one of the chief ornaments of the University of Oxford; who at the end of the Preface to his edition of Clemens Romanus seriously exhorts students of Theology "to keep far-(if, indeed, the saying, id verum quod primum, 'what was first is true,' is worthy the credit and estimation of an oracle)—to keep far away from the sluggish and muddy pools of those who would be called 'modern Divines,' and seek the everlasting and clear fountains, holy and full of grace, beyond the credit of gentile theology." The holy man continues: "One may, indeed, expect innovators to follow novelties; but they who love the untainted doctrines of the primitive Church will not as soon give ear to writers of a later age. For, by this most certain sign, and by this most characteristic mark, will they prove themselves the Church's genuine sons, in that they look up with a singular reverence to her most holy Fathers." But why do I confine myself to the ancients? I appeal also to our later Divines. How many names can I recount, 'shining lights' in this our English land, who, before me, fearlessly and without charge of heterodoxy have handed down in their writings the doctrine you impugn, and have openly defended it, against the cries and barkings only of innovators and schismatics? Take heed you drive me not to recount them,

a Collect. Canon. Can. Elizab. de Concionator. p. 19.