diction, but that we may hinder a road being paved for falsehood, and extricate those who have been deceived from harmful error." I must not omit to say that the Appendix to the Examination of Stricture XVII, was written lately, or rather copied from other papers of mine, and inserted there to answer the objections of Mr. Truman, who published a book against me, in English, entitled, "An Attempt to correct some Opinions that are gaining ground contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England." Whoever will take the trouble to read attentively the Appendix, together with my answers to Strictures XVIII-XXIII, and compare them with Mr. Truman's book, will, unless I am much mistaken, see clearly that the grounds of his book are thoroughly disproved. If, however, I am given to understand that pious and learned men demand a fuller refutation of his objections, I have one ready, and will presently lay it before them. As to the bulk to which my defence hath grown, I regret it, but knew not how to avoid the inconvenience, for from the number of objections which my opponents strongly urged against the truth which I am defending, I must either have observed a total silence, or said not a little in return: however, of the points which I answer, if there are any which the more learned of my readers think comparatively of little moment, and consequently scarcely worth refuting, they may pass them by altogether, while I would wish them to remember that no small portion of my readers will perchance be those to whom the smallest points may create great difficulty, and their difficulties I would regard at the expense of my estimation with readers of more fastidious nicety. While this volume was in the press the Animadversions of Mr. John Tombes of Bewdley, against the Harmony, appeared: a work, in which the self-confidence of the author seems so much to vie with his ignorance, that it is difficult to say which is the greater. He, however, need not fear "the horns and stamping of the Bullb," (such is his wit, which foreigners will scarcely understand, Englishmen will smile at,) since the Bull has long since learnt to despise all such barking animals. But to be serious on a serious subject, I cannot but pity a b P. 81. and p. 226. man, who, while he is so unfortunately curious in other people's business, has neglected, so many years, though often refuted by learned men, to review and retract what he has written so wantonly against the practice of infant baptism, every where received in the Catholic Church. I do from my heart pray that he may at length look to his own case, and seriously reflect how greatly he has promoted by his writings the wicked schism and heresy of the Anabaptist party in England, and repent timely and worthily of so grievous a sin. I have only now to ask thee, benevolent reader, in reading and deciding on these writings, to lay aside prejudice and party feeling, and to exercise the candour that befits a Christian. Farewell. INDEX OF TITLES AND MATTER IN THE EXAMEN. PREFACE OF THE CENSURER, WITH THE EXAMINATION OF IT. (Page 1.) ANSWER TO STRICTURE I. (Page 5.) It is proved against the Censurer by many arguments, that it is far more reasonable to interpret St. Paul from St. James, than St. James from St. Paul. ANSWER TO STRICTURE II. (Page 15.) The expression' perfected faith,' is defended against the Censurer.—The question, Whether love is rightly said to be the form of justifying faith, is discussed at length. ANSWER TO STRICTURE III. (Page 23.) The question, Whether the notion of Gospel justification necessarily includes the imputation of reward, or the acceptance of a man to eternal life and salvation, is sifted; or, in other words, Whether the conferring a right to the kingdom of heaven is properly an act of Gospel justification. ANSWER TO STRICTURE IV. (Page 31.) It is shewn that in attributing to faith the operation causing righteousness, the Censurer teaches a new and dangerous doctrine. xii CONTENTS. The question between the author of the Harmony and the Censurer is reduced to these four heads: 1st, Whether there be any assignable condition, properly so called, of the Gospel covenant, which is not also a condition of Gospel justifi- cation. 2ndly, Whether, it being granted that the condition of the Gospel covenant, and of Gospel justification may be different, it is not yet certain that faith and repentance are conditions of one and the same benefit, viz. of Gospel justification. 3rdly, Whether forgiveness of sins comes into the very notion or definition of Gospel justification, or whether the notion of Gospel justification necessarily includes forgiveness of sins. 4thly, Whether, it being granted that The internal works of repentance are distinguished from the external, and it is proved against the Censurer, that the internal works of repentance are abso- The mistake of the Censurer in interpreting my words, 'Most of our theologians,' CONTENTS. xiii The opinion of the Censurer on the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, is shewn to be absurd and even dangerous. The imputation, which he defends, 1st, Cannot agree with the forgiveness of sins on God's part. 2ndly, It is entirely incompatible with the necessary requirement of repentance on our part. 3rdly, It takes away also all necessity even of faith, for the obtaining justifica- tion and if it be allowed, it follows necessarily that the justification of a man is prior to his faith. 4thly, and lastly, It entirely overturns the Catholic doctrine of the universal propitiation made by Christ's death for the sins of the whole world, on which the preaching of the Gospel rests. The passages of Scripture which are usually adduced for that imputation are answered. It is proved that no inherent righteousness, properly so called, is acknowledged by the Our argument against the Solifidians, "Whoever is justified by God through Christ, is acquitted by the law of Christ; but by faith alone, without works, no one is acquitted by the law of Christ," &c., is vindicated from the exceptions The opinion of the Censurer, asserting that the primary act or formal cause of justifying faith is trust, strictly so called, is fully refuted.—The true and Catholic doctrine of Christian faith and trust is set forth in four clear theses An argument of ours is supported against the Censurer, which is drawn from that proceeding of God by which He will judge all men in the last day, which is as follows: As every man will be judged by God in the world to come, just in the same way he is justified by God in this life: but by works (not by faith only) every one will be judged by God in the world to come: therefore, &c.— It is shewn that the distinction of the Censurer between a right to a thing, and a right in a thing, as far as it is applicable to this question, is frivolous |