INVOLVING NO REAL DIFFERENCE OF OPINION?

369

But there are some facts, which, if they do not clearly point to the same conclusion, seem to me to furnish strong reason for the exer

God's accounting men righteous; but in Christians it means not only an accounting, but it involves a making; so that AS THE PRESENCE OF A SOUL IS THE MODE IN WHICH GOD MAKES MEN LIVE, SO THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE MODE IN WHICH

GOD MAKES MEN JUST. This is that promise of the Spirit of life, because of which the Gospel is called 'a ministration of righteousness.' But the multitude of religious professors at this day whom I speak of, do not admit this they even protest against the notion. They think Justification to be something not inward, but merely outward; that is, they acknowledge themselves, they claim to be, in the state of the Jews, and though of course they contend that they are (sic) justified, yet they own that their own Justification is not more than an outward or imputative Justification. THERE IS NO ROOM

HERE FOR DIFFERENCE IN THE USE OF WORDS, AND MUTUAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS.”

Newman's Parochial Sermons, vol. vi. Serm. 13. "Judaism of the present day," pp.

199, 200,

Such, then, are the views of MR. NEWMAN; let us next turn to those of his opponents. The BISHOP OF CHESTER (the chosen representative of the other school,) is known to have advised his clergy to read HoOKER's Discourse on Justification at least once every year. The following passages from this Discourse, placed beside the foregoing extract from MR. NEWMAN, while they elucidate the opinions of the opposite party, will shew still further how little ground there is for supposing, as the BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S is content to do, that "the dispute is one of words, involving no real difference of opinion."

If

"Whether they speak of the first or second Justification, they " (the Papists) "make the essence of a Divine quality inherent, they make it righteousness which is in us. it be in us, then IS IT OURS, AS OUR SOULS ARE OURS," (the very comparison used by MR. NEWMAN to establish his own theory-ED.) "though we have them from God, and can hold them no longer than pleaseth him; for if He withdraw the breath of our nostrils we fall to dust: but the righteousness wherein we must be found, if we will be justified, is not our own; therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent quality. Christ hath merited righteousness for as many as are found in him. you see, therefore, that the Church of Rome, in teaching Justification by inherent grace, doth pervert the truth of Christ; and that by the hands of the Apostles we have received otherwise than she teacheth."-Sect. vi. "There is a glorying righteousness of men in the world to come, as there is a justifying and sanctifying righteousness here. The righteousness wherewith we shall be clothed in the world to come, is both perfect and inherent. That whereby we are here justified is perfect, but not inherent. That whereby we are sanctified is inherent, but not perfect. This openeth a way to the understanding of that grand question, which hangeth yet in controversy between us and the Church of Rome, about the matter of justifying Righteousness."-Sect. 3. "When they are required to shew what the righteousness is whereby a Christian man is justified, they answer, that it is a Divine spiritual quality; which quality received into the soul, doth first make it to be one of them who are born of God; and secondly, endue it with power to bring forth such works, as they do that are born of him; EVEN AS THE SOUL OF MAN BEING JOINED TO HIS BODY doth first make him to be of the number of reasonable creatures; and secondly, enable him to perform the natural functions which are proper to his kind."-Sect. 5.

But it would seem that there were some even in HOOKER's day who were inclined, with BISHOP THIRLWALL," to look upon both parties" in this great controversy, “as equally orthodox." Let us hear him yet again.

"Our countrymen in Rheims make the like answer, that they seek Justification no other way than by the blood of Christ; and that humbly they do use prayers, fastings, alms, faith, charity, sacrifice, sacraments, only as the means appointed by Christ, to apply the benefit of his holy blood unto them: touching our good works, that in their own nature they are not meritorious, nor amenable to the joys of heaven; it cometh by the grace of Christ, and not of the work itself, that we have by well-doing a right to heaven, and deserve it worthily. If any man think that I seek to varnish their opinions to set the better foot of a lame horse foremost, let him know, that since I began thoroughly to understand their meaning, I have found their halting greater than perhaps it seemeth to them which know not the deepness of Satan, as the blessed Divine sheweth. For although this be proof sufficient, that they do not directly deny the

cise of peculiar caution and moderation in our judgments on this question.

22. One of these facts is, that the modern theory is admitted to harmonize very closely with that of Bishop Bull, who certainly

foundation of Faith; yet, if there were no other leaven in the lump of their doctrine but this, this were sufficient to prove that their Doctrine is not agreeable to the foundation of Christian Faith."-Discourse of Justification, 33.

After this it can scarcely occasion much surprise to find MR. NEWMAN writing as follows in his Lectures on Justification. Having quoted the last extract adduced from HOOKER, he observes :-"This passage, it must be candidly confessed, is by implication contrary to the sentiments maintained in the foregoing pages; but it does not avail the east as authority against them, for the following plain reason:-because this great author, in the very Treatise in what he so speaks, confesses he is not acquiescing in the theology of the early Church; and since we are not allowed to call any man master on earth, HOOKER, venerable as is his name, has no weight with any Christian, except as delivering what is agreeable to Christian Doctrine, which, as being unanimous and concordant, is Christ's Doctrine." And again, "There is enough in HOOKER's writings and history to shew that this valuable Treatise, written before his views were fully matured, and published after his death, is not to be taken on all points as authority."Lectures on Justification, Appendix, pp. 442, 443.

So wide then is the gulph between the contending parties in this all-important controversy, that the leader and representative of the Tractarian School, is constrained to impugn the authority of HOOKER himself; and this, too, in a "dispute" which the BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S, "after the closest attention he could give to it, views as ONE OF WORDS, INVOLVING NO REAL DIFFERENCE OF OPINION!"-ED.

6 I am indebted to the kindness of PROFESSOR SMITH for the following extracts from the BISHOP OF OSSORY's Treatise on Justification, a work which, unfortunately, has been for some time out of print, but which it is earnestly to be hoped that his Lordship will speedily republish.

The extracts occur in a note by the Professor on the Declension from the true Doctrine of Justification after the Reformers' days; to this note, as well as to the Sermon by which it is preceded, I most gladly take occasion to refer.

"But the boldest and most systematic attempt to substitute the Righteousness of the Law for the Righteousness of Faith in the work of Justification, was that which was put forward by BISHOP BULL. He held that the faith to which Justification is ascribed, is to be understood as embracing the whole circle of Christian virtues, ' suo ambitu omnia Christianæ pietatis opera amplecti ;' in other words, the 'fides formata caritate' of Romish divines. Moreover, he also teaches that the repentance required unto Justification includes divers works, neque pauca, neque ignobilia,' which he enumerates. 1. Sorrow for sin. 2. Humble acknowledgment that we deserve God's wrath. 3. Hatred of sin. 4. Confession of sin. 5. Fervent prayer for mercy. 6. Love of God. 7. Forsaking of Sin. 8. Resolution of new obedience. 9. Restitution of illgotten property. 10. Forgiveness of injuries. 11. Alms. All these are necessary to obtaining remission of sin, (quod nemo ausit negare nisi qui in libertinorum castra se totum dederit.)

"But as the twelfth Article speaks of 'good works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification,' BISHOP BULL is compelled to distinguish Justification into two kinds, a first and a second Justification; and affirms, that external acts of obedience follow the first Justification, and are required for the second Justification; but that only inward obedience and virtues (which are, as he contends, included in faith) are required for the first Justification.

"This system of doctrine has been examined and refuted by the BISHOP OF OSSORY. "What foundation does Article xii., or any other, supply for this distinction of a first and second Justification? Any one who reads these Articles in connexion, must see that the Justification which they describe as effected by Faith, which good works follow, and which no good works precede, that this is the only Justification of which they speak, the Justification which we have for the merits of Jesus Christ. If there be another Justification, the Articles do not speak of it, or even glance at it. They tell us, indeed, of a Justification, before which no good works are done; but they do not intimate to us, in any way, that this is but inchoate, and that there is another Justification, to the obtaining of which all these good works are necessary. Would not this be

AT VARIANCE WITH HOOKER. -BISHOP BULL'S THEORY.

371

believed his views to be in perfect accordance with the formularies of his Church, and though warmly attacked, was never, as far as I know, charged with any of the consequences which have been supposed to flow from them in their more recent form. And I may add, that the work in which Bishop Bull proposed his theory, the Harmonia Apostolica, was strongly recommended to the Clergy of this Diocese by Bishop Horsley, in his Charge at his Primary Visitation, as a "preservative from the contagion of the Antinomian folly."

23. Another fact, still more important, and I think not sufficiently borne in mind, is, that the principal terms employed in the discussion of the subject, which are therefore of most frequent occurrence, admit of so many different senses, that there is perpetual danger of confusion and misunderstanding: so that an eager disputant may carry on the contest through a bulky volume, and yet leave his antagonist's position untouched. When this is the case, nothing is more natural than that complaints should be made of obscurity, confusion, paradox, and self-contradiction: and, accordingly, in no part of the controversy do we hear such complaints

See Jeremy Taylor's Sermon: Fides formata. Works, vol. vi. p. 268.-Edit. Heber.

a strange way of presenting this important doctrine? That there should be three, and but three, Articles given on the subject of Justification, its causes, and effects, and that we should be left in ignorance of what this second Justification is, how it is to be obtained, or even that it has any existence? Is this credible?'

"The eleventh Article establishes that to be justified and to be counted righteous before God, mean the same thing. BISHOP BULL himself determines Justification to be the act by which God, as judge, remits our sins, acquits us, counts us righteous, &c. This is the Justification which we have by Faith only, (Art. xi.) and which good works follow, (Art. xii.) and which no good works precede. (Art. xiii.) Of this Justification, which includes our acquittal by our Almighty Judge, the recognition of our righteousness by Him, and the plenary acceptance by which we have peace with God, the Articles are careful to give us distinct information; of the other, they tell us nothing. If this be but our first Justification, it is the only one of which the Articles speak. If there be a second Justification, which is not by Faith only, and which good works do precede, our Articles are cautiously silent about it, and we may very safely leave it in the same obscurity.'-O'BRIEN on Justification, 396.

"It is this scheme of BISHOP BULL that is adopted by DR. PUSEY, when he says, 'that the great divines of our Church teach that Sanctification has no part in our primary Justification, but that we remain justified by being made righteous; and thus Justification is an act external to us, continued on into an act within us,-(strange confusion of words and ideas!) and is therefore opposed to the Lutheran doctrine of Justification without inherent righteousness' (where note the ambiguous without does it mean not depending on, or not attended by ?)" See The Tractarian and Evangelical Systems: considered as developments of the Letter that killeth and the Spirit that giveth life. A Sermon preached before the Lord BISHOP OF CLOGHER, (and the Clergy of his Diocese, and published at their request) by GEORGE SIDNEY SMITH, D.D., Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, pp. 50, 51.-ED.

7 Surely such terms as those employed in some of the preceding extracts, e. g. "made," "accounted," ," "extrinsic," "inherent," &c., on which the whole controversy turns, are too plain to admit either of "confusion or misunderstanding."-ED.

I cannot omit this opportunity of referring to an admirable publication by the REV. DR. MARSH, of Leamington, entitled "Justification; or a short and easy method of ascertaining the Scriptural view of that important Doctrine."-ED.

more frequently and strongly expressed, than in that which relates to this point.*

24. But though I have not been able to perceive that the doctrine of the Eleventh Article has been put in any peril by the manner in which it is exhibited in that theory, or that this theory affords the slightest countenance to the Romish Doctrine of Merit,8 I am not the less convinced that the ordinary mode of stating the Doctrine of our Church, against which the author so vehemently protests, both expresses it correctly, and sufficiently guards, so far as words can do so, against the abuse of it: and I know of nothing that is likely to be gained by the substitution of any other, unless it be, that it may serve to rouse attention, to exercise thought, and to prevent the mechanical repetition, and consequent idolizing, of a formula.

* It seems very doubtful whether a collection of seemingly paradoxical and selfcontradictory passages, torn from the context of a closely reasoned work, can contribute much either to enlighten the ignorant, or to convince gainsayers.

8 The views of the Tractarians upon the "Doctrine of Merit" have been more fully developed since the delivery of the BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S Charge. MR. NEWMAN in his Sermon on "The Apostolical Christian," says, "Those great surrenders which Scripture speaks of, are not incumbent on all Christians. They could not be voluntary if they were duties; they could not be meritorious if they were not voluntary. But though they are not duties to all, they may be duties to you; and though they are voluntary, you may have a call to them. It may be your duty to pursue merit."-Sermons on Subjects of the Day, pp. 329, 330.-EĎ.

CHAPTER XIV.

BAPTISM.-REGENERATION.

WILSON, BISHOP OF CALCUTTA.-1838.

Vide Par. 24, in Chap. XXVI.

PHILLPOTTS, BISHOP OF EXETER, 1839.

20. To come to particulars. Of BAPTISM, our Church teaches, that the inward grace, of which it is not only the sign, but the sure witness," and the "effectual mean of conveyance, is "a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness;"9 that in and by Baptism Regeneration is given unto us.

21. In the ninth Article, the word renatis, in the Latin copy, is, in the English, baptized, both copies being, as you know, equally original. Surely, this alone is sufficient to prove, that our Church considers the being baptized as the same as being regenerate; for it uses the very terms as convertible.1

9 It will be observed that the words here substituted by the BISHOP OF EXETER to shew the teaching of our Church, are quoted, and that incorrectly, from the general definitions of a Sacrament, in the Catechism and in the Twenty-fifth Article. I say incorrectly, because, in the first place, the expression "effectual mean" does not occur in either of them, nor indeed in any of our formularies; and secondly, our Church does not speak of Baptism as "the sign, the 'sure witness,' the 'effectual mean' of conveyance," but defines a Sacrament to be "a means whereby we receive grace," and declares of Baptism that "it is a sign of Regeneration."

.

I will also venture to suggest that his Lordship does not fairly represent the meaning of the Church when he describes her as teaching that Baptism is "not only the sign, but the 'sure witness,' of inward grace." The antithesis is not between the words "sign" and "witness." In the Twenty-fifth Article, speaking generally of the Sacraments, the Church declares them to be "not only badges or tokens (nota) of Christian men's profession, but rather certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs (signa) of grace and God's good will:" and her meaning is still more plain when she comes to speak, particularly, of the Sacrament of Baptism, in Article Twenty-seven; Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference (professionis signum, ac discriminis nota) but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New Birth (signum regenerationis.)" The language of our Church, correctly stated, gives not the slightest countenance to the notion which confounds the "sign" with the "thing signified," the "sure witness" with that to which it testifies.-ED.

66

1 The word "renatis" occurs twice in the Article on original sin. In the first instance it is rendered in the English "regenerated ;” in the second, as his Lordship ob