THE

METHODIST QUARTERLY REVIEW.

JANUARY, 1844.

EDITED BY GEORGE PECK, D. D.

ART. I.-1. Lectures on Justification. By J. H. NEWMAN, B. D., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. Pp. 443. London: J. G. & F. Rivington. 1838.

2. Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism. By Rev. EDWARD B. PUSEY, D. D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, &c. (Oxford Tracts, No. 67.) Pp. 400. London: 1839. New-York: 1841. 3. The Primitive Doctrine of Justification Investigated, &c. By GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B. D. Pp. 514. London: Seely & Burnside. 1839.

4. Oxford Divinity compared with that of the Romish and Anglican Churches, with a special View to the Illustration of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, &c. By the Right Rev. C. P. M'ILVAINE, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ohio. Pp. 546. Philadelphia: J. Whetham & Son. 1841.

"IN the whole range of divine truth," says a modern divine, "there is no subject of greater importance than the one here discussed. It is one of the most prominent doctrines of the New Testament, and affects both the present happiness and everlasting safety of every human being;" a sentiment and opinion in which none will hesitate to unite. To teach fallen man how he may be accepted of God is the purpose contemplated in giving him a revelation ;—the matter of revelation is the instruction necessary to that end. The way of salvation is exclusively a matter of revelation, for human wisdom could neither make the original discovery of the way, nor, when discovered, could it add anything to the knowledge thus gained further than is therein expressly taught or evidently implied.

The Scriptural doctrine of justification is also the distinguishing feature of Protestantism, for the Reformation was only a return from following the traditions of men to the teachings of the Bible. VOL. IV.-1

Hence Luther speaks of this doctrine as articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesia-the article of a standing or falling church; and Calvin asserts that "if this one head were yielded, safe and entire, it would not pay the cost to make any great quarrel in any other matters in controversy with Rome." "The great question," says Hooker, "that hangeth in controversy between us and Rome is about the matter of justifying righteousness. We disagree about the nature and essence of the medicine whereby Christ cureth our disease; about the manner of applying it; about the number and power of means which God requireth in us for the effectual applying thereof to our souls' comfort." Such is the Reformation in its doctrine, as stated by its most eminent ministers-justification by faith alone, in opposition to the Romish doctrine of justification by infused righteousness, attained by the use of real or fictitious

sacraments.

The vital importance of the subject here discussed is our only apology for its introduction; the well-being of the church, relative to both theoretical and practical faith, is intimately implicated with orthodoxy on this point. Temporary circumstances seem too to call for its consideration just now: for the doctrines of the Reformation are again brought into question; not, however, by the open aggressions of Papal minions, but by the silent and stealthy movements of the learned dignitaries of the Anglican Church-the boasted bulwark of the Protestant faith. It would seem that the faith that sustained the martyrs of the sixteenth century, and defied the fires of Smithfield, is now counted so vile a thing by their degenerate sons, that it is voluntarily abjured and cordially detested by them. The religious and literary public need not to be informed of the recent development of a hybrid theology in the University of Oxford, generally known, from the place of its paternity, as "Oxford divinity;" which, while it disowns the name and condemns some of the accidents of Romanism, embraces, without material modification, its doctrine of justification-the soul of its heresies. This defection is doubtless extensively diffused, and has greatly corrupted the fountains of instruction in that ancient communion; but though many, perhaps most of the clergy of that Church, and of her American daughter, sympathize with these restorationists, a large and highly respectable body of the clergy, and the great body of the laity of these churches are still found steadfast in the faith once delivered to the saints-and when lost by defection, regained at a great expense by the martyrs and confessors of Christianity redeemed. Among the heresiarchs who lead the Oxfordists are Dr. Pusey and Rev. J. H. Newman,

whose works are named at the head of this article. On the other side prominent places are due to the writings of Mr. Faber and Bishop M'Ilvaine, whose works on justification are now before us.

Of such a controversy no enlightened Christian can be a mere spectator. It is a contest of the gospel of the New Testament against "another gospel," of Christ against antichrist. As Protestants, therefore, our sympathies are with the defenders of the Protestant faith; but we greatly regret that the defenders of that faith have so generally adopted a phraseology which may lead to practical harm, and which gives the doctrine of justification by faith an unscriptural and indefensible expression. We allude to the continual reference to the active obedience of Christ as a meritorious cause of our justification, assuming that his life, as well as his death, was vicarious and propitiatory. To us this appears to be not only an unscriptural position, but also the fruitful source of Antinomianism, and to cause the doctrine to which it is improperly appended to share its odium, and to be rejected as false. We object to the practice of designating any doctrine which is common to all Protestants by the name of some particular school. It is manifest injustice to such reformers as reject the peculiarities of the Genevese theology to designate the leading doctrines of the Reformation by the name of Calvinism; for that name should always distinguish those peculiarities in doctrine which were proper to the school of Geneva, and in which they differ from other schools of theology, especially from the followers of Arminius. These doctrines are those of divine decrees, irresistible grace, and unconditional election and reprobation; these constitute Calvinism proper, and should always be intended when the term is used. It is granted that most of the clergy of the Anglican and Anglo-American Churches, who are decidedly evangelical, are also more or less Calvinistic, whence some have hastily concluded that its peculiarities are inseparable from the evangelical doctrines of the Reformation. This would indeed have a semblance of truth amounting to probability, were there no considerable exceptions to this rule in Protestant Christendom; but it loses all its claims when there are found many illustrious examples, both of individuals and communities, who at once hold evangelical views, and reject the dogmas of Calvinism. The followers of Wesley, both in Europe and America, are strenuous advocates of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and yet they unanimously reject the peculiarities of the Genevese theology, and glory in the name of Arminians. The evangelical Lutheran Church is another example in point.

It is curious to notice the discrepancies on points mutually granted to be fundamental, among the divines of a Church which boasts of its unity, and is presumptuously set forth as an asylum from schism and dissent. Respecting church polity, they embrace extremes. The present archbishop of Dublin bases ecclesiastical right upon "judgment, prudence, and discretion;" while the chaplains to the queen contend for episcopacy, jure divino, embracing all the peculiarities of their own Church, with a degree of assurance that might surprise an experienced Jesuit. In this country, the full extent of the Oxford heresy is indorsed by several members of the self-styled apostolic college, while the same doctrines are opposed by others of them with a zeal like that of Moses against the golden calf. One party teaches a way of justification by sacraments ex opere operato, the other of justification by faith, through the merits of Christ, without any intervening cause or instrumentality; both appeal to the authoritative teachings of their Church for confirmation of their views, and both profess to be exclusively Churchmen. There is doubtless some uncertainty in the voice of that Church as to justification. Now she seems, as the apostles to the trembling jailor, to say to the inquiring penitent, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved;" then she points to the sacraments as necessary means of acceptance with God. The Oxfordists appear to be highly offended at the name of Protestants, in which sentiment they have many sympathizers on this side of the Atlantic; but it is well known that the early English reformers gloried in that name, and the feelings of the founders of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America are indicated by the name they chose for themselves. These discrepancies are not of recent origin, but are the same that have existed, and occasionally manifested themselves in various forms, since the Reformation. The fundamental Protestant article, justification by faith alone, has found a succession of advocates in the Church of England from Cranmer to the present time; while the Popish doctrine of justification has tinged the theology of that Church at all times, and at certain periods imparted its coloring to the whole teaching of her divines.

Justification, according to Romish and Oxford divinity, is identical with sanctification; the term is understood in its proper etymological sense-to render intrinsically just. The Council of Trent decreed that "man is justified before God, not by the extrinsic righteousness of Christ, but by an intrinsic righteousness, which really as much belongs to him as his soul or his body belongs to him, being inherently infused into him by God through

faith in Christ.-Justification is not merely the remission of sins, but also sanctification and renewal of the inward man by his voluntary reception of grace and gifts.-The only formal cause [of justification] is God's justice, not by which he himself is just, but by which he makes us just, wherewith, being endowed by him, we are renewed in the spirit of our minds, and are not only reputed, but are made truly just." Mr. Alexander Knox, the precursor of Oxfordism, whose works have received the indorsement of the British Critic, writes thus :-"In St. Paul's sense to be justified is not simply to be accounted righteous, but also, and in the first instance, to be made righteous by the implantation of a radical principle of righteousness. What I am impressed with is, that our being reckoned righteous before God, always and essentially implies a substance of righteousness previously implanted in us; and that our reputative justification is the strict and inseparable result of this previous efficient moral justification. I mean, that the reckoning us righteous indispensably presupposes an inward reality of righteousness on which this reckoning is founded." Mr. Newman's views are in accordance with those of Mr. Knox, which, it will have been observed, are the same as those of the Tridentine doctors. His language is this:

"Cleanness of heart and spirit, obedience by word and deed-this alone can constitute our justification.-The gift of righteousness [is] not an imputation, but an inward work.-Justification consists in God's inward presence:-Justification and sanctification are substantially the same thing."

These extracts, which might be multiplied indefinitely, at once show the identity of Oxfordism and Tridentine Romanism, and also teach the nature of justification according to their system; that is, that it is acceptance with God, not as pardoned sinners, but as sanctified saints. Upon this point the learned authors, whose works are now before us, (Faber and M'Ilvaine,) join issue with their brethren at Oxford, and dispute their positions throughout. Mr. Faber's book was elicited in answer to the writings of Mr. Knox; and against that writer's Romanism revived, he evokes the voice of the primitive church, disputing and disproving Milner's unwarranted concession, and Mr. Knox's assumption, that the idea of reputative justification was not known in the church from the end of the first century to the Reformation. He finds and shows that this idea, as distinguished from justification by inherent righteousness, is clearly, though not scholastically, set forth in every age, from Clement of Rome to St. Bernard, so that the cry of "novelty," so sneeringly raised by Mr. Newman and others, is