Lecture 6 History of the Doctrine as a Subject of Controversy Among Protestants

Few things in the history of the Church are more remarkable than the entire unanimity of the Reformers on the subject of a sinner’s Justification before God. When it is considered that the doctrine of Scripture on that subject is one of the peculiar truths of Revelation,—that it is closely connected with a supernatural scheme of Grace and Redemption,—that it runs counter to some of the strongest tendencies of the unrenewed mind,—that it had long been obscured and perverted by the speculative errors of the Schools, and the practical corruptions of the Church,—that all the Reformers had been bred and trained from their earliest years in a system which had a tendency to foster a spirit of self-righteousness,—that they had been educated in false doctrine, and accustomed to the devout observance of confession, absolution, and penance,—that the theological literature, and even the devotional manuals, of their age were imbued and saturated with principles at variance with the free grace of the Gospel,—that even when they had recourse to the writings of the Fathers, they could only find, here and there, a distinct testimony to the truth, ‘like a light shining in a dark place,’ but obscured, and well nigh extinguished, by the shadows of those errors and superstitions which surrounded it on every side; and yet that, on the dawn of the Reformation, this feeble spark was everywhere kindled into a flame, dispersing the darkness which had been gathering around it for centuries, and consuming the ‘wood, hay, and stubble’ by which it had been overlaid,—that no sooner was the doctrine of a free and full Justification by grace through faith vividly apprehended by the awakened soul of Luther, and by him proclaimed, in accents clear and strong as a trumpet call, to the nations of Europe, than immediately it arrested the attention, and commanded the enthusiastic belief, of multitudes in every land, who had long laboured under the spirit of bondage, seeking rest for their souls, but finding none,—that it henceforth became the watchword and the badge of the Reformation, the rallying-point and bond of union among all believers, still more than their battle-cry in their conflict with Rome,—and that, differ as they might in other respects, they never differed in this, but gave forth a united testimony to the glad tidings of a free salvation by faith in an all-sufficient Saviour,—when these facts are duly considered, the entire unanimity of the Reformers in regard to the substance of the truth which they held and taught, is one of the most remarkable facts in history, and can only be accounted for by ascribing it to a copious effusion of the Holy Spirit, awakening everywhere deep convictions of sin, and enlightening men’s minds in the knowledge of Christ as an all-sufficient Saviour. (1)

Their harmonious concurrence, in all that concerned the substance of the doctrine of Justification, is proved by a comparison of the writings of all the leading Reformers, and of the public confessions, catechisms, and articles of all the Reformed Churches. It is attested also by the assaults of their opponents, who never failed to select this doctrine as the special object of attack, and thereby showed that they regarded it as one which was common to the whole body of the Reformers, and which was justly held to be the very citadel and stronghold of their cause. Doubtless there may be found in the writings of the Reformers, and even in the confessions of the Reformed Churches, as there will always be found in the compositions of men who think for themselves, some diversities of opinion on minor points, and, still more frequently, diverse modes of stating or expressing the same truths; but due allowance being made for these shades of difference, there can be no reasonable doubt, that there was a far more ‘unanimous consent’ among the Reformers on the subject of Justification, than any that has ever been proved to exist among the Fathers on any article of faith whatever. (2)

While unanimity prevailed, among the Reformers and their immediate successors, in regard to the substance of the Gospel doctrine of Justification, Luther knew human nature too well to suppose that the truth could be preserved in its purity without a constant conflict with error; and he predicted more than once the gradual declension even of the Protestant Churches from this fundamental article of faith. He knew that men would invariably grow indifferent to it, in proportion as they became less impressed with a sense of sin, and less alive to the claims of the Law and Justice of God. He was soon taught by observation of what was passing around him, as well as by his own inward experience, that there are, in the heart of every fallen man, two great tendencies,—pointing apparently in opposite directions, but equally at variance with the doctrine which he taught,—the one, a tendency to Legalism, or self-righteous confidence; the other, a tendency to Licence, and Antinomian error. Between these two extreme tendencies, the true doctrine of Justification has often been, as Tertullian said, ‘like Christ crucified between two thieves:’ and all the errors which have arisen on that subject in the Church, may be ascribed to the one or the other, more or less fully developed.

The History of the doctrine of Justification in the Protestant Churches after the Reformation, is of a chequered character, and exhibits a series of successive declensions and revivals. Serious errors in regard to it soon sprung up in many quarters, and have been transmitted to our own times. It may be useful to examine with some care the various forms which the great question has successively assumed; and I propose to offer a brief sketch of the different controversies on this subject which have arisen in the Protestant Churches, during the three centuries which have elapsed since the establishment of the Reformation.

Many real, and very grave, differences of opinion on the subject speedily arose among the multitudes who bore the common name of Protestant,—a fact which we need neither shrink from avowing, nor attempt to disguise, from any idle fear of Bossuet’s argument founded on the alleged ‘Variations of Protestantism.’ For that argument might be retorted with powerful effect, since the ‘Variations of Popery’ are notorious, whether regard be had to the different sects which have always existed at the same time within the pale of the Roman Catholic Church, or to the additions which have been made to her public doctrine, discipline, and worship, at different times in the course of her history. So far from denying the fact of differences amongst Protestants, on the subject of Justification, we avow it, as one that is attested by the best historical evidence, and that might be expected to occur wherever the pure truth of the Gospel was brought into close contact with unrenewed minds. But these heresies were not adopted,—they were abjured, by the Protestant Churches; and the sects which maintained them were not formed into so many ‘religious orders’ holding communion with one another, as belonging to the same fold; but were left to take their own course in a state of separation, as tolerated, without being either sanctioned, or persecuted, by the Churches which continued to adhere to the genuine doctrines of the Reformation.

Some of the different opinions, on the subject of Justification, which arose among Protestants in the sixteenth century, were held only by a few individuals in opposition to the prevailing doctrine of the Churches; while others were embraced by large parties who formed themselves into distinct sects, under some sort of ecclesiastical organization. These errors appeared in several distinct forms.

Among the peculiar opinions of individuals, which gave rise to controversy on this subject during the lifetime of the Reformers, the first place is due to that of A. OSIANDER, both because it indicated a tendency to revive the essential principle of the Romish doctrine, and also because it has been recently reproduced by Dr. Newman. It consisted in affirming, that the righteousness by which we are justified is the eternal righteousness of God the Father, which is imparted to us, or infused, through His Son Jesus Christ;—that it is not the meritorious work, or vicarious righteousness, of the Redeemer imputed to us, but an internal principle implanted. This is the radical principle of the doctrine of Trent; and, as such, it was at once denounced and rejected both by Calvin and Melancthon. (3)

Another divine, LAUTERWALD, of Upper Hungary, broached an opinion different, in some respects, from that of Osiander, but agreeing with it in so far, as it represented our personal, inherent righteousness as the ground of our pardon and acceptance with God. He conceived that our repentance, love, and new obedience, are all included in the faith by which we are justified, and are thus, conjointly with it, the means of obtaining the benefit of Christ’s redemption. The University of Wittemberg pronounced, in 1554, a judgment upon it which was prepared by Melancthon: ‘Though true faith, or reliance on the Saviour, cannot exist in those who go on securely in their sins, and are destitute of contrition, yet contrition and new obedience are not, as Lauterwald would make them, the means of applying the promise of grace…. The promise is embraced and applied only by faith, or affiance in the Mediator, and not on account of our contrition, or the virtues which follow after. Faith relies only on the Mediator, or on the mercies promised for His sake; in which the heart rests, knowing that the promises are sure in Him…. Lauterwald’s corruption of the doctrine does not differ from the Synecdoche of the monks, who say, that faith justifies us, as being the originating principle of love and of good works. But the fact is this, nothing but faith lays hold on the promise. In this, faith differs from all other works, that it embraces the promise, and receives the blessing as unmerited.’ (4)

STANCARI differed from the Reformers, not so much on the subject of Justification, as on that of the Mediatorial character and work of Christ; but the two topics are so closely related, that any serious error in regard to the one must affect our views in regard to the other. He held in substance that Christ’s mediation was discharged by His human nature only, whereas Melancthon showed that it was discharged by His One Person, as did afterwards Calvin and Turretin. The question is important in many respects, but chiefly as the right solution of it is necessary to a correct estimate of the value and efficacy of His vicarious satisfaction, and meritorious obedience. (5)

PISCATOR, also, held some peculiar views on the subject of Justification; but as they form the connecting link between the doctrinal discussions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and exerted a powerful influence on the New Methodists in France, and through them on the Neonomians in England, they will be stated in connection with the history of these movements.

The opinions to which we have hitherto referred were held by individuals only, who professed them within the Churches to which they respectively belonged. But far graver differences on the subject of Justification speedily arose, amongst bodies of men bearing the name of Protestants, who constituted themselves into distinct sects, and stood opposed to the confessions of all the Reformed Churches. These sects were formed under the influence of one or other of two great natural tendencies,—the tendency to Licence, on the one hand, and the tendency to Legalism, on the other. In the sixteenth century, these tendencies were developed, respectively, in two great systems of opinion, which were strongly contrasted with each other, as lying at opposite extremes, while both were, although in widely different respects, at direct variance with the doctrine of the Reformation. The one was the ANTINOMIAN, the other the SOCINIAN, system. Both sprung up during the lifetime of the Reformers, and occasioned them much sorrow; while both survived the vigorous efforts which Luther, Melancthon, and Calvin severally put forth to arrest their progress. They may be said to have appeared simultaneously, as reactions, in opposite directions, against the truth of the Gospel as taught by the Reformers. We shall first notice the Antinomian doctrine,—and thereafter the Socinian system, because the latter was closely connected with the Arminian and Neonomian schemes, in the order of their historical development in the seventeenth century.

The ANTINOMIAN doctrine of Justification, which sprung up among the Anabaptists in Germany, obtained a footing among some sectaries in our own country, and spread to some extent in New England. Its origin has been ascribed, most unjustly, to the teaching of Luther, because he seemed to speak occasionally against the Law, as if believers should regard and treat it as an enemy; but it might with equal justice be ascribed to the teaching of Paul, for he also said, and in the same sense, that ‘the strength of sin is the Law,’ and that ‘we are not under the Law, but under Grace.’ If any one will candidly examine the writings of Luther, with an honest desire to ascertain his real meaning, he will find—that, while he uses, like Paul, some strong expressions, which a more timid, or, as some might say, a more prudent, man would have avoided, he excludes the Law only as ‘a covenant of works,’ and never as ‘a rule of life,’—that he denounces it as the ground of a sinner’s Justification, but never as the guide of a believer’s conduct,—that he will not have it to reign in the Conscience, for the ‘Law worketh wrath,’ and the Gospel only can bring ‘peace,’—but that he leaves it all its rightful authority, first, over the unbelieving sinner as a message of guilt and condemnation,—and, secondly, over the justified believer, as a law which is ‘holy, and just, and good.’ (6)

The Antinomian doctrine of Justification was directly opposed to that of the Reformers, and could not, therefore, be its natural fruit, or its legitimate development. The two came into direct collision at many points; and a few of the most important may be briefly specified, with the view of laying bare the radical principles which were involved in Antinomianism, when, instead of being a mere lawless impulse, it came to be propounded and defended as a doctrinal theory. The advocates of that theory differed from the Reformers, first, in regard to the nature and effects of imputation,—for they were in the habit of speaking, as if the imputation of our sins to Christ had made Him personally a sinner, and even the greatest sinner that ever was; and as if the imputation of His righteousness to us made us personally righteous,—so perfectly, that God can see no sin in believers, or visit them with any token of His fatherly displeasure: secondly, in regard to the nature and effects of our union to Christ,—for they often spoke as if believers were in all respects one with Him, forgetting the wide difference between ‘a union of representation’ and a ‘union of identity:’ thirdly, in regard to the time and manner of a sinner’s Justification—confounding it sometimes with the eternal purpose of election,—sometimes connecting it with the death, or with the resurrection, of Christ,—as if there were no difference between a divine purpose in eternity, and its execution in time, or between the work of Christ in procuring, and that of the Holy Spirit in applying, the blessings of redemption: fourthly, in regard to the use of the Law under the Gospel,—whether regarded as a covenant of works, or as a rule of life: fifthly, in regard to the existence and ill-desert of sin in believers, and the duty of praying for the pardon of it, and cherishing a ‘broken and contrite spirit’ on account of it: and, lastly, in regard to the nature and function of faith, which was represented, not as the means of obtaining pardon and acceptance with God, but rather as the evidence or declaration, merely, of our Justification, by which we obtain the assurance of it; as if it was equally true, but only not so manifest, before we believed. These are the most prominent points of difference between the doctrine of the Antinomians, and that of the Reformers, on the subject of Justification; and they are deserving of careful study, not only because they threatened at first to create a permanent division in the Protestant Church, and even to shipwreck the Reformation altogether, by exciting general prejudice against it, but also because they serve to define the precise doctrine of the Reformers by placing it in contrast with its antagonist errors. The difference between the two is all the more important, because they must severally exercise an opposite influence on the minds of those who embrace them. They relate, not to purely speculative distinctions, but to points of faith which possess a deep practical importance. It may be safely affirmed that the whole spiritual character and experience of a believer who receives the doctrine of the Reformers, will differ from that of a man who is imbued with Antinomian opinions. The former is fitted to produce and sustain—a profound reverence for the divine law,—a deep and abiding sense of sin,—a broken and a contrite spirit,—a godly sorrow, which worketh repentance unto salvation,—an habitual dependence on Christ for pardon,—a holy fear of offending God, and incurring His fatherly chastisement—such as cannot be expected to flow from Antinomian opinions, in so far as they are opposed to the generally received creed of the Protestant Church.

It may be thought that the Antinomian doctrine is obsolete,—that it never acquired a permanent footing in Germany, Britain, or New England, but only appeared for a time among a few sectaries,—and that no danger can arise from this source in these more enlightened times. But when we find that the Apostles themselves were careful to guard against it,—that it sprung up and spread in the wake of the Reformation,—and that it has generally reappeared in connection with any signal revival of religion, it becomes us to remember, that the Antinomian Theory is one thing, and the Antinomian Tendency another,—that the one may be comparatively rare, while the other is alike natural and inveterate,—and that the danger of practical, if not of speculative, Antinomianism, must always exist, as long as the doctrines of Grace are presented to minds which are either entirely carnal, or as yet imperfectly sanctified. The prevailing power of sin in an unrenewed heart, or even the remains of indwelling sin in the believer himself, will ever tend towards an Antinomian perversion of the Gospel; and the last day only will declare how much practical Antinomianism has prevailed even in Evangelical congregations, which theoretically disowned it; and to how many the Gospel itself has thus proved ‘the savour of death unto death.’ (7)

The SOCINIAN doctrine of Justification had its origin in another natural tendency,—the tendency to self-righteousness. It was founded on the peculiar views which its advocates entertained in regard to many other parts of divine truth. They sought to undermine, and, in that way, to overthrow, the doctrine of the Reformers on the subject of Justification, by assailing, and attempting to disprove, some one or more of those truths which are presupposed in it, and which are necessary to its establishment. Hence the controversy with the Socinians turned, not so much on the main question—‘How shall man be just with God?’—as on various other questions, which, however important in themselves, were merely preliminary, and ought to have been conclusively disposed of, before the precise doctrine as to the nature, method, and ground of a sinner’s justification was entertained as a subject for discussion at all. The Socinian doctrine of Justification might, doubtless, have been disproved by express testimonies of Scripture bearing on that precise point,—but the doctrine of the Reformers could not have been established in opposition to it, without the aid of those peculiar truths of Revelation on which it depended; and these truths were either denied, or explained away, by Socinians, so as to impose on their antagonists the arduous task of defending revealed truth at every point along the whole line of theological inquiry. For the Socinian system is inadequately apprehended, when it is supposed to relate merely, or chiefly, to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ—or to consist only of a series of negative conclusions without any positive creed;—it embraced every question in the whole range of Theology, and exhibited a comprehensive scheme of thought, whose constituent parts were all fitly adjusted to each other, and firmly concatenated like links in a chain; and so far from being merely negative, it substituted in the room of every doctrine, which it rejected, a dogmatic deliverance, which it offered to establish by proof, as being either contained in Scripture, or, at the least, not at variance with its real meaning. Its authors dealt largely in destructive criticism, but they aimed also at being constructive; and their doctrines were so closely connected and interdependent, in point of logical sequence, that not one of them could be discussed without reference to all the rest, or detached from the series of which it formed an indispensable part.

The Socinian doctrine of Justification may be stated, in general terms, as amounting, in substance, to this—that sinners obtain pardon and acceptance with God, through His mere mercy, on the ground of their own repentance and reformation. When reduced to its ultimate principle, and stated in its simplest form, it teaches us to rely, not on anything that Christ has done for us, but only on the unchangeable placability of the divine nature, and on that which Christ has taught us to do for ourselves. It is not His work, but our faith, our repentance, our amendment of life, that constitutes the ground and reason of our justification. The radical difference between the Socinian doctrine and that of the Reformers turned on this hinge, and consisted mainly in the opposite answers which they respectively returned to the question,—whether we are justified by a personal, or a vicarious, righteousness? But it is necessary to add, that while they held the ground of a sinner’s justification to be his own personal repentance and reformation, they taught, nevertheless, that, in their own sense of the terms, he is ‘justified freely by grace,’—that he is ‘justified by faith,’—that he is justified by means ‘of the death of Christ,’—and that his faith, repentance, and obedience are not the meritorious or procuring causes of his pardon and acceptance, but simply the conditions on which his enjoyment of these blessings depends. They made large use of all these scriptural expressions, and had no scruple, even, in applying to the death of Christ the sacrificial terms, which the sacred writers employ to describe its expiatory nature, as a satisfaction for sin; but they attached their own meaning to every one of them, and that meaning was entirely different from the sense in which the same terms were understood by the Reformers, and led, of course, to an entirely opposite conclusion. The Socinian doctrine of Justification flows as a corollary from their peculiar views—of God’s justice as a modification of His benevolence,—of man’s relation to God as the universal Father,—of sin as a moral disease or disorder, rather than as a crime involving guilt and demerit,—of the nature and end of punishment as corrective, rather than penal or exemplary,—of the Person of Christ and His mere humanity,—of His mediatorial office and work, as a Prophet, King, and Pattern only, but not as a Priest, at least before His ascension,—of His death as a martyrdom, but not an expiation—as a divine infliction, but not as a proper satisfaction for sin. If these preliminary views were admitted, there could be no room for the justification of any sinner except through the mere mercy of God in pardoning his sin, and accepting him on the ground of his personal repentance and reformation. In like manner, the doctrine of the Reformers, besides being expressly taught in Scripture, flowed as a corollary from the opposite views which they entertained on all these subjects; for if they held that God’s justice requires the punishment of disobedience for the vindication of His law and the manifestation of His glory,—that men are universally chargeable with the guilt of original and actual sin,—that they are alike unwilling to be subject to God’s law, and unable to yield perfect obedience to it,—that for them and their salvation, the Son of God became incarnate, and acted as Mediator between God and man,—that He executed the office of a Priest in offering Himself up as a sacrifice for sin,—that His sufferings were strictly penal, and properly vicarious,—and that they were both appointed and accepted by God as sufficient to render it consistent with His justice to extend mercy to the guilty, and to grant a full and free remission of their sins,—then, holding these views, they could hardly fail to believe that Christ’s work is the meritorious procuring cause, and the only, but all-sufficient, ground of a sinner’s justification. (8)

The Socinian doctrine, originally confined to Italy and Poland, soon spread over the continent, thence made its way into England, and, at a later period, into America. It has since undergone several changes, and has exhibited a tendency to advance in two opposite directions. The Socinianism of Priestley and Belsham was very different from that of Channing and Ellis; and this again from its more recent development by Martineau and Blanco White. It has tended, in one direction, towards Deism and Antisupernaturalism,—a scheme of thought more remote from Christianity than even the meagre doctrine of Socinus; and, in another direction, towards Arianism, which admitted the pre-existence, superhuman dignity, and incarnation of the Saviour, while it denied His supreme divinity; and aimed at a somewhat more spiritual religion, than was generally prevalent among Socinians in former times. In the one case, Socinianism was either Deistic, and then it had no other doctrine of Justification than that of pardon on repentance and reformation; or it was Pantheistic, and then it had no room even for pardon or repentance, since it had no knowledge of sin, except perhaps as a disease, and none of punishment, properly so called, although it admitted suffering as the natural consequence of certain dispositions and habits. But in the other case, where the pre-existence and incarnation of the Saviour were acknowledged, and also His design to save sinners, and to save them, in some way, by means of what He did and suffered, there arose at once the possibility, and the necessity, of a modification of the old Socinian doctrine on the subject of Justification. Hence the new theory of the Arians. (9)

The ARIAN doctrine of Justification was offered as a ‘via media’—a scheme intermediate between that of the Socinians and the Reformers. It has been confounded with the Neonomian theory, but should be distinguished from it; for while all Arians were Neonomians, all Neonomians were not Arians; and their respective doctrines were made to rest on different grounds. Holding their peculiar views of the person of Christ, as the highest of created beings, incarnate, the Arians thought, that they could assign a sufficient reason for His interposition in the affairs of men, and give a Scriptural account of the work which He accomplished on their behalf, without admitting the doctrine of His vicarious satisfaction and righteousness, and yet without adopting the meagre and strained interpretation, by which Socinians explain away all that is revealed concerning the design and effects of His death. Their leading idea was, that, although God was free to forgive sin, as Socinians affirm, without any satisfaction to His justice,—and would probably do so on the repentance of a sinner, since He delights in mercy, and has no pleasure in the infliction of punishment,—yet it might be expedient, if not necessary, for the good of the sinner himself, as well as for the general interests of God’s moral government, to make a distinction between innocent beings and penitent sinners, in His mode of manifesting His love toward them; that while those, who had kept their first estate, were accepted and blessed on their own account, as members of His holy and happy family, His prodigal sons, who had forsaken their Father’s house, but never forfeited their Father’s love, should be restored to it by the good offices of a Mediator, so as to mark the difference between them and those who had never been defiled by sin; that, for this end, the highest of created beings consented to become man,—‘a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,’—that He conversed with men on the earth, instructing the ignorant, healing the diseased, and comforting the wretched, as a teacher and pattern of celestial virtue,—that He devoted Himself even to death for the accomplishment of His sublime mission,—that God accepted His generous interposition, and rewarded it, by giving Him power to save men from sin and all its consequences,—that this reward, being personal to Himself, implied that they were indebted to Him for salvation; so that, in this sense, ‘by His obedience many were made righteous,’—and that, in this way, they would be for ever reminded of their own sinfulness, and of their deep obligation to His generous, self-sacrificing love. (10)

Such is a brief account of the ‘middle system,’—intermediate between the Socinian doctrine and that of the Reformers,—which was broached by some Arian writers in England in the eighteenth century. It relates chiefly to the nature of the remedy which God provided for the evils of our fallen state, and has a direct bearing, therefore, on the doctrine of Justification. It admits that men are benefited by the incarnation, sufferings, and obedience of Christ, as well as indebted to His generous love, and powerful intercession; but it excludes His substitution in their room,—His bearing the burden of their imputed guilt,—His enduring the punishment which their sins deserved,—His offering up of Himself as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice,—His interceding for them as an High Priest who has already made atonement for sin,—His obeying the law as their representative, so as to work out a righteousness which might be imputed to them,—and, generally, His saving them in any other sense than as He is their friend and benefactor; or in any other way, than by the exercise of that authority and power which He acquired, to bestow the forgiveness of sins, on condition of repentance and amendment of life. It ascribes a certain work to Christ, and represents men as being indebted to it: but it is not a work of expiation and redemption, undertaken for the satisfaction of divine justice, and the vindication of the divine law; it is merely a work of voluntary self-abasement and self-sacrificing love, undertaken with a view to the moral benefit of men,—it is the work of a friend and benefactor, not of a vicarious Redeemer, or atoning High Priest. And the benefit which accrues to men from His interposition, is not Justification, on the ground of His satisfaction and obedience, but the assurance merely that they may be justified by their own repentance and amendment,—a privilege for which they are, to some extent, indebted to Him, since His mission was designed to mark the difference betwixt innocent and fallen beings, and to remind them of their sinfulness, while it assured them of God’s unchangeable love,—but which did not consist either in their deliverance from His wrath, or their admission into His favour, on account of what He suffered and did for them.

The SOCIETY OF FRIENDS exhibited a marked difference from the common doctrine of the Protestant Churches, and a near approximation to that of Rome, on the subject of Justification. They were the first to introduce into this country an idea,—which had been broached by some Popish writers as well as by Osiander, and which has been recently revived in the Lectures of Dr. Newman,—that we are justified by the indwelling presence of Christ, and the inward operation of His Spirit. But they went beyond this, for they seemed to identify Christ and His Spirit with ‘the Light within,’ which is common to all men, whether they be Christians or heathens; and which can scarcely be distinguished from natural conscience. Founding on the fact that Christ is said to be ‘the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,’ and that Christ is ‘formed in us, the hope of glory,’ they inferred, that Christ dwells in all men, and that His indwelling presence needs only to be felt and recognised to become the source of spiritual and eternal life. They were thus the precursors of another recent school,—very different from that of Dr. Newman,—the school of modern Spiritualists, whose doctrine is much less original than it is commonly supposed to be, and has never been more ably expounded than in the ‘Theses’ and ‘Apology’ of Robert Barclay.

It is not easy to state their doctrine in precise terms, for it is blended, in the writings of Fox, Penn, and Barclay, with much mystical speculation; but in substance it amounts to this,—that all men have the ‘Light within,’—that in those who receive, and do not resist, the illumination of that Light, it ‘becomes a holy, pure, and spiritual birth,’—that this holy birth is ‘Christ formed within,’ whose presence sanctifies, and, by sanctifying, justifies us in the sight of God. Justification is made to depend, therefore, on the subjective work of Christ in us, not on the Mediatorial work of Christ for us; and to consist, not in the sinner’s pardon and acceptance with God, but in the renovation of his nature, and his consequent blessedness as a new creature. ‘The Light,’ or ‘the Christ within,’ is not the historical Christ of the Gospels, the Son of God incarnate, who came in the flesh ‘to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself,’ and to accomplish, by His own personal sufferings and obedience, ‘the work which the Father had given Him to do;’ it is rather the reason or conscience which belongs to all men, and which would have existed equally if Christ had never appeared on the earth; it is an attribute of human nature, baptized only with the name of Christ. The Justification of a sinner is made to rest on an internal moral change in himself, not on the atoning sacrifice and meritorious obedience of Christ. His satisfaction to divine justice, and the imputation of His righteousness to the believer, are explicitly denied. The forensic sense of Justification is rejected, and the moral sense of that term is substituted for it; the sinner is made holy, and therefore accounted righteous, according to the teaching of the Popish Church. (11)

The ARMINIAN scheme of doctrine, in its earlier form, did not directly affect the subject of Justification. It was not one of the ‘five points.’ The sentiments of Arminius himself on that subject,—as compared with those of his immediate successors, Episcopius, Curcellæus, Limborch, and Grotius,—were, on the whole, but with some important qualifications, sound and scriptural, and in harmony with the faith of the Reformed Churches. He says expressly, ‘I believe that sinners are accounted righteous solely by the obedience of Christ; and that the righteousness of Christ is the only meritorious cause on account of which God pardons the sins of believers, and reckons them as righteous as if they had perfectly fulfilled the law.’ He adds, ‘I am not conscious to myself of having taught or entertained any other sentiments concerning the justification of men before God, than those which are held unanimously by the Reformed and Protestant Churches.’ … ‘None of our divines blames Calvin, or considers him to be heterodox on this point; yet my opinion is not so widely different from his, as to prevent me from employing the signature of my own hand, in subscribing to those things which he has delivered on this subject in the Third Book of his “Institutes;” this I am prepared to do at any time, and to give them my full approval.’

Still there were some points on which he differed from the Reformers; and these may be said to have opened the door, if they did not pave the way, for the admission of those errors which were afterwards introduced under his name. Referring to the question, whether the active, as well as the passive, obedience of Christ is imputed for Justification, he declines, in one place, to decide upon it, and says, in another, ‘I do not enter into the question of the active and the passive righteousness of Christ, or that of His death and of His life. On this subject, I walk at liberty; I say, “Christ hath been made of God unto me righteousness;” “He has been made sin for me, that, through faith, I may be the righteousness of God in Him.” ’ But the chief point on which he differed from most of the Reformers—although his statements in regard to it might, perhaps, be explained in a sense not opposed to theirs—was the proper meaning of the Apostle’s words, that ‘faith was counted for righteousness’—whether the term ‘faith’ is to be understood as having been used, figuratively (by metonymy), for the object of faith, or properly, for the grace or act of faith itself. He held that faith was imputed as an act or state of mind, as Bishop O’Brien also does; but that this was to be understood as comprehensive, not as exclusive, of Christ and His righteousness; for, referring to the charge that, according to his doctrine, ‘Christ and His righteousness are excluded from Justification, and that it is thus attributed to the worthiness of our faith,’ he rejects the inference as not deducible from his sentiments, and adds, ‘I do not deny that the obedience of Christ is imputed to us; i.e. that it is accounted or reckoned for us, and for our benefit; because this very thing—that God reckons the righteousness of Christ to have been performed for us and for our benefit—is the cause why God imputes to us for righteousness our faith, which has Christ and His righteousness for its object and foundation, and why He justifies us by faith, from faith, or through faith.’ But overlooking or disregarding this explanation of his meaning, his followers insisted on the statement that faith,—considered as a grace or act,—is counted for righteousness; and then, by making faith to be a compendious expression for all the other graces which are associated with it, or spring out of it, they made way for the doctrine that our whole obedience is imputed to us for our justification, although Arminius had attempted to guard against this application of his statement, by saying, that ‘faith, and faith only (though there is no faith alone without works), is imputed for righteousness.’

But it was not so much any of his statements on the subject of Justification, as some of the principles which were involved in the ‘five points’ of Arminianism, which led subsequently to the corruption of his doctrine in regard to it. These points had, apparently, no direct or immediate bearing on that subject; but erroneous views in regard to them led inevitably to conclusions, which were incompatible with the doctrine of a free Justification by grace through faith alone. The sentiments of Arminius on these collateral questions exerted, in process of time, an injurious influence on men’s views of Justification, chiefly because they were fitted to obscure the great doctrines of Sin and Grace. A Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian germ was involved in the Arminian doctrine on the five points—an element which might be latent for a time, but which came to be developed when they were defended in controversy; for they could not be maintained without some modification of the scriptural doctrine of Sin, or without making the free grace of God dependent on the free-will of man. Accordingly the Pelagian tendency of the doctrine became more manifest in the immediate successors of Arminius,—Episcopius, Curcellæus, Limborch, and Grotius; and if some who embraced them continued to adhere to Scriptural views, both of the depravity of man, and the satisfaction of Christ, it was not because they had imbibed Arminian principles on the five points, or because they were more consistent than others in maintaining them, but because, under the teaching of God’s Spirit, they had learned from another source, and felt in their own experience, that, as sinners, they were utterly ruined and unable to save themselves, and that they could have no hope of mercy except through a divine Redeemer, and the shedding of His blood as an expiation for sin. In consequence of this real and important difference in the results which followed from the adoption of Arminian views on the five points, it is necessary to divide the adherents of that system into two distinct classes,—the Pelagian or Semi-Socinian Arminians, who still admitted the divinity of Christ and His official character as the Saviour, but denied the penal and expiatory nature of His death, as a satisfaction to divine justice for, the sins of men,—and the Evangelical Arminians, who affirmed the reality of His atoning sacrifice, and trusted in it alone for the pardon of their sins; but were disposed to doubt, if not to deny, the doctrine of imputed righteousness, in so far as it related to Christ’s active obedience in fulfilling the precept of the divine law. (12)

The NEW METHODISTS, of the French Protestant Church, were not Arminians, but they adopted one of the Arminian points—the doctrine of universal redemption; and it led to a great change in their Theology. In them, and their followers, was the pithy remark of ROBERT TRAILL verified, that ‘such men as are for “middle ways” in point of doctrine, have usually a greater kindness for that extreme they go half-way to, than for that which they go half-way from.’ That Church was originally Calvinistic; and their Confession was drawn up by Calvin. The French Protestants were not represented, indeed, at the Synod of Dort; but Molinæus (Du Moulin) assisted in preparing the Canons, and they were afterwards received without objection by the Church which he adorned. But a gradual change in the doctrinal sentiments, first of a few, and afterwards of a larger number, was effected by the introduction among them of the writings of Piscator and Tilenus. At a time when some illustrious Scotchmen,—such as Andrew Melville, Boyd of Trochrig, and John Welsh, the son-in-law of Knox,—had taken refuge among them, and when their Church could number more than two thousand congregations, their Synods began to be agitated by the discussion of the new views. Piscator’s doctrine was, that Christ’s passive obedience is the only ground of Justification. At the third National Synod of Rochelle, his views were considered, and an Act passed in regard to them of the following tenor: ‘Whereas Dr. John Piscator, Professor in the University of Herborn (Nassau), by his letters of answer to those sent him from the Synod of Gap, doth give us an account of his doctrine on the point of Justification,—as that it is only wrought out by Christ’s death and passion, and not by His life and active obedience; this Synod, in no wise approving the dividing of causes so nearly conjoined in this great effect of divine grace, and judging those arguments produced by him for the defence of his cause weak and invalid, doth order that all the pastors in the respective churches of this kingdom do wholly conform themselves in their teaching to that “form of sound words” which hath been hitherto taught amongst us, and is contained in the Holy Scriptures; to wit, that the whole obedience of Christ, both in His life and death, is imputed to us, for the full remission of our sins, and acceptance unto eternal life: and, in short, that this being but one and the self-same obedience, is our entire and perfect justification.’

The doctrine of Piscator, although condemned by several Synods, was adopted by D. TILENUS, Professor at Sedan, who introduced also the views of Arminius on some of the five points. These new views were refined upon by CAMERO, AMYRALDUS, and others, and Calvinism gradually lost its hold on the Reformed Church of France. John Welsh, who was present at the Synod of Rochelle, gives his opinion in a letter to Robert Boyd of Trochrig in 1613, in which, after stating some difficulties which he felt in signing the formula of the Synod, he says, ‘I cannot agree with those who confound remission with imputation, since imputation is the cause of remission, and the cause is always distinct from the effect.’ (13)

The doctrine of Piscator has an important bearing on the ground of a sinner’s Justification before God; for while it ascribed the remission of sins to the passive obedience, or the sufferings and death of Christ, it excluded the imputation of His active obedience, or righteousness, as the believer’s title to eternal life; and thus left a door open for the introduction of his own personal obedience, as the only ground of his future hope, after he had obtained the remission of his past sins.

There were thus brought to bear on the Theology of England, nearly about the same time, two adverse influences, proceeding apparently from opposite sources,—the one from Arminianism, as developed by the Remonstrants in Holland,—the other from New Methodism, as promulgated in the Calvinistic Church of France. Each of the two systems of opinion had its own partisans in this country, both within, and beyond, the pale of the Establishment. There were some who were avowed Arminians, such as John Goodwin, the friend of Milton; there were others who refused to be called Arminians, but preferred the system of the New Methodists, such as Richard Baxter. But the two streams, although they sprang apparently from opposite sources, were flowing, if not in the same channel, yet in the same direction; and they found their confluence, or point of junction, first in the Neonomian theory, which was the ultimate terminus of both, and afterwards in Wesleyan Methodism, which had a direct and most important bearing on the doctrine of a sinner’s Justification.

NEONOMIANISM gave rise to a public and protracted controversy between its advocates and opponents, who were agreed on some of the fundamental truths of Christianity, but differed widely from each other in regard to the method and ground of a sinner’s Justification. It has often been said that the publication of Dr. Crisp’s writings gave rise to the Neonomian Controversy; and there can be no doubt that some of his statements entered largely into the subsequent discussion of it, and served to protract its duration, as well as to increase the vehemence with which it was conducted on both sides. But the real cause of the controversy, was the introduction into England, first of the Arminian, and secondly of the New Methodist, doctrines,—which involved in substance, although not precisely in the same form, the Neonomian theory; since they equally maintained that the immediate ground of a sinner’s Justification was his own personal obedience,—and that this was accepted, although imperfect, if it were only sincere, instead of that sinless righteousness which the Law of God originally required. These doctrines were equally opposed to that of Justification on the ground of Christ’s imputed righteousness; and those who adhered to it were stigmatized, by a strange misnomer, as Antinomians,—whereas, in rejecting the ‘new law’ of grace, they were really contending for the unchangeable authority of the ‘old law’ of works, as one which could not be modified, but must be fulfilled. Under this odious name, they were assailed both by Arminians and New Methodists; while, so far from deserving this treatment, their most strenuous efforts were directed, to vindicate the integrity of God’s Law, and enforce its claims to perfect obedience,—either personal or vicarious,—in opposition to those who sought to accommodate its requirements to man’s fallen state; and the special ground on which they opposed the new doctrine was its irreconcilable variance with the original law of righteousness. So far as this law was concerned, the real Antinomians were those who sought to relax and modify it, so as to substitute an imperfect, for a perfect, righteousness, as the ground of a sinner’s acceptance with God; and those who affirmed the unalterable claims of the original rule of righteousness, while they rejected the new law of grace, simply because it departed from that rule, should have been called, in common fairness, not Anti-Nomians, but ANTI-NEONOMIANS,—since that name would have marked the distinctive difference between the two parties, who severally contended,—the one for the old law which required perfect obedience, such as Christ only could render,—the other for the new law which every man, with the assistance of divine grace, could fulfil for himself. (14)

The Neonomian doctrine of Justification amounts in substance to this—That Christ, by His death, made full satisfaction to divine justice for the sins of all mankind, so as to remove every obstacle to their pardon and acceptance, and to bring them into a salvable state, or to make their salvation possible;—that having satisfied the claims of the old law on their behalf, He procured for them ‘a new law,’ called the law of grace, to distinguish it from the law of works,—a new law, which prescribes easier terms of salvation, and instead of requiring a perfect righteousness as the ground of a sinner’s justification, is satisfied with sincere, though imperfect, obedience;—that the work of Christ, by which these easier terms of acceptance were procured for us, may be called our Legal righteousness, since we are entitled to plead it against the demand of the old law for perfect obedience; but that our Evangelical righteousness consists in our personal obedience to the new law, which we are entitled to plead as sufficient to satisfy the only conditions which it prescribes;—and that the immediate ground of our justification is, not the imputed righteousness of Christ, but the inherent, personal righteousness of the believer himself, which begins with faith, grows with sanctification, and is completed and made sure only by final perseverance.

This general outline or summary represents the sentiments both of the Arminians and the New Methodists in England in the seventeenth century; for while they differed on some minor points, and especially in their mode of stating their respective views, there was a substantial agreement between them on the subject of Justification. They were equally opposed to the doctrine of Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ,—they equally maintained the doctrine of Justification by the personal, though imperfect, obedience of the believer,—and in opposing the one, and maintaining the other, they proceeded on the same principles, and made use of the same arguments. (15)

The WESLEYAN METHODISTS were a favourable specimen of the Evangelical Arminians, who stood opposed, both to the Pelagians on the subject of man’s depravity, and to the Socinians on the subject of Christ’s satisfaction; and yet they differed from the followers of Whitfield, and other evangelical Christians, on the subject of Justification; for while they ascribed the pardon of sin to the merit of Christ’s expiatory death, they did not ascribe the acceptance of the sinner to the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, or vicarious fulfilment of the precept of the divine Law. They agreed generally with Arminius on most of the five points,—but they agreed with him also in maintaining the Priesthood,—the vicarious sufferings,—and the atoning sacrifice, of Christ; and we cannot doubt that, holding so much evangelical truth, many among them have been so humbled under a sense of sin, and so impressed by the justice and mercy of God manifested in the Cross, as to ‘flee for refuge to the hope that was set before them,’ and ‘to receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation,’ although from some confused or mistaken apprehension of its meaning, they might still hesitate to adopt, in its full sense, the doctrine of imputed righteousness. The germ of that doctrine is really involved in what they believe,—for they held the substitution of Christ in the room of sinners,—the imputation of their sins to Him,—and His bearing the punishment which these sins deserved; they further held, that what He did and suffered on the Cross is imputed to believers for their justification,—not what He suffered merely, but what He did, when He became ‘obedient unto death.’ Obedience was involved in His sufferings,—and if this was believed to be imputed to us for the pardon of our sins, as constituting, along with His sufferings, the satisfaction which He rendered to the law and justice of God, then they admitted the principle of His vicarious righteousness, which needs only to be extended so as to include His active obedience in fulfilling the precept, as well as the penalty, of the divine Law.

Wesley’s sentiments on this point seem to have been influenced, to some extent, by his fear that the doctrine of imputed righteousness might be perverted into Antinomian error. In his letters to Hervey, he admits the doctrine, but demurs to the phraseology in which it has often been taught; and urges many of the usual objections to it. Yet no Calvinist could desire a clearer or fuller statement of it than is to be found in one of his ‘Hymns and Spiritual Songs.’

’Join, earth and heav’n, to bless

The Lord our Righteousness.

The mystery of Redemption this,

This the Saviour’s strange design;

Man’s offence was counted His,

Ours His righteousness divine.

In Him complete we shine;

His death, His life, is mine;

Fully am I justified,

Free from sin, and more than free,

Guiltless, since for me He died;

Righteous, since He lived for me.’

In these lines, the active and passive obedience of Christ—that of His life and that of His death—are distinctly recognised; and both are represented as concurring to a full justification. The extreme dread of Antinomianism which was felt by Wesley and Fletcher, and which was justified, they said, by its prevalence among many of their professed converts, should have led them,—not to suspect the doctrine of Christ’s imputed righteousness, which they did not teach,—but rather to inquire whether there might not be something else in their own opinions,—such as the views which they held of the nature of Justification itself,—of the object of justifying faith,—and the immediate enjoyment of personal assurance,—which might better account for the declension of some, and the apostasy of others, than either the doctrine of imputed righteousness, or that of final perseverance, in which their disciples had never been taught to believe. (16)

The MORAVIAN BRETHREN were brought into close connection, for some time, with Mr. Wesley and his Societies. A century before the Reformation, a strong reaction had been excited in Bohemia and Moravia, against some of the corrupt practices and doctrines of the Church of Rome, by the devoted zeal of JOHN HUSS, and the impetuous eloquence of JEROME of Prague. The truth, proclaimed by them, continued to work, like new leaven, in the minds of their countrymen, long after they had sealed their testimony with their blood; and when Luther appeared, the Reformation was joyfully welcomed by the Bohemian Brethren, as well as by the still older Church of the Waldenses. But what is now known as the Moravian Church, or the ‘Unitas Fratrum,’ was organized by Count Zinzendorf at Herrnhutt in the eighteenth century, almost contemporaneously with the rise of Methodism under Wesley; and their theology has been expounded by Spangenberg. From some of their peculiar doctrines they have often been classed among Antinomians, although men of all parties have united in pronouncing the highest eulogiums on the personal worth of many of the Brethren, and on the organization and working of their co-operative settlements. Wesley visited Herrnhutt, and held personal converse with its founder and many of his associates; and there can be no doubt that he derived from them many ideas which he afterwards turned to good account in framing the rules of the Methodist Societies. The two bodies were brought into close connection in England; but they soon differed, and separated from each other, chiefly on account of diversity of opinion on the subject of Justification, and of Wesley’s strong objection to their views, as having, in his opinion, an Antinomian tendency.

The Moravians seem to have differed among themselves in the statement of their doctrine of Justification. Some of the Brethren have stated it in terms which will be cordially assented to by all who hold, that the sole ground of a sinner’s pardon and acceptance is the imputed righteousness of Christ; while others made use of expressions which implied, not only that His meritorious righteousness was imputed, but that His personal holiness also was transfused into the believer, and that sinners became partakers of it so as to become absolutely perfect, simply by believing that they were pardoned, and freed from all sin. (17)

The MARROW controversy in Scotland was a protest against alleged Antinomianism, on the one side, and a reaction against real Neonomianism, on the other. It was occasioned by the republication in this country of a work entitled ‘The Marrow of Modern Divinity,’ which had been written by Edward Fisher, an Independent, and published in 1647 with the approbation of Caryl, Burroughs, and Strong. It was assailed by Principal Hadow, of St. Andrews, in a work entitled ‘The Antinomianism of the Marrow Detected:’ and Mr. Hog, of Carnock, with the brethren who concurred with him in recommending the book, were cited to appear before the Church Courts, and ultimately forbidden to teach the doctrines contained in it. This Act of Assembly gave rise to a keen and protracted controversy, and ultimately led, in concurrence with other causes, to the secession of some of the ablest and best ministers of the Church. The discussion involved many important points of doctrine, but it mainly turned on a question of fact,—the one party affirming, and the other denying, that certain Antinomian errors were contained in Fisher’s work,—while these errors were equally rejected by both. In so far as it related merely to that fact, the controversy could have no permanent importance; and it would have resembled that which was waged between the Jansenists and the Jesuits, whether certain propositions, which were equally disclaimed by both parties, were contained in Jansen’s ‘Augustinus,’—or that between the Neonomians and their opponents in England, whether certain doctrines, which were disclaimed by both parties, were taught in the writings of Dr. Crisp. In regard to this question of fact, in the case of the ‘Marrow,’ we shall only say, that a book which is held even by its admirers to require explanatory or apologetic notes, may be fairly presumed to contain some unguarded expressions, which might be understood in a sense dangerous to some part of the scheme of divine truth; and that this remark applies equally to Fisher’s ‘Marrow of Modern Divinity,’ which was annotated by Thomas Boston, and to Dr. Crisp’s ‘Sermons,’ which were annotated by Dr. Gill.

But we should take a very superficial view of the ‘Marrow’ controversy in Scotland, did we say, either that it related only to the right interpretation of Fisher’s work, or that it originated entirely in its being reprinted by Mr. Hog. Its republication in this country was the occasion, rather than the cause, of the discussion which ensued upon it; and other influences were in operation of a much more powerful kind. The discussion on the ‘Marrow’ was closely connected with the Neonomian controversy in England during the previous century. That scheme of doctrine soon became known in Scotland; and the different views which were held in regard to it were the real, although not the ostensible, cause of the ‘Marrow’ controversy.

We are not warranted, indeed, to say that Principal Hadow, and those who concurred with him in opposing the ‘Marrow,’ had themselves adopted the Neonomian doctrine; for unquestionably their views, as explained in an elaborate statement at the commencement of Hadow’s work, were, on the whole, sound and scriptural,—much more so than the opinions which became prevalent at a somewhat later period, when patronage began again to be enforced with a high hand, and the piety of Scotland withered under the blight of a meagre Arminian or semi-Socinian theology. But we are warranted in saying that, in their opposition to the ‘Marrow,’ they manifested a leaning towards some of the Neonomian views, and that, in assailing its alleged Antinomianism, they did not sufficiently bear in mind the important distinction between Antinomianism, properly so called, and another very different system, which was branded with that name in England, but which ought, as we have said, to have been called Anti-Neonomianism.

The doctrine of Justification was not directly involved in the ‘Marrow’ controversy, for both parties professed adherence to that of the Westminster Confession; but some points closely connected with it were brought into discussion. The adherents of the ‘Marrow’ were charged with holding that assurance is of the essence of faith, and with contradicting, in that respect, the doctrine of the Westminster Confession, which expressly teaches, that while assurance of salvation is attainable, yet ‘it doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it.’ But the Confession relates to a complex assurance, resting on several distinct grounds, and capable of existing in different degrees; for it speaks, first, of can infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation;’ and thereafter of that which is founded on ‘the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God.’ It is of this complex or full assurance, that the Confession says, that ‘it doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may be without it for a time;’ and this was never denied by the ‘Marrow’ divines. They meant merely to bring out the full meaning of the statement, that the assurance of faith is founded, in the first instance, upon ‘the divine truth of the promises of salvation,’ and to give due prominence to the fact, that faith, resting upon a divine testimony, must necessarily involve an assurance of the infallible certainty of whatever God has been pleased to reveal. The assurance of which they spoke was that which is implied in THE DIRECT act of faith, when the sinner first ‘receives and rests upon Christ for salvation as He is freely offered in the Gospel,’—as distinct from, but necessarily presupposed in, that which springs from the REFLEX exercise of faith, when the believer finds in his own experience ‘the inward evidence of those graces,’ which are the scriptural marks of a saving change. The former may not amount to the ‘full assurance’ of which the Confession speaks; but assuredly the latter cannot exist,—cannot even commence,—without it; and it may continue, in the absence of sensible evidence, and in the midst of much darkness and doubt; since it is, in the words of the Confession, that ‘seed of God, and life of faith,’ by which believers, while they ‘walk in darkness, and have no light,’ are, ‘in the meantime, supported from utter despair.’ Many reasons might be stated for insisting, in the first instance, on that assurance which is involved in the direct exercise of faith in Christ. Not only is it necessarily presupposed in every other degree of assurance, but it is the ultimate ground of that which springs from the inward evidence of the believer’s experience itself; for this would be mere presumption, did it not rest, from first to last, on the infallible testimony of God. It is of the utmost importance that men should be taught from the beginning that there is a ground of assured faith and hope, even for the chief of sinners, in the Gospel of Christ, and that they are divinely warranted to rest upon it at once for their own salvation. It is of equal importance that professing Christians should be reminded of the same truth; for there is reason to fear that the want of assurance, of which many complain, often arises from a latent doubt in regard to some of the truths of the Gospel,—that they have never thoroughly believed Jesus to be the Christ, the divinely anointed Saviour of sinners,—that they have never actually received and rested upon Him for salvation,—that they have never realized to themselves the fact, that they are individually warranted, and even commanded, to embrace Him as God’s ordinance for their salvation,—and that, consequently, they have not yet commenced that direct exercise of faith on Christ, in the absence of which there can be no spiritual experience, and no inward evidence, to confirm their hope. True believers themselves may need to be reminded of the direct exercise of faith on Christ, as an indispensable duty, which can never be superseded by any amount of inward evidence, and as an unfailing source of relief and comfort even in their darkest hours; for at such a time, they will find little to reassure them by ‘looking within,’—they must ‘look out’ to Christ the Sun of righteousness, shining still, unchanged and unchangeable, in all His glory, behind the cloud which has cast its transient shadow on their souls. The adherents of the ‘Marrow’ were further charged with holding the doctrine of universal redemption, and insisting that every believer must be able to say, ‘Christ died for me.’ The charge of holding the doctrine of universal redemption, is inconsistent with that of the assurance of personal salvation being of the essence of faith; for, according to the confession of all parties, universal redemption can give only the assurance of salvability, unless it be combined with the additional doctrine of universal salvation; and this they were never supposed to teach. They held that Christ’s death was effectual in procuring salvation for all who were given to Him in the everlasting covenant, and who should hereafter believe in His name. They did not embrace the doctrine of universal redemption; although one of them,—Mr. Fraser of Brea,—had so far adopted the views of Amyrald as to speak of a double reference—special and general—of Christ’s death, while he disowned Amyrald’s doctrine of ‘conditional redemption.’ With this partial exception, if it be one, all the ‘Marrow’ divines adhered to the usual method of stating the design and extent of the death of Christ. They were charged, however, with insisting that every believer should be able to say, ‘Christ died for me.’ If this expression was used by them, it should be understood in a sense that will bring it into accordance with their other views. Their main object was to establish the warrant of every sinner to whom the Gospel comes to receive and rest upon Christ as his Saviour. This warrant they found, not in the unrevealed, but in the revealed, will of God,—not in His eternal decree, but in His inspired Word,—not in His secret purpose, but in His public proclamation, of grace. They knew that the unrevealed will of God forms no part of the rule either of faith or of duty; that His eternal purpose, whatever it may be, and however it may regulate His own dispensations towards His creatures, can, in no way, affect their duty to believe the Gospel, any more than it affects their duty to obey the Law; and that it cannot possibly run counter to His revealed will, since, in common with it, it is determined by all His adorable perfections, and must therefore be infinitely ‘holy, and just, and good.’ (18)

The SANDEMANIAN system was an extreme reaction against the ‘Neonomian,’ and also against the ‘Marrow,’ doctrine, which arose during last century, almost simultaneously in Ireland and Scotland, and which continues to exist, within a limited circle, in the present age, among the followers of Sandeman and Glass, while it has tinged the writings of many who did not, in all respects, embrace their opinions. It was a recoil from the ‘Neonomian’ doctrine which had prevailed in the preceding age, but it went to the opposite extreme, and was equally at variance with that of the ‘Marrow’ divines, for it denied that faith is an act of the mind at all,—or at least an act of the renewed mind, and affirmed that if it were an act of obedience, we must be justified by a ‘work.’ The writings of Sandemanians contain some important truths, and are fitted to correct several prevalent errors; but not content with vindicating the one, and exposing the other, they have gone much further, and have virtually claimed for themselves a monopoly of the only sound view of free Justification by grace, on grounds which bring them into direct collision with the doctrine of the Reformed Churches.

The difference between the two is one of a much more fundamental nature than is generally supposed. It is often regarded as a mere difference of opinion on a metaphysical question respecting the nature and definition of faith; but on deeper inquiry into the grounds on which the Sandemanian doctrine rests, and the arguments by which it is maintained, it will be found to resolve itself into one of the most important questions which ever engaged the attention of the Church. For that question, considered in its widest extent, and reduced to its ultimate analysis, amounts to this,—Whether the work of the Holy Spirit in applying to men individually the redemption purchased by Christ, and producing faith and repentance in them in order to their Justification, be, or be not, inconsistent with a free Justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ? Sandemanians are anxious to reduce faith to a mere intellectual assent, and to exclude from it trust, affiance, and assurance, with everything that is spiritual or holy, or that can be regarded as a moral duty,—for this express reason, that were it considered as including any of these fruits of the Spirit, or as being an act of moral obedience, we must be held to be justified by ‘a work.’ But this reason involves the tacit assumption that faith is itself the righteousness by which we are justified,—for if it be not that righteousness, but merely the means by which we receive and rest on the righteousness of Christ, it may be, as the Protestant Church teaches, a fruit of the Spirit, a holy principle, and even a moral duty, without implying the slightest departure from the doctrine of a free Justification. Let faith itself be excluded, as well as every other grace, from forming any part of the ground of our acceptance, and the work of Christ for us will still remain the only righteousness by which we are justified, while the work of the Spirit in us may be acknowledged in all its fulness and efficacy, as that by which alone we can be so united to Christ as to become partakers of His righteousness. Instead of an intellectual, we may have a spiritual, apprehension of divine truth, and instead of a cold assent, a cordial consent, to the Gospel, without impairing in the slightest degree our reliance on Christ alone. The relation of the work of the Spirit in us to the work of Christ for us is one of the most important subjects in Theology. (19)

The HOPKINSIAN Theology, which sprung up in America early in last century, had an important bearing on the doctrine of Justification, because it rejected the imputation both of sin and of righteousness: and traces of its influence may be discerned in the writings of many transatlantic divines, such as Prof. M. Stuart and Mr. Albert Barnes. If the fundamental principles of representation,—substitution,—imputation,—and satisfaction, be discarded or tampered with, the ground, on which alone the scriptural doctrine of pardon and acceptance with God can be maintained, is undermined; and the Newhaven Theology would present but a feeble barrier to the inroads of Socinianism. But America has furnished a sufficient antidote to these errors in the writings of many distinguished theologians, especially in those of the venerable Dr. Hodge, and his associates in the ‘Princeton Theological Review’ and ‘Essays.’ The subject of Imputation will come under our notice in the sequel. (20)

The enumeration of so many diversities of opinion is apt to create, in some minds, a feeling of perplexity, instead of conveying useful instruction. But that feeling may be mitigated, by considering first, that whatever may be the fluctuations of human opinion, ‘the word of the Lord’—the only rule of faith—is, like its Author, unchangeable—‘the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever,’ and that ‘this is His word which by the Gospel is preached unto us;’ while the subordinate standards of all the great Protestant Churches have continued all along to bear their united testimony to the truth which was established at the Reformation; secondly, that the Scriptures teach us to expect differences of opinion, amounting even to heresies and divisions in the visible Church, and not only so, but to believe that they are wisely permitted, and will be overruled for good, by Him who can bring order out of confusion; for ‘there must be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest;’ thirdly, that in point of fact, controversy has been the great means of defining the truth in all ages of the Church, and a powerful corrective of partial and one-sided views of it; and lastly, that, after all the discussion which it has undergone, the question of Justification may be reduced to two simple alternatives—since our pardon and acceptance must depend either on the free grace of God, or the free-will of man,—and rest either on the imputed righteousness of Christ, or on an inherent righteousness of our own. These are the ultimate alternatives on the subject of Justification, and no one need feel much difficulty in deciding between them, if the opposite errors of Legalism and Antinomianism be both excluded by affirming the equal necessity, and the inseparable connection, of the work of Christ for us, and the work of His Spirit in us, for our actual salvation.