Lecture 7 History of the Doctrine in the Church of England

THE Church of England has often been described as ‘the great bulwark of the Reformation,’ and in some important respects the statement is true. The strongest Nonconformists have cheerfully acknowledged their obligations to the learning, ability, and sound piety of many of her divines. Their writings are a precious legacy to the universal Church of Christ,—an armoury richly furnished with all needful weapons in defence of the common faith,—and a storehouse of spiritual instruction for minds of the highest culture. They did signal service at an early period to the cause of the Reformation; and Protestantism is indebted to them for some of the ablest refutations of the errors of Rome. ‘The Church of England,’ says one who was thoroughly versed in the Popish controversy, ‘contained then’ (in the reign of Charles II.), ‘as it had always done, men of great talent and consummate learning, ready and willing to contend for the cause of truth; and the works then produced by the divines of the Church of England not only constitute a very important part of the Popish controversy, but form one of the noblest monuments of talent and learning which any Church has ever erected in any one generation of its history. Besides many large treatises, in which particular subjects in the controversy between Protestants and Papists were elaborately discussed, an immense number of smaller discourses were published, in which every topic bearing upon the points in dispute was illustrated with great success. Most of them were afterwards collected together by Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London, and published in three folio volumes under the title of “A Preservative against Popery,” which is a complete storehouse of valuable materials upon every department of the controversy.’ (1)

Such was the well-earned character of the Church of England in her earliest and best times. But, if we are to believe some of her modern divines, she never was distinctively Protestant, and was always fully more in accord with the Church of Rome, than with the Churches of the Reformation. In saying so, they refer not merely to her having retained the Episcopal form of government, and some of the litanies, ceremonies, and vestments of the Church of Rome, but also to her having rejected, or at least refused explicitly to sanction, the peculiar views of the Reformers on some important points of doctrine, and especially on the doctrine of Justification. They affirm that the ‘Articles of Religion,’ and even the ‘Homilies,’ do not contain that doctrine, as it was taught by the Reformers, but another, which is clearly distinguishable from it, and which they hold to be the only one that is truly Catholic and Apostolic. They have not attempted to prove that the German and Swiss Reformers, as a body, did not hold the commonly received doctrine of a free Justification by grace, through faith in Christ,—or they might well feel that any such attempt must be utterly hopeless; but they have endeavoured to raise a doubt, in the first instance, whether the same doctrine had been received by the framers of the Articles and Homilies, and then ventured more boldly to affirm that she differed from the first, and that she differs still, from all the other Churches of the Reformation on this fundamental point,—that she never taught, and does not now teach, in any of her authorized formularies, the doctrine of a ‘forensic’ Justification, as it was held by Luther, and Zuingle, and Calvin; but speaks only of a ‘moral’ Justification, consisting in pardon and renovation, or depending, at least, on repentance and obedience,—and that this doctrine of a ‘moral’ Justification is opposed to that of the Reformers, on the one hand,—and yet not identical, in all respects, with that of the Council of Trent, on the other; while it is in entire accordance with the teaching of the Fathers, and the consent of Catholic antiquity. Some of her own sons have thus been found willing to place the Church of England in a state of solitary isolation from all the Reformed Churches in Europe; and not only so, but to represent her as occupying a position of antagonism with them, on the most fundamental article of the Christian faith. (2)

In undertaking the defence of the Church of England and her Reformers on this point, we must advert, in the first instance, to the peculiar line of argument which the writers referred to have adopted, and the specific grounds on which their conclusion is made to rest. They have had recourse,—not to a simple interpretation of the Articles, or an impartial comparison of their statements with the Decrees and Canons of Trent, on the one hand, and the Catechisms and Confessions of the Reformed Churches, on the other—although this would seem to be the most direct method of procedure in a question of such a kind,—but to certain matters of history, which are supposed to throw some light on the sentiments of their compilers, and the sense in which their statements were intended to be understood. They have referred especially to the alleged influence of the more moderate Reformers, such as Bucer and Melancthon, in guiding the leading agents in the English Reformation, and preserving, through them, the Catholicity of the Anglican doctrine. The first remark, which is suggested by such a line of argument, is that, even were the historical facts on which it is founded more undeniably certain than they are, they could only afford, at the best, a mere adminicle of evidence, amounting to a slight presumption, in support of other more direct and cogent proofs; and that the main strength of the evidence must ever lie in the deliberate statements of the English Reformers, whether published by them individually in their respective writings, or embodied by them collectively in the Articles and Homilies which they compiled. The first question here is an exegetical one—What is the natural and obvious meaning of these statements? while the history of their compilation, and of the influences, whether native or foreign, which affected the sentiments of the compilers, can afford no more than an indirect means of arriving at any conclusion in regard to it. Historical facts may afford a slight presumption, on either side of such a question, but can never warrant any attempt to put a forced construction on the Articles, or to explain them in a non-natural sense. The duty of an interpreter, like that of a translator, is simply to render the true meaning of any document, whether he agrees with it or not; and in the present case, as Bishop Kaye has said, to compare the doctrine of the Decrees of Trent with that of the Articles of England, simply as a matter of fact, irrespective altogether of the question—Which is true? (3) Were it possible to prove that, of all the foreign Reformers, Melancthon and Bucer exercised the greatest influence on Cranmer and Ridley; and further, that Melancthon and Bucer differed essentially from Luther and Calvin on the subject of Justification, it would still remain to be proved that the language of the Articles and Homilies admits of being interpreted,—on sound exegetical principles, and without any forced construction, or jesuitical evasion,—in a sense which is opposed to the general doctrine of the Reformers.

But, further, the historical presumption derived from the alleged influence of Bucer and Melancthon on the minds of the English Reformers, which has been applied to give an aspect of verisimilitude to the Anglo-Catholic interpretation of the Articles, is effectually neutralized by two undeniable facts,—first, that Bucer and Melancthon really exercised no exclusive or peculiar influence over Cranmer and Ridley, such as was not equally exercised by Luther and Calvin, by Peter Martyr and John Knox;—and secondly, that, even if they did exercise such an influence, their sentiments on the subject of Justification were in entire accordance with those of the other Reformers. There is no reason to believe that Bucer or Melancthon were more implicitly followed by the English Reformers than Luther or Calvin. It is certain that Calvin was an esteemed correspondent of Cranmer, and that Peter Martyr and John Knox were his zealous fellow-labourers. In fact, for a long time after the Reformation,—down, indeed, to the times of Laud,—the prevailing theology of the most eminent divines of England was the same in substance with that which was then generally received on the continent of Europe. (4) It is not alleged, either that they received it implicitly from Calvin, or Luther, or Zuingle, or that on minor points there might not be different shades of opinion between them; for they were a noble brotherhood of free inquirers, united only in the bonds of the Gospel; and while they gave and received mutual aid in the exposition of the truth, they all alike drew their doctrine mainly from the earnest study of God’s inspired Word. It is true that Bucer and Melancthon differed on some points from Luther, and on others from Calvin; but their sentiments on the subject of Justification were, and always continued to be, in entire accordance with theirs. The only pretext for ascribing to them any laxity of opinion in regard to it, is founded on their having agreed at Ratisbon, for the sake of peace, to concur with the Canons of Cologne in adopting an ambiguous statement of it. But there is ample proof that, as soon as they were made aware of the erroneous construction which might be put upon it, they expressed their deep regret that they should even have appeared to make light of the difference between the Popish and Protestant doctrine,—that they often reiterated, in the most solemn way, and in the most affecting terms, their decided opposition to the one, and their devoted attachment to the other,—and that among all the changes which were introduced into the successive editions of Melancthon’s ‘Common Places,’ there is no trace of any change of opinion on the subject of Justification; while in a paper which he intended as his last will, he declared his adherence to the Protestant doctrine as the life and nourishment of his own soul, and warned his descendants against any concession or compromise in regard to it. For his mature views on this subject, he refers to one of his earliest works, the ‘Prolegomena on Justification’ prefixed to his ‘Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,’ and to all the editions of his ‘Common Places,’ as maintaining the same doctrine, but only more fully explained and established; and on comparing these works with the ‘Treatise on Justification’ by Peter Martyr, his fellow-labourer in England, who was a strict adherent to the doctrine of the Reformers, they will be found to teach in substance the same truth, and to make use of the same scriptural proofs. (5)

But, apart from these historical questions, an appeal may be made at once to the authorized Articles and Homilies of the Church of England; for it seems a needlessly circuitous and roundabout process to make the doctrine which she teaches a matter of mere inference or conjecture, from the influence supposed to have been exercised on her own Reformers by any class of continental divines. When we turn to the Articles, this one fact should be conclusive;—all the Protestant Churches, at home or abroad, Lutheran and Calvinistic, whether they be the adherents of the Augsburg, or the French, or the Belgic, or the Westminster Confessions, will cheerfully accept the 11th Article, and the ‘Homily of Salvation,’ as being in substance a sound and correct expression of their faith on the subject of Justification,—provided only they be allowed to understand them in their plain and obvious meaning. The other Protestant Churches may prefer their respective Confessions, as being either more comprehensive, or more explicit, than the 11th Article, in the statement of some points involved in the general doctrine (6); but, so far as it goes, they will unanimously acknowledge that it contains the substance of what is taught in Scripture on the subject, and that it is in entire accordance with the Protestant, as opposed to the Popish, doctrine. Both before and after the dates at which the Articles of Religion were framed and repeatedly revised, the Protestant doctrine of Justification had taken a firm hold on the convictions of Englishmen; and it has seldom been better explained, or more ably defended, at any later period, than it was in the earlier stages of the controversy by John Foxe, the Martyrologist, in reply to Osorio. At the era of the Reformation, therefore, the Church of England formed no exception to the unanimity which then prevailed in regard to the ground and method of a sinner’s acceptance with God; and if the light of the Gospel, which dawned upon her at first so brightly, has often since then suffered a partial eclipse, she has always preserved her Articles and Homilies as the authorized exponents of her creed; and there have never been awanting, in any age of her history, some faithful and stedfast witnesses to the truth, such as Davenant and Downham, Barlow and Beveridge, Andrewes, and even the ‘judicious’ Hooker,—who continued to shine ‘like lights in a dark place,’ and transmitted a noble testimony to the generation following. (7)

There has long been, and there still is, in the Church of England, a widespread and growing defection from the old Theology of the Reformation; and it is of the last importance that we should form a right estimate of the various influences which have been operating in this country, and especially in the Church of England, since the Reformation, to produce a declension from the faith of the Reformers, and to predispose many to the adoption of views more akin to the Popish, than to the Protestant, doctrine of Justification. These influences proceeded from several distinct sources, and were fitted, when combined, to operate powerfully on the Theology of England; while the remarkable changes which it has undergone can scarcely be accounted for, if any of these causes be left out of view.

The first was the influence of some works, characterized by great ability and learning, which appeared in defence of the Romish doctrine, as it had been defined and declared by the Council of Trent,—such as Bellarmine’s ‘Disputations’ in earlier, and Möhler’s ‘Symbolism’ in more recent, times. (8)

The second was the influence of several works, proceeding both from Popish and Protestant writers, which were designed to prove, either that there was no real difference between the Romish and the Reformed doctrine on the subject of Justification, or that, if there was any difference, it was one of little practical importance. Of this class of works we have a specimen in Bossuet’s ‘Exposition’ on the Popish side, and in Le Blanc’s ‘Theses’ on the Protestant,—while the jesuitical work of Davenport, or Francis à Sancta Clara, attempted to obliterate the difference between the English Articles and the Trentine Canons and Decrees. The influence which these, and similar treatises, exercised on the views of many leading divines in the Church of England, is evident from the statements of such men as Atterbury, Wake, Burnet, Barrow, and Laurence, who may be said to represent so many different parties within her pale. (9)

The third influence which acted powerfully on many English divines, in the way of predisposing them to embrace a doctrine on the subject of Justification more akin to that of the Romish, than of the Reformed, Churches, was the leaven of Arminian and Pelagian error, which was introduced soon after the Synod of Dort, and imbibed by many who continued to adhere to the Thirty-nine Articles. For a time, the Protestant doctrine of Justification was universally professed; but some eminent divines began to question, in the first instance, the truth of what had hitherto been taught respecting the divine decrees, and the final perseverance of believers; and this gradually led on to a thorough change of view in regard to the ground and method of a sinner’s acceptance with God. BARRETT and BARO first raised these questions in the days of Queen Elizabeth, and were proceeded against by the authorities at Cambridge. Subsequently Bishop Montagu avowed their opinions in his ‘Appeal to Cæsar;’ and he was answered by Bishop Carleton, who says expressly that—‘the Church of England was reformed by the help of our reverend and learned bishops,’ … ‘who held consent in doctrine with Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer;’ and—that ‘it was then the open confession both of the bishops and of the Puritans, that both parts embraced a mutual consent in doctrine,—only the difference was in matter of non-conformity; hitherto there was no Puritan doctrine known.’ Bishop Montagu’s book was denounced by the House of Commons as an ‘encouragement to Popery;’ and they further issued a remonstrance in 1628, in which they ‘profess and avow for truth, that sense of the Articles of Religion, which by the public acts of the Church of England, and by the general and current exposition of the writers of our Church, has been delivered unto us; and do reject the sense of the Jesuits and Arminians, and all others wherein they differ from us.’ (10) But the leaven continued to spread, in opposition alike to ecclesiastical and parliamentary authority, and the prevailing doctrine on the subject of Justification was seriously affected by it. The result was the general prevalence of views in regard to it widely different from those of the Reformers, and akin in their radical principle to the Popish idea of Justification by infused and inherent righteousness. This was the doctrine of Bull, of Cave, and of Hoadley. (11)

A fourth cause which had considerable influence on many divines in England, in exciting prejudice against the Protestant doctrine of Justification, and predisposing them to adopt views on that subject scarcely distinguishable from those of the Romish Church, may be found in the extreme opinions of the Antinomian party, which first appeared in Munster, and led to great excesses there, and were afterwards imported into England in the troubled times of the Commonwealth. No dispassionate judge could possibly identify these opinions with the doctrine of the Reformers, or even affect to believe that they flowed from it as its legitimate fruits;—for they were not only disclaimed, but denounced and disproved, both by Luther and Calvin, as being at direct variance with their teaching. Still the fact, that they were openly avowed by sectaries who bore the name of Protestants, and that they had been productive of much moral and social evil wherever they were embraced, had a tendency to revive and strengthen the prejudice which had been felt of old even against the Apostles’ doctrine, as if Justification by grace without works were either naturally fitted to encourage, or might, at least, be easily perverted so as to excuse, the continued indulgence of sin. This prejudice diminished their zeal for the fundamental article of the Reformation, if it did not entirely destroy their belief in it; and while they were subject to its influence, they were presented with a plausible and seductive modification of the old Protestant doctrine, which led to a nearer approximation to that of Rome.

A fifth cause which operated in the same direction was the introduction of the doctrine propounded by the New Methodists in France, and adopted by the Neonomians in England. This new method of stating the doctrine of Justification consisted mainly in substituting the personal righteousness of the believer, for the imputed righteousness of Christ, as that which is the immediate or proximate ground of his acceptance. In this respect, it is substantially the same with the doctrine of the Romish Church; but its Evangelical character was supposed to be sufficiently preserved by ascribing to Christ the whole merit of procuring—not the pardon and acceptance of any sinner—but a ‘new law of Grace,’ whose conditions he might fulfil for himself so as to secure his own justification; a law so relaxed and modified that it does not, like the old law, require perfect obedience, but accepts and rewards any kind or amount of obedience, however imperfect, if only it be sincere. This Neonomian scheme was set up in the seventeenth century in opposition to what was then called the Antinomian doctrine, but really in opposition to the old Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith only; for the real Antinomians were those who imagined that it could either be abrogated or relaxed, so as to admit of a sinner being justified, while it was not ‘fulfilled’ either by himself or his Substitute. Thus the fear of gross Antinomianism, on the one hand, and the subtle influence of Neonomian theories, on the other, accelerated the declension of many English divines from the old doctrine of the Reformers, and led them on till they approached indefinitely near to that of the Church of Rome. (12)

Such were the chief sources of doctrinal declension in the Church of England. But when we speak of the external causes or influences which produced a general defection from the doctrine of the Reformers, and a gradual approximation to that of the Romish Church, we must not forget the operation of another, of a more intimate and permanent kind,—the indigenous tendency to self-righteousness,—which has been aptly termed ‘the natural Popery of the human heart.’ This tendency is alike universal and constant. None are more self-righteous, or more ready to trust in the safety of their own condition, than those who are most habitually ungodly and sinful. If they cannot speak of their good works, they are confident, at least, of their good motives, and good intentions; while others who are moral and reputable in their conduct, trust in their temperate habits, or just dealings, or liberal alms, or religious observances, without inquiring whether these outward actions spring from such principles as a spiritual law imperatively requires. Believers themselves are conscious of this tendency, even after they have been convinced of sin, and renounced all dependence on their own righteousness. ‘I have myself taught,’ says Luther, ‘this doctrine (i. e. “of faith, by which, embracing the merits of Christ, we stand accepted before the tribunal of God”) for twenty years, both in my preaching and my writings; and yet the old and tenacious mire clings to me, so that I find myself wanting to come to God, bringing something in my hand, for which He should bestow His grace upon me. I cannot attain to casting myself on pure and simple grace only, and yet this is highly necessary.’ (13) That the same tendencies which produced the corruptions of Popery are deeply rooted in our common nature, and exist in the Protestant as well as the Romish Church, is the leading principle of Archbishop Whately’s work on ‘The Errors of Romanism;’ but there is a radical defect in his statement, in so far as he overlooks the fact that the Protestant doctrine is designed and fitted to counteract that tendency; whereas both the teaching and the practices of the Church of Rome can only serve to foster and increase it. (14) It is fitly called, therefore, ‘the Popery of the human heart,’ while it is often heard ‘speaking out under a Protestant profession:’ and this was one of the most powerful causes which led many English divines to recoil from the old doctrine of the Reformers, and to approximate to that of the Church of Rome.

The present century has witnessed a still more rapid and signal development of the same tendencies. The rise of the Tractarian School at Oxford,—the appearance of Tract No. XC.,—the recent republication of that tract with a preface by Dr. Pusey,—and the reproduction of Sancta Clara’s Jesuitical ‘Exposition of the Articles of the Anglican Church,’ can hardly fail to be regarded as ominous signs of what may yet be in reserve for the Church of England. (15) But in addition to these, there have been several recent attacks on the Protestant doctrine of Justification, in elaborate treatises on that special subject, proceeding from different schools in the Church of England and Ireland, but all concurring in the same attempt to set aside the old Theology of the Reformation.

First, some disciples of the Alexandrian, or Neo-Platonic School, have virtually superseded the Mediatorial work of Christ,—in so far as regards His vicarious satisfaction and meritorious obedience,—by substituting for it the mere fact of His incarnation, as the ground of our hope towards God; and by representing His Incarnation, rather than His Work, as the means—not of effecting our reconciliation, for on their principles no reconciliation, at least on God’s part, was necessary, or even possible,—but of manifesting merely His unchangeable favour, which was independent alike of our obedience and disobedience, our belief or our unbelief, and which needed only to be attested by Christ’s mission and message, and then realized in our own personal convictions, to remove all distrust of God, and restore us to the conscious enjoyment of His fatherly love. This is the doctrine of Kingsley, Maurice, Stanley, and Robertson. Secondly, some writers have advocated the doctrine of what they call ‘a moral’ Justification on the ground of a righteousness infused and inherent, in opposition to that of a ‘forensic’ Justification on the ground of a righteousness vicarious and imputed. This doctrine is essentially the same with that of the Church of Rome, and has been zealously advocated by Mr. Knox and Bishop Jebb. Thirdly, some writers have attempted to discover ‘a via media’ between the Popish and Protestant doctrine of Justification, or rather to obliterate the difference between the two; such as Dr. Newman and Dr. Pusey,—the former advocating the notion of Osiander in a former age, that we are justified by ‘Christ formed within us,’ or by the indwelling presence by His Spirit, and that His benefits are conveyed through the sacraments, not through faith; while the latter denies that there is any real difference between the doctrine of Rome and that of the Church of England on this article of faith, and no obstacle therefore, on this ground, to their reunion. And, lastly, some writers have reproduced the old, and less refined, doctrine of Justification by works,—holding that, while the redemption of Christ is the ultimate cause of a sinner’s acceptance, its proximate cause can only be his personal obedience to God’s law. This seems to be the conclusion at which Dr. Ryder arrives, in his Donnellan Lectures for 1865, on ‘The Scripture Doctrine of Acceptance with God.’

There is nothing that can appear formidable in these recent speculations to those who are well versed in the great controversies of the three preceding centuries; for they rest on assumptions, which were thoroughly discussed and disproved, by the able and learned men who were successively raised up to defend Protestant truth, against Popery, on the one hand, and Socinianism, on the other. But as they are the most recent forms of error on the subject in this country, and may be regarded as indications of a state of feeling in regard to it, which often prevails where it finds no definite expression, it may be useful to advert, however briefly, to some of the principles which are involved in them, and the reasons on which they respectively depend.

Those writers who supersede the Mediatorial work of Christ as a satisfaction to divine justice, and substitute for it the mere fact of His Incarnation as a manifestation of divine love, found their whole doctrine on a philosophical speculation, in regard to the natural relation which subsists between God and all His intelligent creatures. Their system is, in fact, a Philosophy, rather than a Theology; and, whether it can be traced to the Neo-Platonic School of Alexandria as its source, or may be sufficiently accounted for by ascribing it to the operation of those causes which produced the errors of Socinians and Universalists in more recent times, it depends, as little as either of these systems did, on the authority of Revelation, while it makes free use of scriptural terms in an unscriptural sense.

Leaving out of view the philosophical grounds of their doctrine, and looking merely to its bearing on the method of a sinner’s justification, its first error lies in representing the natural relation which subsists between God and His intelligent creatures as being exclusively that of a Father to His children, and either ignoring or denying another relation, which is at least equally natural, while it is most expressly revealed,—the relation between God as a righteous and offended Lawgiver, Governor, and Judge, and man as being, in his present condition, fallen, guilty, and depraved. They insist much on the relation of paternity and sonship, and hold it to be necessarily involved in that of Creator and creature, in the case of all such living beings as were made ‘in His image and likeness;’ and, consequently, to be as indestructible and unchangeable as the fact of their creation unquestionably is. Their theory, when carried out to the full length of its legitimate application, extends equally to men and angels, since both were created in the ‘image of God;’ and it implies that neither devils, nor fallen men, have ceased to be ‘sons’ or ‘children’ of God, simply because they have not ceased, and never can cease, to be His creatures. That this doctrine enters largely into their teaching, they will readily acknowledge. Taken by itself, and viewed apart from the mystic speculations with which it has been associated, it is the most intelligible part of their system, and one that will be readily accepted by many who care little for the Neo-Platonic or any other philosophy, but who are anxious to be assured that there is not,—never has been,—and never can be,—anything seriously wrong in their relation to God. To such men the following assurances will be most welcome: ‘All may call upon God as a reconciled Father….. Their faith is to be grounded on a foregone conclusion; their acts are to be the fruits of a state they already possess.’ ‘Christ revealed the fact that all men are God’s children. He proclaimed a new name of God—“the Father;” and a new name of man or humanity—“the Son.”…. There is a difference, however, between being God’s child by right, and God’s child in fact. All who are born into the world are God’s children by right. They are not so in fact, until they recognise it, and believe it, and live as such. To believe, and live it, is to be regenerate.’ (16)

In answering these statements, it is not necessary—either to deny that the original relation between God as the Creator, and man as a creature made in His ‘image and likeness,’ might be fitly represented, analogically, by that which subsists between a human father and his children,—or to affirm that, in point of fact, it is not so represented in any part of Scripture. It is only necessary to discriminate aright between that original relation, in which man stood to God while he retained the ‘image’ in which he was created, and two other relations which are widely different from it—the actual relation of men to God in their present state, as being by nature fallen and sinful creatures; and the new relation of sonship, which is constituted by the ‘adoption of grace.’ The original relation in which man stood to God is widely different from that which supervened after his fall, whether he be considered as a subject or as a son; for the relation of subjection and of sonship might equally be affected by sin. If, being fallible, he should fall into transgression, and thereby lose both the image and favour of God, the whole nature of his relation to Him would be changed; and while he might still retain some natural resemblance to Him, as being a spirit, endowed with intelligence and will, he must have lost that spiritual resemblance to Him, which consisted ‘in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness.’ He never ceased to be a creature, but he is now a fallen creature; he never ceased to be a subject, but he is now a rebellious subject; he never ceased to be a son,—in so far as he still possesses a natural resemblance to God, as a spirit, endowed with intelligence and will,—but he is now destitute of His spiritual image, and is one of ‘the children of disobedience,’ and ‘the children of wrath.’ A man does not cease to be a subject, when he becomes a rebel; and no more does he cease to be, in some respects, a son, when he becomes a prodigal.—But the original relation in which man stood to God in his state of pristine innocence, must also be distinguished from that new relation which God sustains to His people as His ‘sons and daughters by the adoption of grace.’ There is an important difference between the two. Were it proved that man, as he was created, stood in such a relation to God as may be fitly denoted by the term sonship, the mere fact, that he was immediately placed in a state of probation, and subjected to a law as the test of his obedience, implies that the continued possession of his rights and privileges, whether as a subject or a son, was conditional, and that he was not so confirmed, either in the one capacity or in the other, as all believers, under the New Covenant, are, by their union with Christ, and their adoption in Him as ‘sons,’ and ‘heirs.’

But we have not yet reached the root of the doctrine. It consists in a theory of Creation, by which its advocates seek to connect the natural sonship of man with the necessary filiation of the eternal Word, by identifying the ‘image’ in which man was created with Him who is declared to be ‘the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of His person.’ They seem to have felt, that the sonship of a creature,—derived, dependent, and fallible,—could not be held to be unchangeable in itself, and that it must be based on the eternal sonship of One who was not a creature, or subject to the conditions of a creature. They attempted, therefore, to establish an indissoluble connection between the sonship of man and that of the Son of God,—such as might warrant them in saying that, ‘by the law of creation, Christ is in every man, and every man in Christ.’ They affirmed, that we were created in Him, and not in Adam, since Adam himself had the root of his being in the eternal Son,—that the Logos is the Archetype of the human race,—that by the constitution of their nature, He is in every man, and every man in Him,—that His indwelling presence is unchangeable, and can never cease to be true,—that it may be hidden or obscured, forgotten or not duly realized, in consequence of the darkness and disorder occasioned by sin, but that it needs only to be discerned and believed to regenerate the soul, and restore it to a conscious enjoyment of God’s unchangeable love,—and that all men, even in their worst state, are, and have always been, and must ever continue to be, the objects of that love, simply because He sees His Son in them, and looks on them as existing in Him. (17)

This doctrine bears a striking resemblance to that of the founders of the Society of Friends, and it might be supposed to have been borrowed from them, if it had not been connected by some of its advocates with the Neo-Platonic Theosophy of Alexandria. (18) The chief difficulty in answering it arises from the extreme difficulty of ascertaining its real import. We were created by the eternal Word, and for Him; but how can it be said, that we were created in Him? WAS HE CREATED? or must there not have been, as Athanasius argued against the Arians, an eternal Son, if there was an eternal Father? (19) And if His divine filiation was necessary and eternal, how can His peculiar, unparalleled, and incommunicable Sonship be shared by any creature, either by ‘the law of creation,’ or even by ‘the grace of adoption?’ Besides, it is not as the eternal Word, but as the Word incarnate,—it is not by the Logos, but by the Loganthropos,—and it is not by the mere fact of His incarnation, but by His Mediatorial work, or what He did and suffered, when He became ‘obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,’ that Christ is the Redeemer of His people; and any doctrine which connects our salvation with His mere Sonship in a state of pre-existence, or even with His Sonship as manifested in time by His incarnation, may be justly said to evacuate the whole Gospel, and to explain away all that is most essential in the scheme and work of human Redemption.

‘Better,’ says Mr. Knox, ‘Continue systematic Calvinists, than become amphibious nondescripts in Divinity.’ That he was not himself a systematic Calvinist, is certain; it is not quite so clear to what other class he belonged. We can only conceive of him as an Eclectic, selecting much, and rejecting more, from every recognised creed in Christendom. There can be no doubt, however, in regard to his doctrine of Justification; for he zealously contends for the ‘moral’ and ‘efficient,’ in opposition to the ‘forensic’ or ‘judicial’ sense of that term, and so far adopts, in substance, the Popish, as distinguished from the Protestant, Theology. He objects, indeed, to the Romish divines on one point,—namely, that they have not been sufficiently careful to give due prominence to what he calls the ‘reputative idea’ which is involved in the term; but this is very far from being the idea of imputed righteousness, which he entirely rejects; it means merely that, in justifying a sinner, God first makes him righteous inherently by grace infused, and then reputes him so to be. Bellarmine and Vasquez would not have objected to such a doctrine; and he seems to have been aware that it was more nearly akin to that of the Popish, than to that of the Protestant, Church, since he expressly rejects the latter as a ‘novelty’ which made its first appearance at the Reformation, and says: ‘I doubt really whether, on the point of Justification, the Romish doctrine is not much more scriptural and rational; as it involves in that term, not the mere accounting, but also the making, righteous’ (i.e. by infused, not by imputed, righteousness), ‘which, when ascribed solely to divine grace, is so far from being, in my mind, an erroneous idea, that I think the scriptural meaning of Justification strictly requires it.’

But the radical error of his theology consists in defective views of the guilt, as distinguished from the power, of sin,—of the curse and condemnation of a broken law,—of the nature and design of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, and meritorious obedience,—of the efficacy of His death, as procuring salvability for all, and securing salvation for none,—and of the extent of that change which a sinner undergoes when he is renewed in the spirit of his mind, as if it implied spiritual perfection in the present life, and excluded all indwelling sin. ‘Of appeasing divine wrath,’ he says, ‘I own I have no idea:’—here is the radical defect; for the ‘revelation of wrath’ comes first by the Law, and then the ‘revelation of the righteousness of God’ by the Gospel; and ignorance or unbelief in regard to the law and justice of God must necessarily disqualify us for judging aright of the nature and effects of the redeeming work of Christ,—while any error in regard to the latter, is fatal to sound views of Justification. (20)

The attempt to construct a ‘via media’ between the Popish and Protestant doctrines of Justification, which was made by Dr. Newman while he was yet a clergyman of the Church of England, resulted only in his laying down, not a third line of rails that should run parallel with the other two, but a crossing merely, by which he, and many of his followers, might effect a passage from the one to the other. He seemed, indeed, to object, on many points, both to the Romish and the Reformed Theology on this subject; but it is remarkable that he invariably represented the one as being merely defective, while he charged the other with being unsound and erroneous; and as defective truth is better than positive falsehood, while it is easier to supply a defect than to neutralize a heresy, he seems to have concluded that it was safer, on the whole, to accept the Popish, than to adhere to the Protestant, doctrine. How striking the contrast, in this respect, between Dr. Newman and Cardinal Bellarmine! The Romish cardinal contended with great ability and zeal, as a first rate controversialist, against the Protestant doctrine, but ended by making his memorable confession—‘IT IS THE SAFEST COURSE,—by reason of the UNCERTAINTY OF OUR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, and the danger of vainglory,—to repose OUR WHOLE TRUST in the mercy and lovingkindness of God ALONE;’ the English clergyman contended, with the utmost activity of a very subtle intellect, for a ‘via media’ of his own, but ended by abandoning the doctrine of the Reformers, and uniting himself to the Church of Rome. (21)

Following out his leading idea, that the Popish doctrine of Justification is defective merely, while the Protestant is positively erroneous, he seeks to supply the defect, in the one case, and to correct the error, in the other, by instituting a comparison between them in respect to each of the leading points on which they differ, and by suggesting his own modifications and amendments on both. For example, he says that ‘Justification by faith,’ and ‘Justification by obedience,’ are often said to be ‘opposite doctrines;’ but he denies this, and affirms that they are ‘separate, but not opposite,’—that ‘they are not at all inconsistent with each other,’ but ‘so compatible in themselves, that they may be held both at once, or indifferently, either the one or the other,’ as being ‘but two modes of stating the same truth.’ Again, he says that ‘Justification by faith,’ and ‘Justification by baptism,’ need not be opposed to one another, for ‘baptism may be considered the instrument on God’s part, faith on ours,’ as ‘faith may receive what baptism conveys.’ And again, in respect to the nature of Justification itself, he says that ‘the change in God’s sight is Justification,—the change within is Regeneration; and faith is the appointed means of both;’ and further, that ‘Justification, with reference to the past, is remission of sins only,’ but ‘with reference to the present and the future, it is renovation also.’ These are only a few specimens of his ‘intermediate doctrine,’ but they are significant enough to show that it has throughout a far greater affinity to Popish error, than to Protestant truth.

Many other points in the theory of Dr. Newman might have claimed our attention, but those which have been specified are sufficient to illustrate its general character. The difficulty which one feels in dealing with it, arises not so much from the strength of his arguments, as from the subtle and intricate terms in which they are expressed,—from the frequent occurrence of paradoxical, or contradictory, statements,—and what Lord Jeffrey called a sort of ‘wriggling lubricity,’ which makes them elude our grasp, the more firmly we attempt to hold them. ‘The least evil of Mr. Newman’s system,’ says Mr. Faber, ‘is, that it is a tissue of contradictions and inconsistencies;’ and he specifies some of them, such as the following: ‘We are justified by faith; we are justified by obedience; we are justified by baptism; we are justified conjointly by the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Our Justification precedes our faith, and our faith precedes our Justification. The word Justification cannot bear two meanings, yet it clearly does bear two meanings, to wit, the accounting righteous, and the making righteous. There is but one act of Justification, nevertheless there are ten thousand Justifications.’ But these are not its worst features; it is an elaborate attempt to overthrow the Protestant doctrine of Justification, and to undermine the only ground of a sinner’s acceptance with God. As such it has been characterized in strong terms by Dr. Bennett, when he says that, since the Council of Trent, ‘perhaps there never has been a book published, at least among Protestants, more full of insidious, but determined, opposition to the Lord Jesus Christ as our righteousness. Contradiction, obscurity, mystification, … monkish gloom, and schismatic profession of dissent from Protestants and from Romanists,—all are brought into the field, to bear against the only righteousness in which a sinner can stand before God.’ (22)

The extent to which some Protestants have departed from the doctrine of the Reformers, on the subject of Justification, could scarcely be placed in a more striking light, than by simply comparing the Disputation of Bishop Davenant with the Lectures of Dr. Newman in England, and the Treatise of Bishop Downham with the Lectures of Dr. Ryder in Ireland, on ‘The Scripture Doctrine of Acceptance with God.’ The two bishops were substantially agreed,—they taught the same doctrine, and defended it by the same scriptural arguments; the two modern divines differ widely from each other, but not more widely than both differ from the Reformers.

The title of the Donnellan Lectures is far from being a correct index to their actual contents. It naturally leads us to expect an exposition of the scriptural doctrine of Justification,—of the meaning of the term according to the usage of the sacred writers,—of the nature of that which is denoted by it, whether as it is an act of God, or a privilege of His people,—of the divine provision by which pardon and acceptance were procured for the guilty, and the provision, equally divine, by which these blessings are effectually applied. But instead of this, the author presents us, in the first instance, with an elaborate metaphysical discussion of the theory of modern Pantheism; and, in the second place, with a singularly meagre proof of his own doctrine of ‘acceptance with God,’ consisting, not of those passages of Scripture which expressly treat of Justification, but of some inferences merely from the historical record of the early diffusion of the Gospel, and the admission of the first converts into the Christian Church. ‘The views I have maintained throughout,’ says Dr. Ryder, ‘upon the scriptural doctrine of acceptance with God, will run counter, I fear, to those of many faithful servants of Christ:’ and assuredly this fear is not groundless, for these views are directly opposed to those of all the Reformers, and not less to the Articles of the United Church of England and Ireland. He distinguishes between what he calls, ‘for convenience sake, the ultimate and proximate causes of man’s acceptance with God,’ and says, that the ultimate cause ‘is, of course, the redemption of the finite being,—the atonement for all sin, original and actual,—the satisfaction for all imperfection,—the “gifts for all men, yea, even for His enemies,”—effected by the objective sacrifice of the Saviour of the world;’ while the proximate cause is variously described, as ‘man’s finite free-will,’—‘the exercise of an independent power of cultivating or neglecting’ his opportunities,—‘his wilful obedience or disobedience.’ His theory recognises the eternal and essential reality of both causes—‘two distinctly co-existent and real agencies, the one absolute and ultimate, the other proximate and relative;’—but what connection subsists between them, has not been ‘revealed,’ and cannot, therefore, be ‘explained.’ (23)

Such are some of the most recent attacks on the great Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith. (24)

It has been said, that ‘a period of about seventy years, or two generations, seems generally sufficient to complete a thorough and entire change in the prevailing system of Theology; that in 1560, under Archbishop Parker, the Church of England was Calvinistic and thoroughly Protestant;… that in 1630,—seventy years after,—under Archbishop Laud, the same Church had become Arminian, and scarcely, or very faintly, Protestant;’ and that if we ‘once more pass over seventy years, and come down to the year 1700, a third, and totally different, school from either of the former meets our view, for the Tillotsons and Burnets are neither of the school of Parker, nor yet do they resemble Laud.’ (25) It may be added to this striking statement, that in two generations more—or about 1770,—the Church of England had reached its lowest point of declension in doctrine and life, and was wrapped in spiritual slumber, from which she was to be partially awakened by the ministry of Whitfield and Wesley, and the volcanic eruption of the French revolution; and that in two generations more, or about 1840, there had sprung up the rival schools at Oxford—the one represented by the ‘Tracts for the Times,’ and tending towards Romanism,—the other by the ‘Essays and Reviews,’ and strongly tinctured with Rationalism. Looking at the progress which these systems have already made, and the actual state of religious opinion in this country at the present day, who will venture to say, what will be the prevailing Theology of our grandchildren when the current cycle reaches its close? God may be pleased once more to pour out His Spirit on the Churches, and to raise up, perhaps from the poorest of His people, a band of humble, but devoted, believers,—men of faith and prayer, as ‘living epistles of Christ known and read of all men,’ the noblest witnesses for Christ in the land. What we most need is a great spiritual revival, which, commencing in the hearts of our congregations, will work from within outwards, and from beneath upwards, destroying ‘the wisdom of the wise, and bringing to nought the understanding of the prudent,’ and making it manifest to all that the Gospel is still ‘mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds.’ Our immediate prospects are dark and threatening; and ‘men’s hearts are beginning to fail them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth.’ What course events may take, it is impossible to foretell; but, looking to mere human probabilities, of two schemes, one or other is likely to be attempted, or perhaps each of them in succession;—either the Established Churches will be stript of a definite creed, if not by a legislative act, by the more insidious method of judge-made law; and made so comprehensive as to include men of all shades of opinion, from semi-Popery, through the various grades of Pelagian, Arian, and Socinian error, down to ill-disguised infidelity; or, if the moral sense of the community revolts from the indiscriminate support of truth and error, then, the entire disestablishment of the Church in these islands, perhaps till the time when ‘all the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our God, and of His Christ.’ Of the Church of Christ there is no fear: she is ‘founded on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.’ Somewhere in the earth she will find an asylum, should it only be as ‘the woman flying into the wilderness:’ but for any particular church, or any particular country, there is no absolute security, that her ‘candlestick will not be removed out of its place, except she repents.’ Let us pray that ‘when the enemy is coming in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord may lift up a standard against him;’ and that those young men, who are about to enter on the ministry ‘in troublous times,’ may have a banner given to them, ‘that it may be displayed because of the truth’—a banner bearing this inspired inscription: ‘I AM NOT ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST; FOR IT IS THE POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION TO EVERY ONE THAT BELIEVETH; FOR THEREIN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD REVEALED FROM FAITH TO FAITH, AS IT IS WRITTEN, THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.’