End Notes

Notes to the Introduction

NOTE 1, p. 9

THE personal experience of the Reformers throws much light on the origin, and causes, of the Reformation.

‘The different phases of this work succeeded each other in the mind of him who was to be the instrument of it, before it was publicly accomplished in the world. The knowledge of the Reformation, as effected in the heart of Luther himself, is, in truth, the key to the Reformation of the Church. It is only by studying the work in the individual, that we can comprehend the general work.’—D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in Europe, 5 vols., vol. i. p. 140.

‘His conscience incessantly reminded him, that religion was the one thing needful, and that his first care should be the salvation of his soul. He had learned God’s hatred of sin,—he remembered the penalties that His Word denounces against the sinner,—and he asked himself tremblingly, if he were sure that he possessed the favour of God. His conscience answered, No!’ … ‘One day, when he was overwhelmed with despair, an old monk entered his cell, and spoke kindly to him. Luther opened his heart to him, and acquainted him with the fears that disquieted him. The respectable old man was incapable of entering into all his doubts, as Staupitz had done; but he knew his “Credo,” and he had found there something to comfort his own heart. He thought he would apply the same remedy to the young brother. Calling his attention, therefore, to the Apostles’ Creed, which Luther had learnt in his early childhood at the school at Mansfeld, the old man uttered in simplicity this article,—“I believe in the forgiveness of sins.” These simple words, ingenuously uttered by the pious brother at a critical moment, shed sweet consolation in the mind of Luther. “I believe,” repeated he to himself on the bed of suffering, “in the remission of sins.” ’—Ib. pp. 159, 187.

‘In these spiritual conflicts and inward wrestlings, how grievously he was encumbered, fighting against incredulity, error, and desperation, marvellous it is to consider, insomuch, that three days and three nights together, he lay on his bed, without meat, drink, or any sleep, labouring in soul and spirit on a certain place of St. Paul (Rom. 3:25, 26) which was—“to show His justice,”—thinking Christ to be sent for no other end but to show forth God’s justice as an executor of His law,—till at length, being answered and satisfied by the Lord touching the right meaning of these words—signifying the justice of God to be executed upon His Son, to save us from the stroke thereof,—he immediately upon the same started up from his bed, so confirmed in faith, as that nothing afterward could appal him.’—Preface to English Version of Luther’s Commentary on Galatians, translated by ‘certain godly learned,’ 1575, p. v.

‘His great terror was the thought of “the righteousness of God,”—by which he had been taught to understand, His inflexible severity in executing judgment against sinners. Dr. Staupitz and the confessor explained to him, that “the righteousness of God” is not against the sinner who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, but for him,—not against us, to condemn, but for us, to justify. “I felt very angry,” he said, “at the term—‘the righteousness of God;’—for, after the manner of all the teachers, I was taught to understand it in a philosophic sense—of that righteousness, by which God is just, and punisheth the guilty…. At last I came to apprehend it thus—Through the Gospel is revealed the righteousness which availeth with God,—a righteousness by which God, in His mercy and compassion, justifieth us, as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith.’ Straightway I felt as if I were born anew; it was as if I had found the door of paradise thrown wide open. The expression ‘the righteousness of God,’ which I so much hated before, became now dear and precious,—my darling and most comforting word. I see the Father—inflexible in justice, yet delighting in mercy—‘just,’ beyond all my terrified conscience could picture Him, He ‘justifies’ me a sinner.” ’—Chronicles of the Schönberg-Cotta Family, pp. 159, 160;—a graphic delineation of the state of feeling which prevailed at the time of Luther.

Many touching allusions to his personal experience occur in the writings of Luther. For example, on the subject of self-righteousness, he says, ‘I have myself taught 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 faith only, and yet this is highly necessary.’ Again: ‘He alludes to his former views when a monk, and the desire he then felt to converse with a saint, or holy person; figuring to himself under that name a hermit, an ascetic, feeding on roots; but he had since learned, that the saint was one, who, being justified in the righteousness of Christ, went on to serve God in his proper calling,—through the Spirit to mortify the deeds of the body, and to subdue his evil affections and desires.’—Scott’s Continuation of Milner’s History, i. pp. 233, 239.

‘Luther became a Reformer, because, in his confessional, he had learned to know the spiritual necessities of the people; because he had compassion on the poor people, even as the Saviour had compassion upon them. It was a hearty pity for the simple and ignorant, whom he, too, saw given up to the Priests, and Pharisees, and Scribes, and cheated of the highest blessings of life; it was a deep manly sorrow over the mistaken road of salvation along which the poor misled multitude were wandering, whereby Luther was inspirited to his first half-timid attempts; whereby, as he advanced, he was strengthened to stedfast perseverance,—whereby, at length, he was raised and arrayed as the mighty champion of evangelical freedom. Luther had rushed deep into the gulf of moral corruption, which was diffused among the lay commonalty, by the Romish doctrine of Justification by works. He knew from the liveliest experience the miserable condition to which the sincerest souls, the devoutest spirits, are reduced by this doctrine. He had found an escape for himself out of this tribulation—a path leading securely to the peace of the soul—in the righteousness of faith. Therefore he could not, and would not, keep silence at that which was going on around him. The princes and priests, indeed, the learned and educated, did not need, for the most part, that he should teach them the meaning of Indulgences, but the common uneducated people urgently demanded his help. This people Luther esteemed as standing exactly on the same level—as requiring, just like all other classes, to be led to the light of a purer knowledge of salvation; he neither deemed himself too high, or the multitude too low, to devote his services to them. In this state of mind, he boldly and powerfully tore down the wall of separation, which had been built up in the course of centuries, between the clergy and the laity. The mass of the laity, who had hitherto only been considered as a helpless body, to be moulded by the priests at pleasure, and to be interceded for by the Church before God, he roused, by the doctrine of Repentance and of Justification by faith, and gave them a living principle of spiritual independence and personality, supplying them with inexhaustible materials for contemplation, in the scriptural ideas of Sin and Divine Grace; and thus, out of the despised objects of an arbitrary away, he fashioned a living organized congregation of Christians, who had become free through their faith in their Redeemer.’—Hemdeshagen, Treatise on German Protestantism. See Archdeacon Hare, ‘Vindication of Luther,’ p. 296.

‘His deep, irrepressible, unappeasable consciousness of sin was the primary motive of his whole public life, and of all that he did for the reformation of the Church. It was on account of this deep feeling of the inward disease in the conscience that he tore off the plasters and lenitives with which the Romish quacks were wont to lull and skin over the wounds at the surface. It was on account of this that he set his foot on the scandalous fraud of Indulgences. It was by reason of this that he saw through the utter vanity of the penances and so-called good works, by which men were idly trying to purge their consciences. He felt, as St. Paul and Augustine felt, that the evil in man does not lie in the imperfection of his outward works, but in the corruption of his heart and will. Therefore did he insist so strongly on the frailty which clings to our very best works; and therefore did he continually urge that, if we are to be justified, it must be wholly through grace, by the righteousness of our Divine Saviour, to be received and appropriated by faith, without any admixture of the works wrought by so frail and peccable a creature.’—Archdeacon Hare, Vindication of Luther, p. 135. See also Pfizer’s Life of Luther.

The experience of Calvin was similar to that of Luther. ‘The Reformation was not the fruit of abstract reasoning; it proceeded from an inward labour,—a spiritual conflict,—a victory, which the Reformers won by the sweat of their brow, or rather, of their heart…. We have on a former occasion sought to discover the generative principle of the Reformation in the heart of Luther: we are now striving to discern it in the heart of Calvin.’—D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Time of Calvin, vol. i. p. 20.

‘His chamber became the theatre of struggles as fierce as those in the cell at Erfurth. Through the same tempests, both these great Reformers reached the same haven. Calvin arrived at faith by the same practical way which had led Farel and Augustine, Luther and Paul.’—Ib. i. p. 522.

’Calvin shut himself up in his room and examined himself. “I have been taught that Thy Son has ransomed me by His death; but I have never felt in my heart the virtue of His redemption.” His Popish professors spoke to him. “The highest wisdom of Christians,” they said, “is to submit to the Church, and their highest dignity is the righteousness of their works.” “Alas!” replied Calvin, “I am a miserable sinner.” “That is true; but there is a means of obtaining mercy. It is by satisfying the justice of God. Confess your sins to a priest, and ask humbly for absolution. Blot out the memory of your offences by good works.” … Calvin went to church, fell on his knees, and confessed his sins to God’s minister, asking for absolution, and humbly accepting every penance imposed upon him…. “O God,” he said, “I desire by my good works to blot out the remembrance of my trespasses.” He performed the satisfactions prescribed by the priest; he even went beyond the task imposed upon him; and hoped that after so much labour, he would be saved. But, alas! his peace was not of long duration…. “Every time I descend into the depths of my heart—every time, O God, I lift up my soul to Thy throne, extreme terror comes over me.” … His heart was troubled; it seemed to him that every word of God he found in Scripture tore off the veil, and reproached him with his trespasses. “I begin to see,” he said,—“thanks to the light that has been brought me,—in what a slough of error I have hitherto been wallowing,—with how many stains I am disfigured,—and, above all, what is the eternal death that threatens me.” A great trembling came over him. He paced his room, as Luther had once paced his cell at Erfurth. He uttered, he tells us, deep groans, and shed floods of tears. Terrified at the divine holiness, like a man frightened by a violent thunder-storm, he exclaimed, “O God! Thou keepest me bowed down, as if Thy bolts were falling on my head.”

‘Then he fell down, exclaiming, “Poor and wretched, I throw myself on the mercy which Thou hast shown us in Christ Jesus; I enter that only harbour of Salvation.” He applied to the study of Scripture, and everywhere he found Christ. “O Father,” he said, “His sacrifice has appeased Thy wrath; His blood has washed away my impurities; His Cross has borne my curse; His death hath atoned for me…. Thou hast placed Thy Word before me like a torch, and Thou hast touched my heart, in order that I should hold in abomination all other merits save that of Jesus.” Calvin’s conversion had been long and slowly ripening; and yet, in one sense, the change was instantaneous. “When I was the obstinate slave of the superstitions of Popery,” he says, “and it seemed impossible to drag me out of the deep mire, God by a sudden conversion subdued me, and made my heart obedient to His Word.” ’—Ib. vol. i. pp. 525–530.

NOTE 2, p. 9

Luther on the Epistle to the Galatians, English Translation (A.D. 1575), pp. 175, 176. Another testimony, equally clear and strong, may be quoted from the same work; for although it abounds in bold, and sometimes unguarded, statements, and is neither a learned nor a critical exposition of the Epistle, yet as a popular statement of Gospel truth, delivered first in the pulpit, and designed for the instruction of his congregation at Wittemberg, it is one of the noblest and freshest utterances which ever proceeded from the heart of a Christian divine. Mr. Ward ventured to say of it in his ‘Ideal of a Christian Church’ (p. 172), that ‘the Commentary, considered intellectually, as a theological effort, is perhaps one of the feeblest and most worthless productions ever written;’ but those who have considered Archdeacon Hare’s estimate of Mr. Ward’s competency to sit in judgment upon it, will probably attach more weight to the testimony of John Bunyan, who says of it, ‘I do prefer this book of M. Luther on the Galatians, excepting the Holy Bible, before all the books that ever I have seen, as most fit for a wounded conscience.’—Hare’s Vindication of Luther, 2d Ed. p. 155.

Luther sets the doctrine of Justification by the blood of Christ through faith, against all the inventions of men, in the following striking terms:—

‘These words,—“the Son of God loved me, and gave Himself for me,”—are mighty thunderings and lightnings from heaven against the righteousness of the Law, and all the works thereof…. What wilt thou do, when thou hearest the Apostle say, that such an inestimable price was given for thee? Wilt thou bring thy cowl, thy shaven crown, thy chastity, thy obedience, thy poverty, thy works, thy merits? What shall all these do? Yea, what shall the law of Moses avail? What shall the works of all men, and all the sufferings of the martyrs, profit thee? What is the obedience of all the holy angels, in comparison of the Son of God delivered, and that most shamefully, even to the death of the Cross, so that there was no drop of His most precious blood but it was shed, and that for thy sins? If thou couldst rightly consider this incomparable price, thou shouldst hold as accursed all these ceremonies, vows, works, and merits, before grace and after, and throw them down all to hell. For it is an horrible blasphemy to imagine, that there is any work whereby thou shouldst presume to pacify God, since thou seest that there is nothing which is able to pacify Him, but this inestimable price, even the death and blood of the Son of God, a drop whereof is more precious than the whole world…. If I through works or merits could have loved the Son of God, and so come unto Him, what needed He to deliver Himself for me? Hereby it appeareth how coldly the Papists handled, yea, how they utterly neglected, the Holy Scriptures, and the doctrine of Faith. For if they had considered but only these words, that it behoved the Son of God to be given for me, it had been impossible that so many monstrous sects should have sprung up amongst them. For Faith would by and bye have answered, Why dost thou choose this kind of life, this religion, this work? Dost thou this to please God, or to be justified thereby? Dost thou not hear, O wretched man, that the Son of God shed His blood for thee? Thus true faith in Christ would easily have withstood all manner of sects. Wherefore I say, as I have oftentimes said, that there is no remedy against sects, or power to resist them, but this only article of Christian Righteousness. If we lose this article, it is impossible for us to withstand any errors or sects…. What mean they to brag so much of works and merits? If I, being a wretched man and a damned sinner, could be redeemed by any other price, what needed the Son of God to be given for me?’—Luther on the Galatians, English Translation, p. 138.

‘The Church had fallen because the great doctrine of Justification through faith in Christ had been lost. It was therefore necessary that this doctrine should be restored to her before she could arise. Whenever this fundamental truth should be restored, all the errors and devices which had usurped its place,—the train of saints, works, penances, masses, and indulgences,—would vanish. The moment the ONE Mediator, and His ONE Sacrifice, were acknowledged, all other mediators, and all other sacrifices, would disappear. “This article of Justification,” says Luther to Brentius, “is that which forms the Church,—nourishes it,—builds it up,—preserves and defends it. It is the heel which crushes the serpent’s head.” ’—D’Aubigné, History of Reformation in Europe, 5 vols., vol. i. p. 73.

‘When the Gospel lifted up its voice in the days of the Reformation, the people listened. It spoke to them—of God, Sin, Condemnation, Pardon, Everlasting Life,—in a word, of Christ. The human soul discovered that this was what it wanted; and was touched, captivated, and finally renewed.’—D’Aubigné, History of the Reformation in the Time of Calvin, vol. ii. p. 399. See also p. 583.

NOTE 3, p. 14

The titles of the works mentioned in the text, and the editions of them which will be referred to, are the following:—

‘Remains of Alex. Knox, Esq.,’ in 4 vols. 8vo, 1834.

‘Thirty Years’ Correspondence between Bishop Jebb and Mr. Knox,’ 2 vols. 8vo, 1834.

Bishop O’Brien, ‘Essays on the Nature and Effects of Faith,’ 2d Edition, 1862.

Geo. Stanley Faber, ‘The Primitive Doctrine of Justification,’ 2d Edition, 1839.

Dr. J. H. Newman, ‘Lectures on Justification,’ 2d Edition, 1840.

Dr. James Bennett, ‘Justification as Revealed in Scripture, in opposition to the Council of Trent, and Mr. Newman’s Lectures,’ 8vo, 1840. Dr. Bennett had previously published a volume entitled, ‘The Theology of the Early Christian Church,’ being the Eighth Series of the Congregational Lecture,—New edition, 1855,—which touches on the subject of Justification, pp. 118–132, and has a direct bearing on the question whether the Protestant doctrine is a novelty which arose in the sixteenth century.

Griffith’s ‘Reply to Dr. Newman’s Lectures,’ commended by Bishop Daniel Wilson, has not come into my hands. Bateman, ‘Life of Bishop Wilson,’ p. 357.

Dr. J. H. Newman, ‘Apologia pro Vita Sua,’ 1864.

NOTE 4, p. 15

Robert Traill (of London), ‘A Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine of Justification,’ Works, vol. i. p. 321. Reprinted by the Free Church Committee on Cheap Publications.

NOTES TO LECTURE I

NOTE 1, p. 17

Many years ago, Bishop O’Brien announced his intention to prepare a History of the Doctrine of Justification; but that intention has not yet been carried into effect, and there is scarcely any work in the English language which can be said to supply the want. It is in every respect desirable, that one so thoroughly competent for the task, in point both of ability and learning, should take up this comprehensive subject, which can only be treated cursorily in a series of Lectures like the present, and would require an entire volume for its illustration.

The sources of information on the subject are either general or special. Some works give the history of the doctrine,—or materials for constructing its history,—in all ages, including the faith of the Church in regard to it under the Old, as well as the New, Dispensation;—others give its history, either in the Old Testament, or in post-apostolic times, only.

To the first class belong the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which must ever have the first place assigned to them, as being inspired records, both of the divine revelations which were vouchsafed from time to time to the Church, and of the faith and worship which were maintained in it from the beginning. A sound exposition of Scripture, which should follow the historical course of Revelation from its commencement to its close in the sacred canon, would be the best history of both.

The ‘Magdeburg Centuriators,’—viz., M. Flacius Illyricus, Joannes Wigandus, Matthæus Judex, Basilius Faber, and others who were associated with them,—were induced to write the History of the Church anew by the conviction, that previous historians had not given due prominence to the doctrinal truths of Scripture, especially to the doctrine of Justification; and they have collected valuable materials for its history, both under the Old dispensation and the New. Two of their number,—Joannes Wigandus and Matthæus Judex,—published separately from their great work, in 1563, a thick quarto volume, entitled, ‘SYNTAGMA, seu Corpus Doctrinœ ex Veteri Testamento tantùm Collectum,’ in which they collect together, under distinct heads, the great truths which are common to both Testaments; and treat ‘De Evangelio,’ p. 944, ‘De Justificatione Peccatoris coram Deo,” p. 962, ’De Fide,’ p. 1003, ‘De Bonis Operibus,’ p. 1019, and other cognate topics. In their larger work, the Centuriators give the history of the doctrine under the New Testament dispensation, but not continuously; the passages which relate to it must be collected from the account of each century. Century I., Book i. c. iv., includes the teaching of our Lord, pp. 9–111, and of the Apostles, pp. 219–278, ‘De Justificatione Hominis coram Deo;’ and the same topic is resumed in each successive century.

The two works of Buddeus,—‘Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti,’ and ‘Ecclesia Apostolica,’—embrace the teaching of both Testaments. Four admirable ‘Exercitations,’ by Witsius, give the history of the opinions which prevailed among the Gentiles and the Jews; also the doctrine which was taught by the Apostles: ‘Miscell. Sacra,’ vol. ii. pp. 668–752. They are entitled, respectively,—‘De Theologia Gentilium in Negotio Justificationis,’ pp. 668–697,—‘De Theologia Judæorum in Negotio Justificationis,’ pp. 698–721,—‘De Controversiis quæ Apostolorum ætate in Ecclesia Christiana circa Justificationem ortæ sunt,’ pp. 721–731,—‘De Mente Pauli in Negotio Justificationis,’ pp. 732–752. These dissertations were occasioned by Dr. Cave’s ‘Antiquitates Apostolicæ,’ on that work being translated and published on the Continent; and were designed as an answer to it. Dr. Cave’s opinion was, that the doctrine, as taught by the Apostles, excluded Justification by ceremonial observances, and left it to depend entirely on Faith; but that this Faith, which is the only condition of the New Covenant, is not any special grace, having an office or function distinct from that of other graces, but is rather comprehensive of them all; and that, therefore, works of evangelical obedience are not excluded from the ground of our acceptance with God. To this class of works may be added President Edwards’ ‘History of Redemption.’

The works which have been mentioned afford materials for constructing the history of the doctrine in the Church both of the Old and New Testaments. Many other works give, more or less fully, the history of the doctrine either in the Old Testament, or in post-apostolic times. Of works on the Old Testament, we may mention, Hengstenberg’s ‘Christology of the Old Testament,’ 4 vols. (T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh), with the older ‘Christology’ of Robert Fleming, jun.; and that most instructive and edifying series of Lectures, in 4 vols., entitled, ‘Christ as made known to the Ancient Church,’ by my late venerable colleague, Dr. Gordon, of the High Church, Edinburgh. Of works relating to the post-apostolic History of the Doctrine, we may mention, Dr. Hagenbach, of Basle, ‘Compendium of the History of Doctrines,’ vol. ii. pp. 267–274, and 447–460; Dr. Shedd, of America, ‘History of Christian Doctrine,’ Book v. ‘History of Soteriology,’ vol. ii. pp. 201–386; Dr. Muenschen, of Marpurg, ‘Elements of Dogmatic History,’ translated by Dr. James Murdoch, 1830, c. vii. pp. 72–80, and 184–190.

Petavius does not treat of Justification as a distinct topic in his ‘Dogmata Theologica’ (6 vols. fol., Antwerp, 1700), but frequent references occur to it; as when he speaks of ‘Preparations for Justification,’ vol. i. lib. x. c. xxvii. s. 12,—of ‘Justice,’ or ‘Righteousness,’ vol. i. lib. vi. c. viii. s. 6; lib. x. c. ii. s. 4, c. xiv. s. 1,—of ‘Justification and Adoption,’ vol. ii. lib. viii. c. 4, 5, 10, 1; in vol. iii. ‘De Pelagianis et Semipelagianis,’ p. 336, and ‘De Tridentini Concilii Interpretations,’ and ‘De Sancti Augustini Doctrina,’ p. 353, when he refers to the conflicting interpretations by Soto and Vega of the Canons and Decrees of the Council, c. xv.; and in vol. v. vi. ‘De Incarnation Verbi,’ in 16 books.

One of the most useful works on the subject is that of J. Forbes (of Corse), ‘Instructiones Historico-Theologicæ.’ See lib. viii. c. 2, 5–10, but especially c. 23, 24, pp. 423–429.

Chemnitz gives ‘Veterum Testimonia de Justifications’ in the first part of his ‘Examen Concilii Tridentini,’ p. 141.

All the general histories of the Church may be consulted, such as Dr. Kurtz’s ‘History of the Old Covenant,’ and Neander’s, Weismann’s, Mosheim’s, and Milner’s, Histories of the Christian Church.

The special sources of information, in regard to the state of the doctrine at particular eras, will be referred to in connection with each of the great controversies which have arisen in regard to it. But full information cannot be obtained by merely reading an historical narative; and recourse must be had to two or three of the best writers on each side of every discussion, as it passes under review.

NOTE 2, p. 21

These various opinions are represented respectively by the following writers:—The first by Dr. Taylor of Norwich, in his ‘Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin,’ and his ‘Key to the Apostolic Writings,’ which are answered by President Edwards in his ‘Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin,’ Works, vol. ii. pt. ii. sec. ii. The second by Henry Dodwell, in his ‘Epistolary Discourse, proving that the Soul is naturally Mortal, but immortalized by its union with the Divine Baptismal Spirit, imparted only by the Bishops;’ which was answered by Dr. S. Clarke in his ‘Letter to Mr. Dodwell.’ It has been recently revived, in a different form, by Mr. Edward White, in his work entitled, ‘Life in Christ’ (1846)—which is directed to prove that ‘Immortality is the peculiar privilege of the regenerate.’ The third by many modern writers, who make spiritual death to consist entirely in sin, as a subjective moral evil, and overlook the wrath and curse of God on account of past transgressions. On this subject, see the profound treatise of Dr. Thomas Goodwin, ‘An Unregenerate Man’s Guiltiness before God in respect of Sin and Punishment,’ Works, vol. x. pp. 1–56, Nichol’s Edition.

NOTE 3, p. 22

Professor M’Laggan’s Lectures, pp. 307–367.

NOTE 4, p. 22

Rom. 4:4: ‘μισθος κατὰ χάριν,—μισθὸς κατὰ τὸ ὀφείλημα.’ ‘Meritum ex condigno’ is distinguished, even by Popish writers, from ‘Meritum ex pacto’ or ‘ex promissione;’ but in treating of the latter, in connection with the rewards which are promised to believers under the New Covenant, they overlook the fact that these are promised on account of the merits of Christ. There is still a wide difference between ‘rewards of debt,’ and ‘rewards of grace;’ for while both were promised,—the one under the first, the other under the second, covenant,—yet the former were to be bestowed on the ground of personal obedience, while the latter are bestowed on account of the obedience of Him with whom the covenant was made on behalf of His people; that is, on the ground of His vicarious and imputed righteousness. ‘The whole tenor of Revelation shows, that there are but two methods whereby any of the human race can be justified: either by a perfect obedience to the law in their own persons, and then “the reward is of debt,” i.e. pactional debt, founded on the obligation of the covenant, not springing from any worth in the obedience. Or else, because the Surety of a better covenant has satisfied all demands in their stead; and then “the reward is of grace,” Rom. 4:4.’—Hervey’s Works, vol. ii. p. 296.

NOTE 5, p. 24

On the first covenant of life, see Witsius, ‘De Œconomia Fœderum Dei,’ lib. i. c. ii.–viii. pp. 8–99; Burmann, ‘Synopsis,’ vol. i. lib. ii. c. ii. pp. 389–475; Bishop Hopkins on ‘The Two Covenants;’ Boston on ‘The Covenant of Works;’ Dr. Russel (of Dundee) on ‘The Adamic and Mediatorial Dispensations’; Dr. Meikle (of Beith) on ‘The Edenic Dispensation;’ Mr. Strong on ‘The Covenants;’ Mr. Barrett on ‘The Covenants,’ pp. 38–75; and many more. As some have denied the literal truth of the Mosaic narrative on this subject, see also Holden’s ‘Dissertation on the Fall of Man, in which the literal sense of the Mosaic Account of that event is Asserted and Vindicated,’ 1823; also Jo. Witty, ‘Vindication of the History of the Fall of Adam,’ 1705.

‘I begin with the first revelation which God made of Himself, and of His will, to man in the beginning of time; and from thence ’I would descend to later revelations, both before, and in, Gospel times. The holy, all-wise God, having created reasonable creatures, gave to them a Law, the rule of that obedience and duty which is the natural result of the relation between God the Creator, and such creatures. This Law required perfect sinless obedience. No less could God call for; no less was suited to the state of innocence and perfection, wherein man was created. This Law, given at first, was written on the heart, and needed not to be externally proposed. That positive prohibition, Not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was but for the trial of obedience; and the tree itself, a sacrament or symbol of death, in case of disobedience, as the tree of life was a symbol or sacrament of life, in case of obedience. These symbols clearly show that the Law was established into a covenant. And a covenant it was, truly and properly; for Adam had no right to deny his consent to the terms which God proposed; and, being yet sinless and holy, he had no will thereto, but agreed both to the preceptive part, and to the sanction, as “holy, just, and good.” ’—Beart, Vindication of the Eternal Law and Everlasting Gospel, p. 2. London, 1753. This work is recommended by Hervey (‘Theron and Aspasio,’ vol. ii. p. 20) as a ‘most excellent treatise,’ which has ‘the very sinews of the argument, and, the very marrow of the doctrine.’ It consists of two parts, and has been frequently reprinted.

NOTE 6, p. 28

The first promise, or primeval Gospel. ‘De Evangelio; Quid sit. Evangelium est doctrina à Deo immediatè patefacta, de gratuita reconciliatione hominum lapsorum, et remissione peccatorum per Messiam, quæ fide accipienda est, adferens atque impertiens justitiam coram Deo, Messiæ passions acquisitam, pacem conscientiæ, et vitam eternam. Hæc definitio ex suavissimis dictis Scripturæ sacræ—Gen. 3:22, et aliis sumpta est.’—Wigandus and Judex, Syntagma, p. 944.

The effect of this revelation of God’s purpose of mercy in changing the whole state and experience of our first parents, is stated, with a grand simplicity, by John Knox, when, speaking of the three cardinal points,—our sin and misery,—God’s promise of grace,—and the effect of faith in it,—he says, ‘All this plainly may be perceived in the life of our first parent Adam, who, by transgression of God’s commandment, fell in great trouble and affliction,—from which he should never have been released, without the goodness of God had first called him. And, secondly, made unto him the promise of his salvation, the which Adam believing, before ever he wrought good works, was reputed just. After, during all his life, he continued in good works, striving contrary to Satan, the world, and his own flesh.’—Knox’s Works, vol. iii. p. 439,—the admirable edition, for which the Church is indebted to David Laing, Esq., of the Library of the Writers to the Signet, Edinburgh.

‘Had Adam felt,’ says Zuingle, ‘that he had anything remaining after his fall which might gain the favour of his Maker, he would not have fled “to hide himself;” but his case appeared to himself so desperate, that we do not read even of his having recourse to supplication. He dared not at all to appear before God. But here the mercy and kindness of the Most High are displayed, who recalls the fugitive, even when, with a traitor’s mind, he is passing over to the camp of the enemy, and not even offering a prayer for pardon; receives him to His mercy; and, as far as His justice would permit, restores him to a happy state. Here the Almighty exhibited a splendid example of what He would do for the whole race of Adam, sparing them, and treating them with kindness, even when they deserved only punishment. Here, then, Religion took its rise, when God recalled despairing, fugitive man to Himself.’—Zuingle, De Vera et Falsâ Religione, p. 169.

‘All the promises,’ says Luther, ‘are to be referred to that first promise concerning Christ, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head,” Gen. 3:15. So did all the prophets both understand it, and teach it. By this we may see that the faith of our fathers in the Old Testament, and ours now in the New, is all one, although they differ as touching their outward object. Which thing Peter witnesseth in the Acts (15:11): “We believe that, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved, even as they.” … The faith of the fathers was grounded on Christ which was to come, as ours is on Christ which is now come. Abraham in his time was justified by faith in Christ to come; but if he lived at this day, he would be justified by faith in Christ now revealed and present. Like as I have said before of Cornelius, who at the first believed in Christ to come, but, being instructed by Peter, he believed that Christ was already come. Therefore the diversity of times never changeth faith, nor the Holy Ghost, nor the gifts thereof. For there hath been, is, and ever shall be, one mind, one judgment and understanding, concerning Christ, as well in the ancient fathers, as in the faithful which are at this day, and shall come hereafter. So we also have a Christ to come; and to believe in Him, as the fathers in the Old Testament had. For we look for Him to come again in the last day with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead, whom now we believe to be come already for our salvation.’—On the Galatians, pp. 187, 188. ‘All the faithful have had alway one and the self-same Gospel from the beginning of the world, and by that they were saved.’ … ’Christ came in spirit to the fathers of the Old Testament, before He came in the flesh. They had Christ in spirit. They believed in Christ which should be revealed, as we believe in Christ which is now revealed, and were saved by Him as we are, according to that saying, “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.” “Yesterday,” before the time of His coming in the flesh; “to-day,” when He was revealed “in the time before appointed.” Now and “for ever” He is one and the same Christ: for even by Him only, and alone, all the faithful which either have been, be, or shall be, are delivered from the law, justified, and saved,—Ibid. pp. 258, 295.

NOTE 7, p. 28

In the question respecting the Justification of Old Testament believers, the principal points are these,—the fact that they were justified,—the reason or ground of their pardon and acceptance,—and the means by which they were made partakers of this privilege.

The fact that they were justified, in the full Gospel sense of that expression, can scarcely be questioned; since they are expressly declared to have been freely forgiven, and restored to the favour and friendship of God. The fact was even divinely attested: Abel ‘obtained witness that he was righteous;’ Enoch, ‘before his translation, had this testimony, that he pleased God’ (Heb. 11:4, 5). They not only possessed, but they enjoyed, this Gospel privilege; for ‘David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin’ (Rom. 4:6, 7; Ps. 32). ‘I acknowledged my sin unto Thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin’ (Ps. 32:5). ‘Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits; who forgiveth all thins iniquities’ (Ps. 103:2, 3). The fact, then, is undeniable that they were justified, in the full sense of that expression,—that they were freely forgiven, and graciously accepted as righteous, so as to be restored to the favour, friendship, and fellowship of God.

The reason or ground of their Justification was not their own personal righteousness,—for they were ‘guilty,’ ‘ungodly,’ unclean,’ unable to ‘stand in judgment,’—but the work of Christ, the promised Seed. For that work, although postponed till ‘the fulness of times,’ had a retrospective efficacy; it was accomplished for ‘the redemption of the transgressions which were under the first testament’ (Heb. 9:15), and Old Testament believers could say, ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was laid upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’ (Isa. 53:5). ‘The covenant (of grace) was differently administered in the time of the Law, and the time of the Gospel: under the Law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were, for that time, sufficient, and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation.’—‘Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof, were communicated unto the elect in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein He was revealed and signified to be “the Seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent’s head,”—and “the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world,” being “yesterday and to-day the same, and for ever.” ’—Westminster Confession of Faith, c. vii. s. 5, viii. s. 6. See Bishop Barlow, ‘Remains,’ pp. 584–593; Bishop O’Brien, ‘Nature and Effects of Faith,’ p. 439; H. Witsius, ‘Animadversiones Irenicæ,’ Mis. Sac. ii. p. 780; Bishop Downham ‘on Justification,’ p. 180.

The means of their Justification was faith. This follows necessarily from its being left to depend on the work of Christ, for that work was still future; it was a matter of promise, and a promise can only be embraced by faith. But it is expressly declared to have been by faith; for it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith’ (Gal. 3:11), and ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness’ (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6). Whether faith was itself their righteousness, and in what sense it was imputed to them, will be considered in the sequel.

NOTE 8, p. 31

The question whether Sacrifice was a divine institution, or a human invention, has given rise to much discussion. On the one side, see Davison, ‘Inquiry into the Origin and Intent of Primitive Sacrifice,’ also a note in his ‘Discourses on Prophecy;’ ‘Correspondence between Bishop Jebb and Mr. Knox,’ vol. i. pp. 455–462; Dr. Sykes, ‘Essay on Sacrifice.’ On the other, Archbishop M’Gee ‘On the Atonement;’ Shuckford’s ‘Connection of Sacred and Profane History,’ vol. i. p. 177, i. 370–385, i. 439–495, iv. pp. 48–60,—American Edition in 4 vols.; James Richie, M.D., ‘Criticism on Modern Notions of Sacrifice,’ particularly recommended by Dr. M’Gee on the ‘Origin of Sacrifice,’ also his ‘Peculiar Doctrines of Revelation,’ p. 137; Dr. John Edwards, ‘Survey of Divine Dispensations,’ vol. i. 91–99; Dr. R. Gordon, ‘Christ as made known to the Ancient Church,’ vol. i. pp. 46–66; Dr. Outram on ‘Sacrifices,’ passim.

The moral meaning, and typical reference, of sacrifice, are well stated by Mr. Beart. ‘The sacrifices of old were offered in the room of the offender, whose “laying his hand thereon” (Lev. 1:4, 3:2) signified the transferring of his sin and guilt unto his victim. As if he should say, “I freely own I have deserved to die for such and such sins; but, Lord, by Thine appointment, I bring here a sacrifice, a poor animal, to die for me: accept it in my stead.” It is true, these sacrifices could not do away sins (Heb. 10:1), but were referred, in their whole typical nature and use, to Christ’s sacrifice, through which there is a real and eternal forgiveness, whereof that ceremonial forgiveness, which was by these sacrifices, was only a type.’—Beart’s Vindication, p. 55. See Hervey’s Works, ii. pp. 60, 88, 97–100, 264; P. Allinga, ‘The Satisfaction of Christ,’ translated by Rev. T. Bell, Glasgow, 1790, pp. 73–90; Dr. John Prideaux, ‘Lectiones Decem,’ pp. 138, 163.

NOTE 9, p. 34

‘The Divine Person who was so often seen by Abraham, when God was said to appear unto him, was our blessed Saviour, then in being ages before He “took upon Him the seed of Abraham.” Abraham, therefore, literally speaking, saw Him; and our Saviour might very justly conclude from Abraham’s thus seeing Him, that He was really in being before Abraham. Abraham built his altars, not unto God, whom “no man hath seen at any time,” but unto “the Lord who appeared unto him;” and in all the accounts we have of his prayers, we find that they were offered up in the name of this Lord.’—Dr. S. Shuckford’s Connection, vol. i. p. 177.

NOTE 10, p. 36

On the Justification of Abraham, see Witsius, ‘De Mente Pauli circa Justificationem,’ Mis. Sac. vol. ii. p. 740; Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise on Justification,’ pp. 317–319, 432, 486; Brown (of Wamphray), ‘The Life of Justification Opened,’ pp. 116, 117; Dr. John Prideaux, ‘Lectiones Decem,’ p. 159; Buddeus, Misc. Sacr. vol. ii. p. 250.

NOTE 11, p. 37

On the Theology of the Patriarchs, see J. H. Heidegger of Zurich, ‘De Historia Sacra Patriarcharum, Exercitationes Selectæ,’ 1667; Jurieu, ‘Critical History of the Doctrines and Worship of the Church from Adam to our Saviour,’ 2 vols. 8vo, translated and published at London in 1705, vol. i. c. 1; J. T. Biddulph, ‘The Theology of the early Patriarchs,’ 2 vols. 8vo, 1825; and Dr. Harris, ‘Patriarchy,’ a sequel to his ‘Man Primeval.’

NOTE 12, p. 39

On the external National Covenant of the Jews, see H. Venema, ‘De Fœdere Externo Veteris Testamenti,’ 1771, p. 250,—being Book ii. of his Dissertations; Dr. John Erskine (of Edinburgh), Theological Dissertations, No. 1, 1765,—‘The Nature of the Sinaitic Covenant,’ pp. 1–66; Bishop Warburton’s ‘Divine Legation of Moses,’ vol. ii. Book v. p. 235, Book vi. sec. vi. 329; Rev. T. Bell (of Glasgow, 1814), ‘View of the Covenants of Works and Grace,’ Part iv. ‘The Covenant at Sinai,’ p. 253; Adam Gib (of Edinburgh), ‘Divine Contemplations,’ c. i.

NOTE 13, p. 40

On the Justification of Old Testament believers, see Bishop O’Brien’s ‘Sermons on the Nature and Effects of Faith,’ p. 439, 2d Edition; Witsius, ‘Mis. Sac.’ ii. 744, 780; Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise on Justification,’ p. 412; Bishop Barlow, ‘Genuine Remains,’ pp. 583–593; Brown (of Wamphray), ‘Life of Justification,’ p. 247; Dr. John Prideaux, ‘Lectiones Decem,’ p. 162; Dickinson, ‘Familiar Letters,’ p. 191; and the precious work of Dr. Owen on the 130th Psalm, ‘works,’ vol. xiv., Russell’s Edition.

NOTE 14, p. 42

On the typical import of these rites, see Dr. Fairbairn’s ‘Typology of Scripture,’ 2 vols. 8vo; J. Mather on the ‘Types,’ as recast in ‘The Gospel of the Old Testament,’ 2 vols.; and Becanus, ‘Analogia Veteris ac Novi Testamenti, in qua primum status Veteris, deinde Consensus, Proportio, et Conspiratio illius, cum Novo, explicatur.’

---

NOTES TO LECTURE II

NOTE 1, p. 47

‘All, who allow of Revelation, own that the revelation of forgiveness as well as the means of obtaining it, was twice universal,—in the days of Adam, and of Noah.’—Professor Halyburton (of St. Andrew’s), Works, edited by Dr. R. Burns, p. 378. See also p. 395.

NOTE 2, p. 49

For the universal prevalence of animal sacrifice, and the practice of offering human victims, see Archbishop M’Gee on ‘The Atonement,’ vol. i. pp. 96–128, and 251–286; Dr. J. P. Smith, ‘Four Discourses on the Sacrifice and Priesthood of Christ,’ Dis. i. pp. 1–19, and 219, 221–231; Benj. Constant, ‘De la Religion,’ vol. iv. livre xi. c. 1, 2, pp. 201–208.

NOTE 3, p. 50

For the profound speculations of these Gentile thinkers, see Cicero, ‘De Natura Deorum,’ ‘De Finibus,’ ‘De Senectute, ’De Officiis,’ ‘De Fato,’ and his ‘Tusculan’ and ‘Academic’ Questions, Foulis’ Edition, Glasgow, 1748, vols. xi.–xv.; The ‘Enchiridion’ of Epictetus; Senecæ ‘Opera;’ Lucretius, ‘De Rerum Naturæ,’ etc. An excellent selection from them is given in a recent French work, 1840, ‘Moralistes Anciens,’ including Socrates, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Cebes, and others, pp. 566. The course of speculation on some of the deepest problems of human thought is traced in many histories of ancient philosophy, such as Brucker’s ‘Historia Critica Philosophiæ,’ and is illustrated, in its relation to Theism, in Cudworth’s ‘Intellectual System of the Universe,’ and Abbé Batteaux’s ‘Histoire des Causes Premières.’

NOTE 4, p. 51

Dr. Owen’s ‘Theologoumena,’ lib. i. c. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Dr. Goold’s Edition; Witsius, ‘De Theologia Gentilium circa Justificationem,’ Misc. Sac. vol. ii. pp. 672–697; Leland, ‘Necessity of Revelation,’ c. v. p. 112.

The efficacy of repentance is strongly stated by Seneca: ‘Quem pœnitet peccâsse, est innocens;’ and the Pelagian doctrine of Free-will, as opposed to Grace, is anticipated by Cicero: ‘Virtutem nemo unquam Deo receptum retulit; propter virtutem enim jure laudamur, et in virtute recte gloriamur: quod non contingerit, si donum a Deo, non a nobis, haberemus.’—De Naturâ Deorum.

On the Religion of the Gentiles, see Theophilus Gale, D.D., ‘The Court of the Gentiles,’ 2 vols., 1672. The two first parts of this work are designed to illustrate the influence exerted by the earlier Revelations of divine truth, on the Literature, Philosophy, and Religion of the ancient world. They are a rich storehouse of information on the traditions of primitive times, and their subsequent corruption, although the learned author may have occasionally pushed his favourite theory, of ‘the traduction of Pagan Philosophy from the Jewish Church and the Sacred Oracles,’ to an extreme. He takes occasion, also, to illustrate the reaction of Pagan Philosophy in corrupting the faith, first of the Jewish, and afterwards of the Christian, Church (vol. i. part ii. Pref. pp. v.–vii.). The evil influence which it exerted on both is ascribed to its character as a system of self-righteousness and self-dependence. ‘That wherein the spirit of its malignity seems to consist is … its principal end and design, which is to reduce and advance lapsed man to a state of integrity and perfection, by the force and improvement of his own Free-will. The grand design of Ethnic Philosophy, in its original constitution, was to put men under a covenant of works, thereby to keep them from sin, and to merit life. Proud nature ever affects an independence as to God, and to procure a divine life by its own forces. What more pleasing to corrupt nature than to act from, and for, itself! How fruitful is the root of the Old Covenant in corrupt nature! How apt is every man by nature to run himself on a covenant of works, and deify some righteousness of his own, though never so unrighteous! What latent veins of Pelagianism are there in the hearts of all by nature! whence, according to Augustine,—Pelagianism is the Heresy of Nature.’—Vol. ii. part iii. Pref. pp. iii. iv. See also pp. 141, 143, 149.

Herbert (of Cherbury), in two of his works—‘De Religione Laici,’ and ‘De Religions Gentilium,’ published after his death in 1663—reduces what he calls the ‘Catholic or Universal’ Religion to five points,—the fourth and fifth of which relate to the Justification of sinners: ‘That we must repent of our sins, and if we do so, God will pardon them;’ and ‘that there are rewards for good men, and punishments for bad men, in a future state.’ He attempts to prove that these doctrines were generally believed by the Gentile nations, but admits that ‘they seldom used the word Repentance in the sense which Christians attach to it,—that they did not look upon it to be an atonement for all crimes, but only for those of a less heinous nature,—and that they generally looked upon other things to be also necessary, and laid the principal stress upon Iustrations and the rites of their religion, for purifying and absolving them from guilt.’

See in reply to Herbert, Dr. Leland, ‘View of Deistical Writers,’ vol. i. p. 12; Prof. Halyburton, ‘Natural Religion Insufficient,’ Works in 1 vol. (edited by Dr. R. Burns, 1835), c. x. pp. 344–398: ‘Proving the light of Nature unable to discover the means of obtaining pardon of sin, or to show that it is attainable.’

NOTE 5, p. 54

Dr. John Prideaux, ‘Lectiones Decem,’ pp. 135–139. See also Dr. Townley’s translation of that part of the ‘More Nevochim’ (‘Teacher of the Perplexed’) of Maimonides (resembling the ‘Ductor Dubitantium’ of Jeremy Taylor) which assigns ‘the Reasons of the Laws of Moses,’—Townley, Diss. vi. on ‘The Typical Character of the Mosaic Institutions.’ pp. 87–101,—in which some remarks are made on the question how far it was understood by the Jews, p. 93. See also Lightfoot, Works, vol. vii. p. 256.

NOTE 6, p. 59

Witsius, ‘De Theologia Judæorum in Negotio Justificationis,’ Mis. Sac. vol. ii. pp. 698–720.

NOTE 7, p. 60

Dr. Cunningham, ‘Historical Theology,’ vol. ii. 121.

NOTE 8, p. 64

‘Human inventiveness in things spiritual, or unspiritual, is very limited. It would be difficult, probably, to invent a new heresy. Objectors of old were as acute, or more acute, than those now.’—Dr. E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet, 3d Ed., 1864, p. iii.

NOTE 9, p. 66

Witsius, ‘De Controversiis Ætate Apostolorum circa Justificationem,’ Mis. Sac. vol. ii. pp. 668–751. Buddeus, ‘Mis. Sacra,’ Dissertatio Theologica de statu Ecclesiarum Apostolicarum, earum præcipue ad quas Paulus Epistolas suas scripsit, tom. ii. p. 215.

NOTE 10, p. 67

Dr. Cave, ‘Antiquitates Apostolicæ,’ to which work that of Witsius is a reply.

NOTE 11, p. 73

Witsius, ‘De Mente Pauli circa Justificationem,’ Mis. Sac. vol. ii. p. 734.

NOTE 12, p. 75

G. S. Faber, ‘The Primitive Doctrine of Justification,’ pp. 238–243.

---

NOTES TO LECTURE III

NOTE 1, p. 78

Dr. Wordsworth’s ‘Letters to M. Gondon,’ pp. 38–42.

NOTE 2, p. 78

Isaac Taylor, ‘Ancient Christianity,’ passim.

NOTE 3, p. 79

G. S. Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine of Justification,’ Pref. pp. vii. xvii. xxxiv. xxxix.; pp. 52, 58, 140, 227, 238, 342, 346, 350, 447.

For an antidote, see Dr. Goode, ‘Rule of Faith,’ passim.

NOTE 4, p. 80

Dr. Donaldson, Rector of the High School of Edinburgh, is far from denying the right of private judgment, and makes the freest use of it in his recent work, ‘A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine, from the Death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council’ (vol. i. 1864, ii. and iii. 1866); but he argues on the erroneous principle, that the teaching of the earlier Fathers may be applied as a test,—if not of the truth of certain doctrines,—at least of their necessity and importance, as articles of faith. ‘If the early writers were heterodox on the Trinity,—if they knew nothing of a satisfaction of divine justice, but spoke only in a vague way of the matter,—if they wavered in regard to Original Sin, some denying it entirely, and others expressing themselves with great uncertainty,—if their testimony to the Inspiration of the New Testament is unsatisfactory and inconclusive,—where was Christianity in those days? Did it really sleep for three long centuries? … Or may not the Evangelical School be wrong in asserting that it is necessary for a man to believe in Original Sin, the Trinity, the Atonement, and similar dogmas, before he can be a Christian?’—Vol. i. p. 64. Dr. Donaldson’s work,—considered as a ‘Critical History of Christian Literature’ in the first three centuries,—is highly valuable, and exhibits the results of ripe scholarship, and extensive reading and research; but considered as a ‘Critical History of Christian Doctrine,’ it is far from being a safe guide. His interpretation of many passages in the writings of the Fathers is, to say the least, highly questionable, and at direct variance with that of such writers as Bull, and Waterland, and Faber. But even were it more certain than it is, and did it afford proof that their writings were less in accordance with Scripture than we believe them to have been, we should still fall back on the cardinal principle, that they are to be tested by the only infallible standard—the inspired Word of God. ‘To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, there is no light in them.’ We should then be constrained to say of them, as the Prophet said of ancient Israel. ‘They have forsaken the word of the Lord, and what wisdom is in them?’ but we should have no difficulty in answering the question—Where was Christianity then? for it existed then, as it exists still, in ‘the Word of God, the Gospel of our salvation;’ and it was neither dead nor asleep, but alive and active in the Church of the Catacombs. We shall have occasion afterwards to refer to his criticisms on some passages in the writings of the Fathers.

NOTE 5, p. 80

Vincentius Lirinensis, ‘Commonitorum.’ His rule—‘Quod semper, quod ubique, et quod ab omnibus’—is abandoned by Dr. Newman in his ‘Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,’ pp. 8, 24; Professor Butler, ‘Letters on Development,’ pp. 16, 18, 213; Wordsworth’s ‘Letters to M. Gondon,’ pp. 23, 178, 259; Dr. Cunningham, ‘N. British Review’ for 1846, pp. 423, 429, 432, 436; ‘Dublin Review,’ No. xliv., pp. 271, 325, xlvi. p. 373. But while this rule is unsound and untenable, as a test of doctrine, both Vincent and Tertullian (‘De Præscriptionibus Hæreticorum,’ ‘Opera Patrum Latinorum,’ vol. ii. pp. 447–490) lay down the important principle, that the Post-Apostolic Church had no power to introduce new articles of faith.

NOTE 6, p. 81

The writings of the Apostolical Fathers were collected and published by Cotelerius and Ittigius towards the close of the last century, and in the present by Jacobson, Oxford, 1847, and by Hefele, Tubingen, 1855. There have been many Commentaries upon them. They were translated into English by Archbishop Wake; and a new edition of it was printed at Oxford in 1840.

NOTE 7, p. 82

Isaac Taylor, ‘Restoration of Belief,’ pp. 48, 52, 79.

On the new life which then sprung up in the Roman world, Dr. Donaldson makes many striking and eloquent remarks, and pays a just and noble tribute to the ethical tone of the early Christian writers. ‘Even to the most callous mind, Christianity must appear a movement of gigantic importance. The student of early Christian literature traces this great moral movement in the words of those who were influenced by it. He, as it were, speaks with those who felt the first waves of the Spirit’s influence; and he examines their modes of thought that he may see how Christ’s Gospel changed their whole being, and how, in consequence, they worked in, and on, the world.’—Vol. i. p. 4. ‘The most striking feature of these writings is the deep living piety which pervades them. This piety is not of a morbid character. It consists in the warmest love to God, the deepest interest in man; and it exhibits itself in a healthy, vigorous, manly morality…. This intense moral heat and fervour is all the more striking, that in contemporary writings, and writings shortly antecedent, the mind is sickened with the details of sin and vice, which were universally prevalent. The pages of Tacitus, Juvenal, Persius, and Martial, are full of the most fearful representations of universal licentiousness, and loss of all faith in God and man. And perhaps a student could not receive a more satisfactory impression of the truth, that God was working among the Christians in a most remarkable manner, than by turning from the fetid pages of stern Juvenal, or licentious Martial, to the pure, unselfish, loving words of Clemens Romanus, Polycarp, or Hermas. The simple reading of these writings by themselves does not strike us so much now, because what was loving, new, earnest morality to them, is now familiar to us, and often the words used by them are now used by men to cloak their deceit and worldliness. But let us not on this account hide from ourselves the marvellous phenomenon here presented,—of a morality that has nothing to do with selfish or worldly aims,—that seeks its source in God,—that fills the whole being,—that goes out to all men in love,—and that is to itself a boundless good!’—Vol. i. pp. 84, 85.

NOTE 8, p. 83

Dr. Shedd, ‘History of Christian Doctrine,’ vol. ii. pp. 208–211.

NOTE 9, p. 84

Clement, Epistle to Cor. i. c. vii. xxxii. Dr Donaldson says that ‘Clement’s answer to the question, how a man is saved, is various in form, but fundamentally the same. Salvation is, according to his idea, dependent on good works…. The most striking passage is in c. xxxii “We,” he says, “are declared and made righteous, not by means of ourselves, nor through our own wisdom, or understanding, or piety, or works which we did in holiness of heart, but through faith. Through which faith Almighty God has made and declared all men righteous from the beginning.”—P. 133. According to this rendering, ’to justify’ means first to make, and then to declare, righteous,—that is, evidently, to make righteous subjectively, by the infusion of personal holiness; and this is also the view of Mr. Knox, ‘Remains,’ i. 259, and of Dr. Newman, ‘Lectures on Justification,’ pp. 445–448. Both objected to the use which G. S. Faber had made of the passage; but he vindicates it from their objections in the Appendix to the second edition of his ‘Primitive Doctrine of Justification,’ and insists specially on the clause which excludes ‘works done in holiness of heart,’ as sufficient to show that he meant to refer to works done after conversion, as well as before it.

NOTE 10, p. 85

Ignat., Ep. ad Philadelph. sec. 8; Polycarp, Ep. ad Philip. sec. 2; Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryph., Opera, p. 177, 254; Epistle to Diognetus, Opera Justini, p. 386. See Spanheim’s ‘Eccles. Annals,’ p. 225; also, Le Clerc, ‘Historia Ecclesiastica Duorum Primorum Sæculorum a Christo Nato,’ Amsterdam 1716. The writings of the early Apologists, including Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Minucius Felix, were translated by the Rev. Wm. Reeves, along with the ‘Commonitorium’ of Vincent of Lerins, 1709; and they throw much light on the doctrines and practices of the primitive Church, as well as on the objections which were urged against them, both by Jews and Gentiles.

NOTE 11, p. 88

Mr. Knox, of Dublin, contends earnestly in his ‘Remains’ against a ‘forensic,’ and in favour of a ‘moral,’ Justification,—the latter consisting in a change of character and conduct, which is, substantially, nothing else than Sanctification, and God’s acceptance of the sinner on that account. In support of his views, he adduces the testimony of Milner, as the concession of a reluctant witness,—to the effect, that the true doctrine of Justification had been all but lost to the Church for fourteen hundred years. ‘Remains,’ vol. i. pp. 257, 258. See also, vol. ii. pp. 55, 17; vol. iii. pp. 46–49. See Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine,’ pp. vii. xvi. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 139.

Milner’s statements, even were they admitted to be truly represented, are not sufficient to prove that, in his estimation, the doctrine of forensic Justification was ‘a novelty,’ introduced into the Church at the Reformation; and, most certainly, they were not intended by him to convey that meaning.

Milner held, that the doctrine was taught by the Apostles, and is contained in the inspired writings of the New Testament; and, in this respect, differs entirely from Mr. Knox.

Milner held, that the doctrine was taught by the Apostolical Fathers; a fact which is denied by Mr. Knox, but which Milner regards as ‘an unequivocal proof of the faith of the primitive Church;’ for he says expressly, ‘They all concurred in feeling conviction of sin, of helplessness, of a state of perdition; in relying on the atoning blood, perfect righteousness, and prevalent intercession, of Jesus, as their only hope of heaven’ (Milner’s History, Nelson’s edition, one vol., pp. 47, 51). Mr. Knox does not venture to deny that this was Milner’s opinion; for he speaks only of what the historian says of the faith of the Church ‘from the end of the first century.’ But further,

Milner held, that the doctrine was taught, ‘in substance,’ by a series of writers from the Apostolic age till the Reformation, although it was stated less clearly, while it had not yet been made the subject of controversial discussion, than it afterwards was, when it had passed through that fiery ordeal, in the times of Luther and Calvin. He refers to, and quotes, the testimonies of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Athanasius, Ambrose, Macarius, Optatus, Ephraim, Chrysostom, Augustine, Anselm, Bernard, and others, as all holding ‘in substance’ the doctrine of the primitive Church. (Milner’s History, Nelson’s edition, one vol., pp. 57, 61, 71, 97, 103, 117, 118, 122, 161–164, 251, 274–276, 279, 288, 282–284, 296.)

Milner does not say that the Fathers confounded Justification with Sanctification, as Mr. Knox unquestionably does, but merely that the term Justification was generally used by them in a comprehensive sense, so as to include the whole of that change which passes on the state of a sinner when he is ‘turned from darkness to light’—i.e. both the change in his judicial relation to God, when he is pardoned and accepted, and also the change in his spiritual character, when he is ‘renewed in the spirit of his mind.’ It does not follow that these two things—distinct as they are in themselves—were confounded the one with the other, and still less, that the change in man’s judicial relation to God was founded on, and resulted from, the change in his spiritual character, merely because they were both comprehended under the same term. If they held ‘in substance’ what was, in Milner’s estimation, ‘the true doctrine,’ they could not have confounded two things so radically distinct as Justification and Sanctification unquestionably are; but they might possibly include both blessings under one general term,—it might be Justification,—or Regeneration,—or Sanctification,—or Washing,—or Cleansing,—or Purging,—or Purification; for all these terms admit of being applied to denote the whole of that change which passes on a sinner, in respect both to his judicial relation to God, and to his spiritual character, when he is ‘reconciled to God,’ and passes ‘from death unto life.’—See William Pemble, of Magdalene Hall, Oxford, ‘Vindiciæ Fidei,’ or a Treatise on Justification, 1629, p. 13.

Milner’s object throughout is to delineate the internal life of the Church, and to illustrate its necessary dependence on the knowledge and belief of the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel, in every succeeding age. He shows that it flourished in proportion as men were—impressed with a sense of sin,—enlightened with a knowledge of Christ,—and imbued with a spirit of simple reliance on His finished work; and that it decayed as often as they became—ignorant of the spiritual meaning of the divine law,—or insensible of their absolute dependence on the grace of God, and the work of Christ, for their salvation. But he is careful also to show that, even in periods of prevailing declension and indifference, there was always a living Church on the earth, and of course a remnant who ‘walked by faith,’ and looked to Christ as ‘the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.’ How many such there were, or how few, at different times, and in different lands, none can say; nor would it be safe to regard the writings which have come down to us, chiefly from the more learned and inquisitive office-bearers of the Church, as a gauge by which we may estimate the amount of living piety which existed within her pale; but in Milner’s view, all who were so convinced of sin as to rely simply on Christ for salvation, held the truth ‘in substance,’ although it might be associated with some errors, and obscured by some superstitions observances. In any other view, his statements must be regarded as self-contradictory. Did he affirm, as Mr. Knox supposes, that the doctrine of Justification by grace, through faith in Christ, was lost to the Church for fourteen hundred years, how could he say of primitive Christians that ‘they all concurred … in relying on the atoning blood, perfect righteousness, and prevalent intercession, of Jesus, as their only hope of heaven?’ (p. 51.) How could he say of the second century, that ‘It exhibited proofs of divine grace, as strong, or nearly so, as the first’—‘the same unshaken and simple faith of Jesus, the same love of God and of the brethren, the same heavenly spirit, and victory over the world?, (p. 95.) How could he say of Irenæus, that ’notwithstanding some philosophical adulterations, he certainly maintained all the essentials of the Gospel?’ (p. 97.) Does he not say of Cyprian, that ‘the essential doctrines of Justification and Regeneration by divine grace were not only believed, but experienced, by this sealous African’ (p. 117);—that he was ‘possessed of some rich portion of that effusion of the Holy Ghost which, from the Apostles’ days, still exhibited Christ Jesus, and fitted by experience to communicate to others the real Gospel, and to be an happy instrument of guiding souls to that rest which remains for the people of God’ (p. 118);—that ‘he felt the doctrines of the Gospel—namely, the grace of God, forgiveness of sins by Jesus Christ, and the influences of the Holy Ghost, powerful, exuberant, and victorious;’—that ‘his soul was brought into the love of God, and that of the purest kind, tempered ever with humility and godly fear; and it is evident—that he always saw the work to be of God, and beheld nothing in himself as wise, holy, and glorious; that a spirit of thankfulness for redeeming love—of simple dependence on the divine promises—and of steady charity to God and man, was the result?’ (p. 161.) Does he not say of Augustine, that ‘the peculiar work, for which he was evidently raised by Providence, was to restore the doctrine of divine grace to the Church;’—that ‘the article of Justification must be involved in Augustine’s divinity, and doubtless it savingly flourished in his heart, and in the hearts of many of his followers?, And if he takes exception to Augustine’s use of the term ’justify,’ does he not add, ‘Still he knew what faith in the Redeemer meant,—those parts of Scripture which speak of forgiveness of sins, he understands, he feels, he loves;’ … ‘and I more admire that he was enabled to recover its constituent parts’ (i.e. of ‘this most important Christian doctrine’) ‘than that he did not arrange and adjust them perfectly?’ (pp. 354, 355.) Does he not say of Anselm, in a still darker age, ‘That doctrine, which is “most wholesome, and very full of comfort,” namely, the doctrine of “Justification before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not by our own works and deservings,” is preached by a bishop of the eleventh century: so strong was the provision made by the God of all grace for the preservation of evangelical truth in the darkest times…. We have found the essential and leading doctrine of Christianity in the possession of Anselm…. He beautifully illustrates the all-important doctrine of Justification by faith in Christ?’ (pp. 491, 494, 495.) And does he not say of Bernard, the latest of the Fathers, that ‘there is not an essential doctrine of the Gospel which he did not embrace with zeal, defend by argument, and adorn by life;’ and more particularly, that he taught the doctrine of Justification in such terms as these: ‘If one died for all, then were all dead, that the satisfaction of One might be imputed to all, as He alone bore the sins of all; and now he, who offended, and He, who satisfied divine justice, are found the same; because the Head and the body is one Christ. The Head then satisfied for the members…. Why may not I have another’s righteousness, since I have another’s sin, imputed to me? Is there sin in the seed of the sinner, and not righteousness in the blood of Christ? … If the judgment was by one to condemnation, the free gift was of many offences to Justification. Nor do I fear, being thus freed from the powers of darkness, to be rejected by the Father of lights, since I am justified freely by the blood of His Son. He who pitied the sinner, will not condemn the just. I call myself just, but it is through His righteousness; for “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness,” and “He is made of God unto us righteousness.” Thus is man made righteous by the blood of the Redeemer’ (pp. 507, 508, 525).

On the whole, we conclude that Milner meant merely to show that the doctrine of a free Justification by grace, through faith in Christ, always existed in the Church from the time when it was first preached by our Lord and His Apostles,—but that it was obscured, as often as the Church exhibited tokens of declension, by the corruptions which infected both her faith and worship; and that, even when it was revived and presented anew by some burning and shining lights, it was not so fully unfolded, or so correctly defined, as it was at the era of the Reformation, when it became, for the first time, a subject of controversy between the Romish and Protestant Churches. That doctrine was really involved in Augustine’s great contest with the Pelagians; for he contended for free, sovereign, and efficacious grace as the source of the whole salvation of sinners; but the precise question of Justification did not then come out into distinct prominence, as it afterwards did in the times of Luther, simply because it was not formally questioned or denied by Pelagius, who professed to admit the free forgiveness of sins, while he contended for free-will, in opposition to free grace, in the application of the Gospel remedy. Augustine paved the way for the Reformation by establishing the doctrine of free grace in the regeneration of sinners, and Luther applied the same doctrine to their Justification.—Petavius, ‘De Pelagianes,’ ‘Dogm. Theolog.,’ tom. iii. c. iii. s. ii. 14.

NOTE 12, p. 88

Forbes (of Corse), ‘Instructiones Historico-Theologicæ,’ c. xxiii. p. 423. ‘Admonitio de Justificatione; ubi ostenditur, statum controversis inter Catholicos olim et Pelagianos diversum fuisse a statu controversis quæ nunc inter Catholicos et Romanenses, de Justifications agitatur. See also Petavius, ’Dogmata Theolog.,’ lib. iii. c. xv. vol. iii. p. 353, Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise on Justification,’ p. 122.

It is admitted that Augustine’s doctrine of Justification is not so distinctly defined as that of the Reformers, but its leading principle is substantially the same. ‘It appears to me,’ says the late Dr. M’Crie, ‘that the great difference between the ancient Anti-Pelagians and the Reformers lies in this,—that, while both are advocates for grace, the former considered it chiefly in relation to the change which it effects on the heart, the latter in relation to the change which it produces on the state, as divines express it, of the sinner. In the writings of Augustine, for example, the great champion of grace among the Fathers, I have found little about Justification; in the writings of Luther, again, this is the grand point—“articulus stantis ac cadentis Ecclesiæ.” This I look upon as the glory of the Reformation,—the great advancement in evangelical light beyond what had been attained in the Pelagian or in the Antichristian ages.’—Dr. M’Crie’s Life of, Dr. T. M’Crie, p. 329.

Augustine was honoured to do a great service to truth, by striking at the fundamental error in regard to all the doctrines of grace—the Pelagian heresy—which has been justly called ‘the heresy of nature.’ There is reason to fear, that a latent Pelagianism lies at the root of many false theories of Justification. ‘Verendum est ne etiamnum serpat inter Orthodoxos, plus quam par est, Pelagianismi cancer; ut penduli vacillent inter gratiam et liberum arbitrium, nec cœlum attingentes, nec terram: sed statuentes potius de salute, juxta vocem illam meretricem (2 Kings 3). Nec Deo soli, nec libero arbitrio soli, sed dividatur.’—Dr. John Prideaux, Lectiones Decem, p. 2. See Dr. Tully, ‘Justificatio Paulina.’ p. 2.

NOTE 13, p. 90

For the Patristic sense of the term Merit, see Bishop Downham ‘On Justification,’ pp. 385, 503–506, 544, 550, 558, 583; Bishop Davenant, ‘Disputation,’ vol. ii. pp. 66–68, 75; Archbishop Usher, ‘Answer to a Jesuit’s Challenge,’ c. xii. pp. 472–506; G. S. Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine of Justification,’ pp. 126, 178, 195–197; Dr. Cunningham, ‘Historical Theology,’ ii. p. 104.

The Augsburg Confession itself, which expressly excludes all ‘merit,’ uses the words ‘mereri præmia’ for obtaining rewards. ‘It hesitates not to say of repentance, “meretur remissionem peccatorum,” and of good works (those of the justified believers)’ “merentur præmia.” “Mereri,” however, though usually rendered “to deserve,” lexicographers tell us, means “to gain,” whether by desert or otherwise; and such is evidently its sense in the writings of the Reformers. Luther himself, in his Lectures on the Sermon on the Mount, expressly admits the use of the word merit (meritum) in a qualified sense, namely, “if it be used for the gracious reward, or gratuitous recompense, which God has promised to piety and patience.” ’ But when it was used in another sense, ‘Melancthon brands the term strongly enough—“Whence comes that profane word ‘Merit,’—than which nothing could be devised more audacious or more impious?” ’—Scott, Continuation of Milner’s History, vol. i. pp. 44, 45.

NOTE 14, p. 91

Forbes, ‘Instruc. Historico-Theolog.’ c. xxiii. p. 423. ‘Justificatio … significat gratuitam donationem justitiœ quâ justi constituimur. Ea justitia duplex est. Una, per quam justitiæ Dei, peccatis nostris offensæ, plenaria sit satisfactio, et remissio peccatorum, ac jus æternæ hæreditatis, ad eamque ducens gratia, sufficientissimi pretii solutione nobis acquiruntur. Hæc est illa Christi perfectissima obedientia, per quam “justi constituuntur multi.”…. Hanc Christi justitiam nobis Deus donat imputando…. Altera justitia, nobis inhærens, et in moribus nostris elucens, per quam … habitualiter et actualiter justi sumus … est etiam gratuitum Dei donum; quod Deus nobis donat, infundendo habitus, et “operando in nobis et velle et perficere pro suo beneplacito.” Hæc Justificatio, alia peculiari nomenclaturâ, appellatur Sanctificatio.’ This definition of the terms is not in accordance with the ‘usus loquendi’ of the sacred writers; but the passage clearly shows that he distinguished between imputed and infused righteousness, and ascribed both equally to the grace of God, and the merits of Christ. The same may be said of Augustine. ‘Evangelical righteousness’ is described by James Hervey himself as including that of Justification, and that of Sanctification. ‘To be reconciled to the omnipotent God,—to be interested in “the unsearchable riches of Christ,”—to be renewed in our hearts by the sanctifying operations of the Divine Spirit,—this is EVANGELICAL RIGHTEOUSNESS.’ … ‘All these blessings are centred in Christ,—were purchased by Christ,—are communicated from Christ.’—Dedication to Theron and Aspasio, Works, ii. pp. iv. v. See Pemble, ‘Vindiciæ Fidei,’ c. i. pp. 1–9.

NOTE 15, p. 92

On Augustine’s use of the term ‘Justification,’ see Bishop Downham’s Treatise, p. 75; Bishop Davenant’s ‘Disp.,’ vol. i. p. 194; Dr. John Prideaux, ‘Lectiones,’ p. 141; Dr. Cunningham, ‘Hist. Theol.,’ vol. ii. p. 41; Dr. Shedd, ‘History of Christian Doctrine,’ ii. pp. 255–257.

NOTE 16, p. 93

Numerous testimonies have been collected from the Apostolic Fathers and their successors, by Archbishop Usher, ‘Answer to a Jesuit’s Challenge,’ c. xii. pp. 472–505; G. S. Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine of Justification,’ c. iv. pp. 96–200, 387–392. Faber gives Usher’s and his own in a tabulated form, p. 392. Dr. James Bennett, ‘Theology of the Early Christian Church,’ Lec. iii. P. ii. iii. iv.; Gaspar Laurentius, ‘Orthodoxus Consensus,’ in Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum, Geneva, 1654. Those who have access to the writings of the Fathers will of course consult the originals: but common readers will find the leading testimonies on the subject of Justification profusely scattered through the works of the great divines of the seventeenth century, such as Downham, Davenant, Wake, Owen, and Jeremy Taylor.

NOTE 17, p. 96

See his ‘Cur Deus Homo?’ and Dr. Shedd’s ‘History of Christian Doctrine,’ vol. ii. pp. 273–285.

NOTE 18, p. 97

Irenæus, adv. Hær. lib. iii. c. 20, iv. c. 67; Cyprian, Op. ii. p. 140. Epis. lxxxiii.; Athanasius, Op. ii. 125, 270; Basil, Op. p. 550; Ambrose in Ep. ad Rom. iv. 5; Origen in Ep. ad Rom. lib. iii.; Jerome in Ep. ad Rom. c. iv., and in ii. Ep. ad Cor. c. v. 21; Chrysost. in Epis. ad Rom. Hom. vii., and in ii. Ep. ad Cor. Hom. xi.; Augustine, Expos. in Johannem, Trac. iii. Opera, vol. ix. p. 7; ‘De Fide et Operibus,’ c. xiv. Opera, iv. p. 28; Enarratio in Ps. cx., Op. vol. viii. p. 464; Anselm, as quoted by Dr. Owen, Works, xi. p. 22; Bernard, Opera, pp. 285, 601, 630, 1556.

The writings of the Fathers are not always self-consistent; e.g. those of Chrysostom: see Isaac Taylor’s ‘Ancient Christianity,’ vol. i. p. 249. For the evangelical character of Anselm’s Theology, see his ‘Cur Deus Homo?’ which has recently (1858) been made accessible to the English reader ‘by a Clergyman’ (Parker, Oxford); and Dr. Shedd’s ‘History of Christian Doctrine,’ vol. ii. pp. 273–285. For Luther and Melancthon’s views of the Fathers, see Scott’s ‘Continuation of Milner’s History,’ vol. i. 527, 530, ii. 119, 254, 255. He states also the instructive fact, that Prince George of Anhalt, Provost of the Cathedral at Magdeburg, was convinced of the truth of Luther’s doctrine by a careful study of the writings of the Fathers, and gives the Prince’s striking testimony to that effect.—Vol. i. pp. 388–404.

Buddæus, ‘Isagoge De Theologia Patristica,’ lib. ii. c. iii. vol. i. pp. 478–544; Hoornbeek, Mis. Sac. lib. i. pp. 1–130, ‘De Theologia Patrum usque ad Annum cclxxxv.;’ Voetius, ‘Disputationes Theologicæ,’ vol. i. pp. 74–105, ‘De Patribus, seu Antiquæ Ecclesiæ Doctoribus.’

NOTE 19, p. 98

M. D’Aubigné, ‘History of Reformation in the Time of Calvin,’ vol. iii. 203. ‘During four centuries, reckoning from the twelfth, minds of the highest order had formulated abstract systems, in which Scholastic Rationalism, and Ecclesiastical Authority, were habitually combined…. It was not a trifling matter to make Christian science pass from death to life, from darkness to light. It required an awakened conscience,—a heart thirsting for righteousness,—a high intelligence,—and a powerful will, to break through all the chains (Catenæ Patrum)—to scatter to the winds the Sentences, and the Sums, which the Schoolmen had painfully woven out of their brains, or out of traditions that were often impure, and to set up in their place the living rock of the heavenly Word on which the temple of God is to be built CALVIN was the man called to this work. Until his time, Dogmatics, when passing from one period to another, had always advanced in the same direction, from abstraction to abstraction. But suddenly the course was changed; Calvin refused to tread the accustomed road. Instead of advancing in the way of the Schoolmen towards new developments of a more refined intellectualism, he turned eagerly backwards,—he heard the voice of conscience,—he felt the wants of the heart,—he ran whither alone they can be satisfied,—he traversed fifteen centuries. He went to the Gospel springs; and there collecting in a golden cup the pure and living waters of Divine Revelation, presented them to the nations to quench their thirst.’

It has been objected to the Systematic Theology of the Protestant Churches, that it was derived from the scholastic writers, and that it bears upon it the impress of their influence. That their writings have exerted some influence on modern Theology, it would be folly to deny; and Bishop Hampden has illustrated this point in his ‘Bampton Lectures’ for 1832,—‘The Scholastic Philosophy considered in its relation to Christian Theology.’ But the radical difference between the Popish and Protestant systems, consists in the one recognising several distinct sources of Theology, while the other recognises only the sole and supreme authority of Scripture: and the change which was effected by the Reformation, in this respect, resembled that which the Copernican doctrine effected in Astronomy; for as this displaced the earth from being the centre of the planetary system, and substituted the sun in its stead, so the Reformation displaced the Church, or the authority of man, and brought in the Bible, or the authority of God, as the sole rule of faith. Authority remained, and therefore there was no anarchy, but it was that of God, and His Word. The Abbé Maret, in his ‘Theodicée Chretienne,’ p. 16, enumerates several different sources of Theology, and Melchior Canus speaks of ten,—viz., Scripture,—Tradition,—the Church,—Councils,—Rome,—Fathers,—Schoolmen,—Reason,—Philosophy,—History (Loci Theologicœ, p. 6); while Protestantism acknowledges one only, and regards all the others as helps merely, which are subordinate and subservient to that which alone is supreme. Markius has stated, in a few words, both the merits and defects of the Scholastic Theology:—‘Hæc placet multis, (1) ob βραχυλογιαν, (2) philosophemata quædam acuta, (3) Veritatumque quarundam luculenta testimonia…. Displicet tamen omnibus, (1) ob principium suum, quod Patres magis et Philosophi Gentiles quam Prophetæ; (2) ob argumentum, quod philosophicum sæpe, curiosum, inutile vel falsum; (3) ob modum tradendi, per terminos barbaros ac obscuras distinctiones; (4) ob ejus finem et effectum, qui veræ ac Scriptuariæ Theologiæ obtenebratio, atque populi excæcatio fuit.’—Marckii, Compendium; see De Moor’s ‘Commentary.’ The Scholastic Method was defective and erroneous; but it would be as absurd to reject Systematic Theology on that account, as to reject Astronomy, because it was once abused by astrologers, or Chemistry, because it was once mixed up with the dreams of alchemists. System in Theology arises from the same causes as system in Science; namely, from the relations which subsist between different truths, and from the powers and laws of the human mind, which discerns these relations, and arranges the objects of its knowledge accordingly.—The Princeton Theological Essays on ‘Systems in Theology,’ Second Series, Essay iii.; and Professor Dunlop on Creeds and Confessions.

NOTE 20, p. 99

See Archbishop Usher, ‘Answer to Jesuit’s Challenge,’ c. xii. of ‘Merits;’ Dr. Shedd, ‘History of Christian Doctrine,’ ii. 31, 318; G. S. Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine of Justification,’ pp. 335–341; Voetius, ‘Disput.,’ vol. i. 12–29, ‘De Theologia Scholastica;’ Pemble, ‘Vindiciæ Fidei,’ on Bellarmine’s doctrine of Merit, pp. 30, 31.

---

 

NOTES TO LECTURE IV

NOTE 1, p. 106

Some held the doctrine of Sinless Perfection in the present life. Bellarmine, tom. iv. lib. ii. c. vii. p. 915: ‘Adversarii dicunt imputationem (justitiæ Christi) propterea necessariam esse, non solùm quòd verè peccatum in nobis hæreat, sed etiam quòd justitia nostra inhærens non tam sit perfecta, ut simpliciter, et absolutè, justificet. At causam istam facile refutabimus…. Nam justitia inhærens, sive renovatio interior in fide, spe, et caritate, potissimum sita esse cognoscetur…. Quare si provaberimus fidem, spem, et caritatem in hac vita posse esse perfectam, probatum quoque erit, non esse necessariam imputationem justitiæ Christi.’ He then proceeds to prove the perfection of Faith, Hope, and Charity, in the present life.

Mr. Knox, who has recently reintroduced the Popish doctrine of a ‘moral’ Justification by infused and inherent righteousness, contends also for Christian perfection. ‘Remains,’ vol. i. pp. 1, 4, 6, 10, 24, 40, 94, 129, 317, 326, 343, 398; ‘Correspondence with Bishop Jebb,’ vol. i. pp. 113, 117, 140, 143, 209, 347, 352, 362, 365.

Osorio held that Faith includes all the graces, and is the principle or germ of Perfection: ‘Hæc autem Fides cum viget, continet omnem religionem atque pietatem. Omnes enim virtutes ex illâ aptæ atque nexæ sunt; et cum illâ sanctissimo vinculo colligatæ et implicitæ.’ … ‘Hæc est illius præcipua notio—forms, nempe, et constans debiti muneris et officii perfunctio.’—De Justitia, lib. i. pp. 198, 200. He objects to Luther’s doctrine of indwelling sin, and maintains that concupiscence in believers is not sin: lib. ii. 227, 230, 231. And he denies that Justification by obedience ascribes more than enough to human Merit: lib. ix. p. 408.

For a considerable time the doctrine of human Merit made progress under disguise: it was said that ‘Christ merited for us that we might merit;’ and further, that our inherent righteousness, being imperfect, was graciously accepted through His merits. But some of the scholastic writers threw off this disguise, and affirmed that our inherent righteousness was acceptable in itself, and was accepted simply on its own account, without reference to the merits of Christ. On the supposition of a perfect inherent righteousness, this was obviously the logical conclusion. Vasquez says: ‘At vero, cum opera justi condigne mereantur vitam eternam, tanquam æqualem mercedem et præmium, non opus est interventu alterius meriti condigni, quale est meritum Christi, ut iis reddatur vita æterna; quinimo aliquid habet peculiare meritum cujuscumque justi, respectu ipsius hominis justi, quod non habet meritum Christi,—nempe reddere ipsum hominem justum et dignum vita æterna, ut eam dignè consequatur; meritum autem Christi, licet dignissimum sit quod obtineat a Deo gratiam pro nobis, tamen non habet hanc efficaciam et virtutem, ut reddat nos formaliter justos et dignos æterna vita, sed per virtutem, ab Ipso derivatam, hunc consequuntur effectum homines in se ipsis.’ See Archbishop Wake’s ‘Exposition’ pp. 22, 23; ‘Vindication of Bossuet,’ p. 52; Wake’s ‘Defence,’ pp. 29–31, 34. Also Archbishop Usher, ‘Answer to a Jesuit,’ c. xii., ‘On Merits,’ pp. 472–506.

NOTE 2, p. 108

The origin of Indulgences, considered historically, is thus stated by ‘le Pere Alexandra, D.D., dans son livre intitulé, “Selecta Hist. Eccles. Capita (1681),” ’ as quoted by the editor of the French version of Baron Sekendorf’s ‘History of the Reformation in Germany:’—‘Il fait voire de quelle manière les Indulgences se sont introduites successivement dans l’Eglise Romaine. D’abord, dit-il, on commença d’user d’indulgence envers ceux qui, coupables de grossier péchés, avoient été condamnes à une longue pénitence, et on les reçut plutôt dans la communion de l’Eglise; surtout dans le temps de persecution, et lorsque ces penitens pouvoient produire une recommandation écrite de la main des Martin qui étoient detenus dans les prisons. A la suite, les persécutions ayaint cessé, les Eveques s’arrogérent le pouvoir de mitiger, et d’abreger les peînes Ecclesiastiques, sans exiger acune recommandation de personne; et ce droit fut accordé ensuite par le 1 Concile de Nicée. Dans le septieme siècle on commença de racheter les pénitencss par des aumones, ou par des sommes d’argent, destinées à la construction, ou a la reparation, des Temples. Ce fut dans le onzième siecle que le Pape Urban II. promit des Indulgences a tous ceux qui s’engageroient dans les Croisades pour la conquéte de la Terre Sainte, ou qui fourniroient des sécours pour soutenir cette guerre contre les hérétiques, et les prétendus ennemies de l’Eglise,—fussent-ils d’ailleurs Chretiens. Au douziéme siècle les Indulgences furent accordées a ceux qui, par un motif de devotion, visitoient certains Temples ou certains Autels, ou qui observoient certaines ceremonies prescrites par l’Eglise.’ ‘C’est ainsi que cet Auteur prouve, que dans l’Eglise primitive, on ignoroit parfaitement ce que c’etoit que les Indulgences des Papes. En effet, ce que les anciens Auteurs appelloient indulgence n’étoit autre chose qu’un adoucissement de peine, ou une limitation de la durée, d’une pénitence imposée pour plusieurs années…. Mais par tout cela on ne croioet pas mériter la remission des péchés devant Dieu; et il n’étoit point question de ce Trésor des Mérites de Jesus Christ, et des Saints, duquel les Evâques eussent la disposition; bien moins attribuoit-on à cette indulgence une vertue qui s’étendit jusques sur le feu du Purgatoire.’—Hist. de la Reformation, par le Baron de Sekendorf, abregée par Messrs. Junius et Roos, tom. i. pp. 14, 15. Note par l’Editeur.

The history of Indulgences shows that they were far from being a casual corruption, such as had no vital connection with other parts of the system, and might have been lopped off without injury to the general doctrine of the Church. On the contrary, they were, in the words of Dr. Cunningham, the culminating point of ‘a magnificent and well-compacted scheme, displaying great inventive genius, profound knowledge of human nature, and admirable skill in contrivance and adaptation. Each one of the principles or doctrines in the series, taken by itself, is fitted to obscure and pervert the scriptural account of the provision made for pardoning men’s sins, and saving them from the punishment their sins deserve; and all of them separately, and the whole conjointly, are necessary to be established, as the foundation of the doctrine of Indulgences, which may be regarded as constituting the climax of a long and intricate series of antiscriptural and most dangerous errors. If any one link in the series fail, the doctrine of Indulgences falls to the ground; and, conversely, if the doctrine of Indulgences be thoroughly established, it will be able to afford support to all these positions, which are virtually involved in it. This illustrates how naturally the exposure of Indulgences led, in the hands of Luther, and under the guidance of God’s Word and Spirit, to the full exposition of the doctrine of a free and complete Justification through faith in the righteousness of Christ. The doctrine of Indulgences, when analyzed and investigated, leads us back, step by step, through all the various questions which have been stated (of course in the inverse order to that which we have pursued), and thus brings us to the very threshold of the Scripture doctrine of Justification; while that great doctrine, on the other hand, once clearly seen, and steadily and faithfully applied, sweeps away at once all these errors, and all the practices and arrangements, all the fraud and imposture, which have been based upon them.’—Dr. Cunningham, Hist. Theol. ii. p. 95.

The late Cardinal Wiseman,—addressing an English, not a Spanish, or Austrian, or Italian, audience,—admitted that there had been some abuses in the practice of Indulgences, but attempted to defend the doctrine on which they rested; and to show that it had been entirely misunderstood by Protestants. ‘Many of you,’ he says, ‘have probably heard that this word signifies a licence to sin, given even beforehand for sins to be perpetrated; at any rate, a free pardon for past sins. This is, in fact, the most lenient form in which our doctrine is popularly represented. And yet, mitigated as it is, it is far from correct. I fear many persons here present will be inclined to incredulity, when I tell them, that it is no pardon for sin of any sort, past, present, or future! What, then, is an indulgence? It is no more than a remission by the Church … of a portion, or the entire, of the temporal punishment due to sin.’—Cardinal Wiseman, Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church, vol. ii. pp. 69, 71. Be it so; and suppose, moreover, that there is a real distinction between the temporal and the eternal punishment of sin,—was not its eternal punishment removed by baptism? and, if it was, did any other punishment remain to be remitted, except the temporal, including the sufferings of Penance in this world, and of Purgatory in the world to come? If that was the only punishment which men had any reason to fear, and if that was remitted, in part or in whole, by means of indulgences, might not the people reasonably regard the Pope’s pardon as a plenary absolution from all the penal consequences of sin? And that this was the light, in which it was not only regarded by the people, but represented also by the agents of the Pope in the sale of Indulgences, appears from some specimens of their eloquence which have been fortunately preserved. For example, at Berne, in 1518, Samson, one of these agents, proclaimed the following ‘graces,’—that all persons who complied with his injunctions should ‘receive absolution of all their sins, both guilt and punishment, and should be pure and clean from all sin, as they had been immediately after baptism,’ and that ‘they should deliver a soul, to be selected by themselves, out of purgatory.’ When the multitude had fallen on their knees, he ended by crying out—‘Now all the souls of the Bernese, in whatever place or manner they may have died, are altogether, and at the same moment, delivered, not only from the pains of purgatory, but from the torments of hell, and are raised to heaven.’—Ruchat and Gerdes, quoted by Scott, Continuation of Milner’s History, ii. p. 361. This, it may be said, was a mere popular harangue, and cannot be regarded as a fair specimen of the teaching of the Church; but we have also a copy of the ‘Letters of Indulgence’ which were issued by Tetzel in Germany, each being signed by his own hand. ‘The Lord Jesus Christ have pity on thee, and absolve thee by the merits of His most holy passion! It is in His name, and on His authority, as also on that of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of our most holy father the Pope, which has been entrusted to me for this end, that I absolve thee, first from all the ecclesiastical punishments which thou mayest have incurred, and besides this, from all the sins, crimes, and misdeeds, which thou mayest have committed, however great they may have been, even were they of a nature to be reserved for the Papal See. And this I do, according to the whole extent of “the power of the keys,” remitting to thee by a plenary indulgence all the punishments which thou shouldst have to endure in Purgatory. At the same time, I restore thee to the use of the holy sacraments of the Church, to the communion of the faithful, and to the state of innocence and purity in which thou wast immediately after thy baptism; in such a manner, that at thy death, the gates of all punishments shall be closed for thee, and those of Paradise and the celestial joy shall be opened for thee. As long as thou shalt live, this Indulgence shall have full force, even to the last breath of thy life: In the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen! Brother John Tetzel, Sub-Commissioner, has signed with his own hand.’—Baron Sekendorf, Histoire de la Reformation en Allemagne, abridged by MM. Junius and Roos, vol. i. pp. 19, 20. With these historical documents in our possession, is it wonderful if we do listen with some ‘incredulity,’ even to a cardinal of the Romish Church, when he assures a Protestant audience, that an Indulgence is ‘no pardon for sin of any sort, past, present, or future?’

Archbishop Wake gives the ‘Instructions pour gagne le Jubilée’ at Paris, so late as 1683. The Pope’s Bull is in these terms: ‘We give, and grant, by virtue of these presents, a plenary Indulgence, and remission of all sins. And that the Confessors absolve them in the court of conscience of all sins, excesses, crimes, and faults, how grievous or enormous soever they have been.’ In publishing this Bull, the Archbishop of Paris promised the people that ‘it will restore them to the same state they were first put into by Baptism.’—Wake’s Defence, p. 35. Bellarmine denies that Indulgences are mere relaxations of ecclesiastical penance, for they extend to souls in Purgatory, who are beyond Church discipline.—Answer to Bossuet’s Pastoral Letter, p. 53. Nor did they extend only to past sins, for they were expressly given for so many years, sometimes even till the hour of death.

Luther was a devout Monk, before he became a Reformer; and he bears witness to his personal experience when he first gives a form of monkish absolution, and then contrasts his own views as a Monk, and as a Reformer. The form of absolution, as given by Luther, runs thus: ‘Parcat tibi Deus, frater, Meritum passionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi,—et beatæ Mariæ semper Virginis,—et omnium Sanctorum: meritum Ordinis,—gravamen religionis,—humilitas confessionis,—contritio cordis,—bona opera, quæ fecisti et facies, pro amore Domini nostri Jesu Christi, cedant tibi in remissionem peccatorum tuorum,—in augmentum meriti et gratiæ,—et in premium vitæ æternæ. Amen!’ Luther’s remark on this form of absolution is—‘Si diligenter verba expenderis, intelliges Christum planè otiosum esse, et Ei detrahi gloriam et nomen Justificationis et Salvatoris, et tribui monasticis operibus.’ But the contrast between his experience as a Monk and a Reformer, is still more striking. ‘Ego in eodem luto hæsitavi, putabam Christum ease Judicem (etsi ore fatebar Eum passum et mortuum pro Redemptione generis humani), placamdum observatione Regulæ meæ. Ideò cum orabam aut celebrabam Missam, solitus eram semper adjicere in fine, “Domine Jesu, ad Te venio, et oro ut gravamina Ordinis mei sint compensatio pro peccatis meis.” Nunc verò gratias ago Patri misericordiarum, qui me è tenebris vocavit ad lucem Evangelii; et donavit me uberrima cognitione Christi Jesu Domini mei; propter quem, una cum Paulo, “Omnia duco esse damna, putoque esse δκύβαλα, ut Christum lucrifaciam, utque inveniar in Illo, non habens meam Justitiam, ex regula Augustini, sed eam quæ est per fidem Christi; Cui sit laus, et gloria, una cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto, in sæcula sæculorum. Amen!” ’—Archbishop Hare, Vindication of Luther, pp. 143, 144.

On Indulgences, see Voetius, ‘Disputations,’ vol. ii. pp. 286–304; Ullmann, ‘Reformers before the Reformation,’ vol. i. pp. 243, 276; Mr. Lawson, ‘Autobiography of Luther,’ pp. 32–51,—mainly founded on the second and third volumes of Michelet, ‘Memoires de Luther, Ecrits par Lui-Même,’ 1835.

NOTE 3, p. 111

Scott, ‘Continuation of Milner’s History,’ vol. i. p. 220.

Luther refers to the terms in which one was admitted to the office of the Priesthood: ‘Accipe potestatem sacrificandi pro vivis et mortuis.’ Archbishop Whately did good service to the cause of truth, by maintaining and proving that there is no Priestly Caste in the Christian Church, and no Priesthood except such as is common to all believers as ‘a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people.’ Whately, ‘Essays on the Peculiarities of the Christian Religion,’ p. 382; ‘Errors of Romanism,’ pp. 99–118; ‘Cautions for the Times,’ pp. 82, 383.

NOTE 4, p. 112

Jo. Gerhard, ‘Loc. Theolog.’ vol. vii., Locus xvii. ‘De Justificatione,’ pp. 1–317; Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise on Justification,’ passim; Bishop Davenant, ‘Disput. de Habituali et Actuali Justitia,’ translated by Allport; Brown (of Wamphray), ‘The life of Justification Opened;’ Roborough (Scribe to the Westminster Assembly), ‘The Doctrine of Justification Cleared;’ Anthony Burgess, ‘The True Doctrine of Justification;’ Dr. Cunningham, ‘Historical Theology,’ ii. pp. 1–154; Dr. Owen on ‘Justification,’ Works, vol. xi., Russel’s edition.

NOTE 5, p. 112

Fra-Paolo Sarpi, ‘Histoire du Concile de Trente,’ by Le Courayer, 2 vols. fol., vol. i. pp. 301–315.

‘Quadriennio ferè ante Concilium Tridentinum, justo tractatu asseruit orthodoxam de Justificatione doctrinam Cardinalis CONTARENUS.’—Dr. John Prideaux, Lects. Decem, p. 143.

John Wesel, in 1489, had said, ‘God condemns, yet God justifies. It is the greatest of wonders that the very same divine justice which is armed with an eternal law of threatening and condemnation towards the transgressor, should, in the day and hour of judgment, not only hold back the sword of vengeance, and absolve from the punishment threatened, bat should raise the criminal to heights of glory and happiness. Who does not wonder to see the truthfulness of threatenings converted into the truthfulness of promises, so that strict truth is kept on both sides, and in both aspects? These two contradictions are reconciled in “the Lamb of God”—the infinite atonement of Christ.’—Dr. Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, ii. p. 334. See for a full account of Wesel, Ullmann’s ‘Reformers before the Reformation,’ vol. ii. b. iv. pp. 263–615; and for John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, Em. de Bonnechose, ‘The Reformers before the Reformation,’—the Fifteenth Century, ‘John Huss and the Council of Constance,’ 2 vols. in one, Aberdeen, 1859.

NOTE 6, p. 113

The post-Trentine bulls and decisions on points of doctrine are appended to some editions of the ‘Canones et Decreta;’ but they are given separately, in a convenient form, by a Louvaine divine, F. V. Ranst (1718), ‘Veritas in Medio.’ It contains—the 79 propositions of Baius, pp. 4–44,—at p. 30 the propositions ‘De Justitia, seu Justificatione;’ the five propositions of Jansenius, pp. 44–75; 110 propositions that were condemned by Alexander VII. and Innocent XI. in 1665, 1666, and 1679, pp. 78–165; additional propositions condemned by Alexander VIII. in 1690, pp. 166–202; 67 propositions of Molino by Innocent XI., pp. 203–207; 23 propositions condemned by Innocent XII. in 1699, p. 208; 101 propositions of Quesnel condemned by Clement XI., pp. 216–289. Besides these, many propositions were condemned by other recognised authorities; e.g. Lombard, in his ‘Sententiarum, Libri 4,’ gives a ‘Collectio Errorum Parisiis Condemnatorum,’ pp. 381–409. Mœhler, in the first edition of his ‘Symbolism,’ assumed that the Canons and Decrees of Trent were the only authority, but afterwards admitted that the bulls and decisions of the Papal See were equally binding. Dens appeals to the latter as well as the former; for he says that—the ‘Bullam Clementis XI., cujus initium “Unigenitus Dei Filius,”—“esse legem dogmaticam Universalis Ecclesiæ, adeoque meritò vocari regulam Fidei, eique dissentientes esse hæreticos.” ’—Theol. vol. ii. p. 130. For the recent addition of the dogma of the ‘Immaculate Conception,’ see Dr. Pusey’s ‘Eirenicon’—the most valuable part of the work. This addition may have been made informally; but is there any limit to the process of development? May it not develop Protestantism itself, or even Pantheism? Or can it recognise any fixed creed? The Dublin Review affirmed that Rome has no symbolical books, and is not bound by the Decrees of Trent, vol. xliv. p. 277, vol. xlvi. p. 395.

NOTE 7, p. 121

‘Fides Formata.’ See Luther on Ep. to Galatians, Eng. trans. 1575, pp. 67, 104, 112, 119, 125, 132.

‘A true and stedfast faith,’ says Luther, ‘must lay hold upon nothing else but Christ alone…. This our adversaries understand not; and therefore they cast away this precious pearl—Christ, and, in His place, they set—Charity, which, they say, is their precious diamond.’—On the Ep. to Gal. p. 67.

NOTE 8, p. 126

The two opposite systems are characterized by D’Aubigné, ‘History of the Reformation in Europe,’ i. 27, 277; Bishop Davenant, ‘Disputations,’ Pref. xvii. xix.; Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine of Justification,’ pp. xx. 209; Dr. Cunningham, ‘The Reformers and Theology of the Reformation,’ pp. 24, 64, 102; ‘Historical Theology,’ ii. 3, 10, 13, etc.

---

NOTES TO LECTURE V

NOTE 1, p. 128

Melancthon’s ‘Confession,’ and ‘Apology.’ See ‘Sylloge Confessionum,’ and ‘Harmony of Protestant Confessions,’ Sekendorf, vol. ii. p. 205; Scott’s ‘Continuation of Milner,’ vol. i. p. 89.

NOTE 2, p. 128

The refutation of the Augsburg Confession, by Faber and Eck, ‘divided the articles of the Confession into three classes; one of which, containing doctrines common to both parties, it wholly approved; another it wholly rejected; and the third it partly approved and partly condemned. Six doctrines were wholly rejected; and one of these was, “that men are not justified by the merit of good works, but by faith alone.” ’—Du Pin, quoted by Scott, ‘Continuation of Milner’s History,’ i. 51.

NOTE 3, p. 129

Melchior Adam, i. 69; Luther’s ‘Animadversions on the Edict of Augsburg’ in 1531; Scott’s ‘Continuation of Milner’s History,’ i. p. 99.

NOTE 4, p. 130

‘It is enough for us to agree,’ says Erasmus, ‘that man can effect nothing of himself; that if he can do anything, it is entirely of divine grace; that very much indeed is to be ascribed to Faith, which is the peculiar gift of the Holy Spirit, and is of much wider extent than is commonly supposed, and is not possessed by all who say, “I believe that Christ died for me.” Let it be allowed that the hearts of believers are justified,—that is, purified,—by faith; but only let us confess that the works of charity are necessary to the attainment of salvation; for true faith cannot be idle, being the fountain and source of all good works. God is not properly any man’s debtor, except He have made Himself such by free promise; and even then, our performing the condition of the promise, is itself the fruit of His bounty. Yet the word “reward,” or “merit,” is not to be rejected, since God of His goodness is pleased to accept and reward what He Himself works in us, or by us.’—Scott, Continuation of Milner’s History, i. 159, 160.

NOTE 5, p. 132

The article is preserved by Du Pin. ‘The first article about Justification, establishes these three principles beforehand:—1. That it is certain that, since the fall of Adam, all men are born enemies of God, and children of wrath by sin. 2. That they cannot be reconciled to God, nor redeemed from the bondage of sin, but by Jesus Christ, our only Mediator. 3. That persons of riper years cannot obtain these graces unless they be prevented (first visited) by the motions of the Holy Spirit, which inclines their mind and will to detest sin;’ that, after this first motion, their mind is raised up to God, by faith in the promises made to them that their sins are freely forgiven them, and that God will adopt those for His children who believe in Jesus Christ. From these principles it follows, that sinners are justified by a living and effectual faith, which is a motion of the Holy Spirit, whereby, repenting of their lives past, they are raised to God, and made real partakers of the mercy which Jesus Christ hath promised, being satisfied that their sins are forgiven, and that they are reconciled by the merits of Jesus Christ; which no man attains, but at the same time love is shed abroad in his heart, and he begins to fulfil the law. So that justifying faith “worketh by love,”—though it justifies not but as it leads us to mercy and righteousness—which (righteousness) is imputed to us through Jesus Christ and His merits, and not by any perfection of righteousness which is inherent in us, as communicated to us by Jesus Christ. So that we are not just, or accepted by God, on account of our own works or righteousness, but we are reputed just on account of the merits of Jesus Christ only. Yet this is not to hinder us from exhorting the people to increase this faith, and this charity, by outward and inward works; so that, though the people be taught that faith alone justifieth, yet repentance, the fear of God and of His judgments, the practice of good works, etc., ought to be preached to them.’—See Dr. Robertson, History of Charles V., vol. iii. p. 150; Scott’s Continuation of Milner’s History, i. 277.

NOTE 6, p. 132

Melancthon, ‘Ad Gallos Consilium,’ ‘Opera,’ i. p. 222.

NOTE 7, p. 134

The dissatisfaction of both parties is strongly stated by Dr. Robertson:—‘All the zealous Catholics, particularly the ecclesiastics who had a seat in the Diet, joined in condemning Gropper’s treatise as too favourable to the Lutheran opinion, the poison of which heresy it conveyed, as they pretended, with greater danger, because it was in some degree disguised. The rigid Protestants, especially Luther himself, and his patron the Elector of Saxony, were for rejecting it as an impious compound of error and truth, craftily prepared that it might impose on the weak, the timid, and the unthinking.’—History of Charles. V. in 4 vols., vol. iii. p. 151.

On this, as on several other occasions, the sagacity and firmness of the Elector frustrated the devices of the Romish party, and afforded seasonable support and encouragement to the divines of Wittemberg. He described the conciliatory article as a handle given to their adversaries to represent them as having departed from their original tenets. He looked, it is said, ‘with great jealousy on a sort of middle party which he thought had risen up among the Protestants, and said that he feared much more the caresses of Ratisbon, than the severity of Augsburg. He would have his representatives, therefore, adhere to the very terms, as well as to the sense, of the “Confession,” and reject all ambiguous language which might be twisted to opposite meanings. And he declared that even if Luther himself should give way, which he trusted would never be the case, it should not be with his countenance.’ But there was no reason to doubt the stedfastness of Luther. He entreated the Elector, indeed, not to be severe on Philip, for ‘it would break his heart;’ but characterized the article as ‘botched and unsatisfactory.’ ‘It seemed to him, he said, that his friend had proposed an orthodox formulary, asserting Justification by faith alone without works, according to Rom. 3; but that the collocutors on the contrary part had substituted another, taken from Gal. 5, concerning “faith working by love;” and that this having been rejected by Melancthon, one had been formed out of the two, which seemed to sanction the opinions of both parties.’ Luther, commenting on the clause, that ‘the repenting sinner is justified by a living and efficacious faith,’ says: ‘Either Eckius must acknowledge (which he will never do) that he and his friends have not before taught this doctrine, and then the article may stand for a time; or he will boast (and this is what he certainly will do) that they have always taught the doctrine of an efficacious or operative faith, and then the article will become a new patch upon the old garment, by which the rent will be made worse.’ He explains the expression, ‘faith which worketh by love,’ by saying, that ‘it does not treat of Justification, but of the life of the justified. It is one thing to be made righteous, and another to act as righteous; one thing to be, and another to do. It is one question, How a man is justified before God? another, How a justified man acts? It is one thing for a tree to be produced, another for it to bring forth fruit.’ And Melancthon himself strongly disclaimed all intention to relinquish any part of the Protestant doctrine, declaring that ‘he would rather die than compromise the truth and wound his own conscience,’ and expressing his regret ‘for any undue facility in suffering himself to be employed in vain and foolish schemes of conciliation;—’Conciliationes fucosas,’ ‘fallaces,’ ‘plenas turpitudinis et periculi.’ In a paper intended for his last will, he reiterates the same assurances,—exhorting his children ‘to avoid connection with the Papists, who, on many points, taught a very corrupt doctrine, and were altogether without the true doctrine of Justification by faith, and of the remission of sins;’ warning them ‘against all hollow and insincere methods of reconciling the doctrines in dispute, by which old errors would be covertly introduced again, and the truth corrupted;’ and protesting his own sincerity and singleness of purpose in these affecting terms: ‘I can truly affirm that I have endeavoured soundly to explain the doctrine of our Church, that it might be rightly understood by younger students and handed down to posterity. I know, indeed, that it has at times been suspected that I attempted some things in favour of our adversaries; but I call God to witness that I had no wish to favour such persons, but aimed only at correct statements, excluding all ambiguities, though many are aware how difficult I found it to attain this…. Nor was it my design to introduce any new dogma, but perspicuously and correctly to explain the catholic doctrine as delivered in our Churches, which I judge to have been brought to light in these late years, by the singular goodness of God, through the instrumentality of Dr. Martin Luther, that thus the Church might be purified and restored, which must otherwise have utterly perished.’—See Scott’s Continuation of Milner’s History, vol. i. pp. 284, 289, 298.

NOTE 8, p. 135

Scott’s ‘Continuation of Milner’s History,’ i. 453, ii. 93. In regard to Charles v., Thuanus, as quoted and translated by Dr. Owen (Works, vol. xi. p. 42), makes the following remarkable statement. He felt ‘that in himself he was altogether unworthy to obtain the kingdom of heaven by his own works or merits,—but that his Lord God, who enjoyed it on a double right or title—by inheritance of the Father—and the merit of His own passion,—was contented with the one Himself, and freely granted unto him the other; on whose free grant he laid claim thereunto, and in confidence thereof he should not be confounded; for the oil of mercy is poured only into the vessel of faith, or trust;—that this is the trust of a man despairing in himself, and resting in his Lord; otherwise to trust in his own works or merits, is not faith, but perfidy;—that sins are blotted out by the mercy of God,—and therefore we ought to believe that our sins can be pardoned by Him alone against whom alone we have sinned,—with whom there is no sin, and by whom alone sins are forgiven.’

NOTE 9, p. 136

Scott’s ‘Continuation of Milner’s History,’ vol. i. p. 285.

NOTE 10, p. 136

‘Satan can shape a trial,—he can put it to such ane frame,—he can draw it to a small point,—and set it like ane razor’s edge, that, although there seem little between the two, the one side is a denying Christ, and the other a confessing of Him.’—John Livingstone, Select Biographies of the Wodrow Society, vol. i. p. 204.

NOTE 11, p. 139

‘Concilii Trident. Canones et Decreta,’ Paris, 1832, Sessio vi., pp. 29–40, Decreta; pp. 40–46, Canones.

NOTE 12, p. 139

Paoli Sarpi’s words are: ‘La doctrine inouie de la Justification par la Foi seule.’—Histoire du Con. de Trent, par Courayer, vol. i. pp. 298, 303. See also Scott’s ‘Continuation of Milner’s History,’ vol. ii. p. 270.

NOTE 13, p. 140

See on Soto and Vega’s Interpretations of the Trent Decrees, Petavius, ‘Dogm. Theologica,’ tom. iii. ‘De Trident. Concilii Interpretatione,’ c. xv. p. 358. See also Bishop Stillingfleet’s ‘Reply to Gother,’ edited by Dr. Cunningham, p. 26; and Dr. E. B. Pusey, ‘Eirenicon,’ pp. 98, 190, 209, 266, on the practical system of the Romish Church, as being worse even than her doctrinal creed.

NOTE 14, p. 141

Calvin says: ‘Sic quidem præfaritur, ut initio, nihil spirent præter Christum; sed, cum ad rem ventum est, multum abest, quin illi relinquant, quod suum est. Immo, nihil tandem aliud continet eorum definitio, quàm tritum illud scholarum dogma,—partim gratiâ Dei, partim operibus propriis, justificari homines.’—Antidotum, Tractatus, p. 277.

And Chemnitz, in like manner, says: ‘Tridentini etiam dicunt, Justificationem esse translationem ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius iræ, in statum gratiæ et adoptionis … in regnum filii delectionis suæ, in quo habemus redemptionem et remissionem peccatorum. Videt lector, ipsos ad veram significationem verbi “justificare,” non obscurè alludere; sed mox postea, ubi ad rem ipsam ventum est, ut explicetur, quid sit justificatio peccatoris, ibi justificare, ipsis nihil aliud significat, quam homini per Spiritum renovationis infundi habitum, vel qualitatem justitiæ inhærentem.’—Examen, p. 130.

The chief works on the Tridentine doctrine of Justification are these:

Calvin, ‘Acta Synodi Tridentinæ, cum Antidoto,’ Tractatus, Geneva, 1611, pp. 250–300, Sess. vi. pp. 272–292.

Chemnitz, ‘Examen Concilii Tridentini,’ in four parts, in reply to Andradius, Frankfort, 1585; ‘De Justificatione,’ Part i. pp. 126–173; ‘De Bonis Operibus,’ pp. 174–188.

Bellarmine, Op. vol. ii.; ‘De Justificatione,’ in five books, pp. 811–1131.

Amesius, ‘Bellarminus Enervatus; Scriptum Elencticum,’ in four vols.; tom. iv. lib. vi. ‘De Justificatione,’ pp. 113–178; ‘De Meritis,’ lib. vii. pp. 181–195.

Downham, Bishop of Derry, ‘Treatise on Justification.’

Bishop Davenant, ‘Disputatio de Justitia Habituali et Actuali,’ translated by Allport, 2 vols. 8vo.

Lubbertus Sibrandus, in the Dedication of his able work in reply to Socinus, ‘De Servatore,’ intimates his intention to publish ‘integram Bellarmini refutationem, quam penè ad finem perduxi,’ which has not come into my hands.

Osorio, Opera, tom. ii.; ‘De Justitia,’ lib. x. pp. 186–456, 1592.

John Foxe, the Martyrologist, answered Osorio in a Latin treatise, afterwards translated by his friend and fellow-labourer John Day, the printer, under the title, ‘Of Free Justification by Christ.’ It is given in an abridged form in the ‘British Reformers,’ vol. FOX and COVERDALE.

NOTE 15, p. 143

Bishop Atterbury, ‘Answer to some Considerations on the Spirit of M. Luther,’ etc., 1687, p. 106.

NOTE 16, p. 143

See Gother’s ‘Papist Misrepresented and Represented,’ with Bishop Stillingfleet’s Answer to it, edited by Dr. Cunningham; Dr. Thomas Butler, ‘Truths of the Catholic Religion proved from Scripture alone,’ 2 vols.; Dr. Milner’s ‘End of Religious Controversy;’ Charles Butler, ‘Book of the Roman Catholic Church,’ answered in Bishop Philpotts’ ‘Letters,’ and J. Blanco White’s ‘Internal Evidence against Catholicism;’ Cardinal Wiseman’s ‘Lectures on the Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church;’ Berington and Kirk, ‘Faith of Catholics confirmed by Scripture and attested by the Fathers,’ etc., 3 vols. 8vo.

NOTE 17, p. 144

Scott’s ‘Continuation of Milner’s History,’ vol. i. p. 508; Dr. Cunningham’s Edition of ‘Bishop Stillingfleet’s Reply to Gother,’ p. 46.

NOTE 18, p. 144

Dezius, ‘La Re-Union des Protestants de Strasburg à I’Eglise Romaine;’ ‘Mosheim’s History,’ by M’Laine, vol. v. 127.

NOTE 19, p. 145

Bossuet’s ‘Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church in Matters of Controversy.’ First printed in 1671; translated from the 9th French Edition, and published by His Majesty’s command, 1686. It was answered, at first anonymously, in Archbishop Wake’s ‘Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the Bishop of Meaux, with a Preface giving an account of his book,’ 1686. This was met by ‘A Vindication of Bossuet’s Exposition, prepared by a Rev. Father, and published by His Majesty’s Printer, 1686;’ which called forth Archbishop Wake’s ‘Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England.’ Another, and a very able, ‘Answer to Bossuet’s Exposition’ appeared in the same year. See a volume entitled, ‘Sum of the Popish Controversy,’ in the Library of the New College.

NOTE 20, p. 145

Dr. Christopher Davenport, or Francis à Sancta Clara, published a work entitled, ‘Paraphrastica Expositio Articulorum Confessionis Anglicanæ,’ which has recently been reprinted in English from the Latin Edition of 1646, London, 1865. For some account of it, see Dr. Cunningham’s Edition of ‘Bishop Stillingfleet’s Reply to Gother,’ p. 29, and Dr. Goode’s ‘Rule of Faith,’ vol. i. Pref. xiii.

NOTE 21, p. 147

Dr. Mœhler’s ‘Symbolism; An Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants, as evidenced by their Symbolical Writings;’ translated by J. Burton Robertson, Esq. For his high character as a theologian, see Dr. Cunningham, ‘Histor. Theol.’ vol. i. 485. For his views of the authority belonging to post-Trentine Bulls and decisions, as well as to the Decrees and Canons of that Council, see vol. i. pp. 21, 37; of Justification, vol. i. pp. 115–281; of Original Righteousness and Original Sin, vol. i. pp. 34, 37, 71.

Mœhler’s attack on the Lutheran doctrine of Justification called forth several able replies in Germany, by Baur, Nitzsch, Hengstenberg, and Marheineke. Archdeacon Hare had not seen the two last, but speaks highly of the two former. ‘Baur,’ he says, ‘when reprinting his masterly and triumphant refutation of Mœhler’s attack on the Lutheran doctrine of Justification, remarks, p. 319, “It may be regarded as a cheering proof of the firmness and stability with which this fundamental doctrine of the Lutheran creed still maintains its central place in the minds of Protestants, that, among the Protestant theologians who have taken part in this controversy, there is no perceptible difference of any importance on this point.” ’—Vindication of Luther, p. 116. See also pp. 171, 172. Baur’s peculiar opinions on other points,—such as the Atonement,—might not prevent him from vindicating, on historical grounds, Luther’s real sentiments on Justification, when these were assailed or distorted; but, on doctrinal grounds, Luther’s doctrine cannot be understood or defended by any man, apart from the Atonement.

NOTE 22, p. 148

Dr. Newman’s ‘Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,’ 2d. Ed. 1846. The untenableness of the old defences, pp. 8, 24, 25; the Developing power of the Church, pp. 27, 37, 57, 63, 277, 337, 344.

It was vigorously assailed by Dr. Brownson, in America, and defended in the ‘Dublin Review,’ vol. xliv. p. 325, xlvi. p. 373. See also Dr. Wordsworth’s ‘Letters to M. Gondon,’ p. 8, and Prof. Butler’s ‘Letters on Development,’ passim.

NOTE 23, p. 148

See Perrone, ‘Prælectiones Theologicæ,’ vol. vi. pt. ii. He treats of Justification under the title, ‘De Gratia Sanctificante,’ pp. 200–244; ‘De Merito,’ pt. iii. pp. 244–257; vol. viii. ‘De Indulgentiis,’ pp. 5–37. See Dens, ‘Theologia Mor. et Dogm.’ 8 vols.: on Justification, ii. p. 446; on Merit, ii. p. 458; on Guilt, i. 357, 363; on Prayer for Pardon, iv. 28, ii. 48.

NOTE 24, p. 148

See Le Blanc, ‘Theses Theologicæ,’ pp. 191–304.

NOTE 25, p. 148

See Mrs. Schimmelpennick’s ‘Memorials of Port Royal;’ Pascal ‘Provincial Letters,’ by Dr. M’Crie, p. 15; Gossner’s ‘Life of Martin Boos,’ abridged by London Tract Society; ‘Journal of M. de St. Amour. Doctor of the Sorbonne, containing a full account of the transactions both in France and at Rome, concerning the Five famous Propositions controverted between the Jansenists and the Molinists, till the Pope’s Decision,’ translated from the French, London, 1664;—a most instructive work, which throws much light on the views which then prevailed at Rome on the doctrine of grace, and on the manner in which such processes are managed there.

NOTE 26, p. 149

Dr. Cunningham, ‘Histor. Theology,’ vol. ii. 113, 118; Archdeacon Hare, ‘Vindication of Luther,’ pp. 32, 33.

---

NOTES TO LECTURE VI

NOTE 1, p. 152

David Laing, Esq., the accomplished Editor of the Works of John Knox, quotes (vol. iii. p. 417) this striking testimony from Dr. M’Crie’s ‘Life of Knox’ (vol. i. p. 390): ‘In reading the writings of the first Reformers, there are two things which must strike our minds. The first is, the exact conformity between the doctrine maintained by them respecting the Justification of sinners, and that of the Apostles. The second is, the surprising harmony which subsisted among them on this important doctrine. On some questions respecting the sacraments, and the external government and discipline of the Church, they differed; but upon the article of FREE JUSTIFICATION, Luther and Zuinglius, Melancthon and Calvin, Cranmer and Knox, spoke the very same language. This was not owing to their having read each other’s writings, but because they copied from the same divine original. The clearness with which they understood and explained this great truth, is also very observable. More able and learned defences of it have since appeared; but I question if it has ever been stated in more scriptural, unequivocal, and decided language, than in the writings of the early Reformers. Some of their successors, by giving way to speculation, gradually lost sight of this distinguishing badge of the Reformation, and landed at last in Arminianism, which is nothing else but the Popish doctrine in a Protestant dress.’ The Treatise on Justification by Henry Balnaves, 1584, is still one of the best in our language. It is given in Mr. Laing’s Edition of Knox’s Works, vol. iii. pp. 431–542, with Knox’s recommendation and summary of it, iii. pp. 5–28. It is also reprinted from the Edition 1584 in the ‘British Reformers,’ London Tract Society, in the same volume, with the admirable ‘Places’ of Patrick Hamilton. Balnave’s Treatise is the more valuable because ‘Knox has informed us, that his design, in preparing it for the press, was to give, along with the Author, his own “Confession of the article of Justification therein contained.” ’

NOTE 2, p. 153

Bishop O’Brien, ‘Sermons on the Nature and Effects of Faith,’ xx. 115, 129; ‘Sylloge Confessionum;’ Hall, ‘Harmony of Protestant Confessions;’ G. S. Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine of Justification,’ pp. 3, 264–268; Dr. Cunningham, ‘Histor. Theology,’ ii. 21; ‘The Reformers and Theology of Reformation,’ p. 163.

NOTE 3, p. 155

Dr. Newman, ‘Lectures on Justification,’ App. p. 436; Bishop Davenant, ‘Disputatio, etc.,’ by Allport, vol. i. pp. 161, 162; Scott’s ‘Continuation of Milner’s History,’ vol. i. 234, ii. 116.

‘Since Osiander,’ says Calvin, ‘has introduced I know not what monstrous notion of essential righteousness, by which, though he had no intention to destroy Justification by grace, yet he has involved it in such obscurity as darkens pious minds, and deprives them of a weighty sense of the grace of Christ, it will be worth while to refute this idle notion…. Not being content with that righteousness which hath been procured for us by the obedience and sacrificial death of Christ, he imagines that we are substantially righteous in God, by the infusion of His essence as well as His character…. As this principle is like a cuttle-fish, which, by the emission of black and turbid blood, conceals its many tails, there is a necessity for a vigorous opposition to it, unless we mean to submit to be openly robbed of that righteousness, which alone affords us any confidence concerning our salvation. For throughout this discussion, the terms righteousness and justify are extended by him to two things: first, he understands that to be justified denotes not only to be reconciled to God by a free pardon, but also to be made righteous; and that righteousness is not a gratuitous imputation, but a sanctity and integrity inspired by the divine essence which resides in us: secondly, he resolutely denies that Christ is our righteousness, as having, in the character of a Priest, expiated our sins and appeased the Father on our behalf, but in being “the eternal God and everlasting life.” To prove the assertion that God justifies, not only by pardoning, but also by regenerating, he inquires whether God leaves those whom He justifies in their natural state without any reformation of their manners. The answer is very easy: As Christ cannot be divided, so these two blessings, which we receive together in Him, are also inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into His favour, He likewise gives them the Spirit of adoption, by whose power He renews them in His own image. But if the brightness of the sun be inseparable from his heat, shall we therefore say, that the earth is warmed by his light, and illuminated by his heat?’—Institutes, translated by Allen, vol. i. pp. 579–592.

Melancthon was equally explicit in testifying against Osiander’s doctrine. He conceived that it raised a question which was neither ‘verbal nor trivial,’ but vital and important,—Are we reckoned righteous ‘from the indwelling of Christ in us, or by His obedience for us?’ and he gives his deliverance upon it. ‘Osiander holds that we are righteous by the Divinity dwelling in us…. We also acknowledge that God dwells in the regenerate, so as to produce not only virtuous emotions, but even the commencement of eternal life, to make us “partakers of a divine nature.” But then there exists a question of another kind,—How may man receive remission of sins and reconciliation with God? How may he have righteousness imputed, or reckoned, unto him? Is this from the indwelling of Christ in us, or by His obedience for us? Osiander in effect says, that we are justified by our renovation to holiness. We, on the other hand, while we admit the necessity of renovation, hold that the renewed man is justified, or accepted of God, for the sake of Christ’s obedience.’ He adds, ‘I regard Osiander’s dogma as no mere logomachy, or strife of words. He differs from our churches on a very essential point; and obscures, or rather destroys, the only consolation provided for distressed consciences, seeing he leads us not to the promise of mercy, through the obedience of the Mediator, but directs us to another object.’—Scott’s Continuation of Milner’s History, vol. ii. p. 116.

Cranmer was married to a niece of A. Osiander. The latter must be distinguished from L. Osiander, who wrote the ‘Enchiridion Controversiarum’ of his age, published at Wittemberg in 1614.

NOTE 4, p. 156

On Lauterwald’s opinions, see Scott’s ‘Continuation of Milner’s History,’ ii. 118–121.

NOTE 5, p. 157

On Stancari’s opinions, see Calvin’s ‘Inst.’ i. Book ii. c. xiv.; Turretine, vol. ii. p. 411, loc. xiv. ques. ii. I find some traces of the same opinion in the work of an able Scotch divine, Alex. Pitcairne of Dron, in Stratherne, ‘The Spiritual Sacrifice’ (pp. 831. London, 1664); see pp. 37–40. I am indebted to David Laing, Esq., of the Signet Library, for the use of this rare work.

NOTE 6, p. 158

A letter by Luther against the Antinomians is given in Samuel Rutherford’s ‘Survey of Antinomianism and Familism,’ pp. 69–74. Luther delivered also six public disputations against them at Wittemberg, and all his writings abound with indignant protests against their errors. Calvin was equally decided in his opposition to them. See his ‘Instructio adversus Anabaptistas,’ and his ‘Instructio adversus Libertinos,’ the former pp. 411–432, and the latter pp. 433–473, of his ‘Tractatus,’ folio, Geneva, 1611.

NOTE 7, p. 161

Dickinson, ‘Familiar Letters,’ pp. 154–180; Beart, ‘Vindication of the Eternal Law,’ P. ii. pp. iv–vii.; Robert Traill, ‘Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine of Justification from the charge of Antinomianism,’ Works, vol. i. pp. 305–359; Witsius, ‘Animadversiones Irenicæ,’ Misc. Sac. ii. 771; Brown, ‘Life of Justification,’ p. 259; Dr. Burgess, ‘True Doctrine of Justification,’ pp. 18, 185.

NOTE 8, p. 164

On the Socinian doctrine, see various treatises in the ‘Fratres Poloni;’ L’Amy, ‘History of Socinianism;’ F. Spanheim, ‘Elenchus Controv.’ pp. 137–144; Stapfer, ‘Instit. Theolog. Polem.’ pp. 350–383; Socinus, ‘De Servatore,’ with the answer of Sibrandus Lubbertus, 1611, especially lib. iii. and iv. pp. 309–630.

Socinus, ‘Tractatus de Justificatione,’ in his ‘Opuscula,’ Racoviæ (1611), pp. 1–143.

Also the ‘Racovian Catechism,’ with Bishop Stillingfleet’s account of the important variations which it has undergone in successive editions, in the preface to his work on ‘Christ’s Satisfaction;’ Castellio, ‘Dialogi’ (1613), to which is appended ‘Tractatus de Justificatione,’ pp. 31–89. The great work of Hoornbeek, ‘Socinianismus Confutatus’ (1662), tom. ii. lib. iii. c. ii. ‘De Justificatione,’ pp. 671–721; also, his ‘Compendium Disputationum Anti-Sociniarum,’ Misc. Sac. lib. ii. c. xxv. pp. 233–261 (1672). Maresius, ‘Hydra Socinianismi Expuganata,’ in reply to Volkelius and Crellius (1651), vol. ii. lib. iv. c. iii. ‘De Fide, et de Justificatione,’ pp. 449–479. Dr. Owen, ‘Vindiciæ Evangelicæ,’ in reply to Smalcius and Biddle, Works by Russell, vols. viii. ix., vol. ix. p. 206. He gives the doctrine of Socinians on Justification in their own words, vol. ix. p. 255. Dr. John Edwards, ‘The Socinian Creed,’ pp. 59–71, 201, 209. Andrew Fuller, ‘Calvinistic and Socinian Systems Compared,’ p. 148. Dr. Cunningham, ‘Histor. Theology,’ vol. ii. c. xxiii. sec. 3, 4, pp. 168–192.

NOTE 9, p. 165

Dr. Channing, ‘Works’ and ‘Memoirs;’ Dr. Ellis, ‘Half Century of Unitarianism in America;’ Martineau, ‘Rationale of Religious Inquiry,’ with Blanco White’s Letter. Also, B. White’s ‘Memoirs.’

NOTE 10, p. 167

Dr. Hill, ‘Lectures,’ vol. ii. pp. 378–388; Balguy, ‘Essay on Redemption;’ Rev. Henry Taylor, ‘Apology of Ben Mordecai,’ 2 vols., London, 1784; on ‘Justification,’ see Letter vi. p. 725.

NOTE 11, p. 170

Robert Barclay, ‘Theses Theologicæ,’ and ‘Apology for the True Christian Divinity; an ’Explanation and Vindication of the Principles and Doctrines of the People called Quakers,’ 8th Edition, London, 1780. The seventh Proposition relates to Justification, pp. 8, 196–241. John Brown (Wamphray), ‘Quakerism the Pathway to Paganism,’ an Examination of Robert Barclay’s ‘Theses’ and ‘Apology,’ 4to, 1678. The doctrine of Justification is discussed, c. xiii. pp. 293–325. ‘Journal of George Fox,’ 7th Edition, in 2 vols., edited by W. Armistead (1852), and containing a preface by William Penn, vol. i. pp. 1–47. Dr. Wardlaw, ‘Friendly Letters to the Society of Friends on some of their Distinguishing Principles’ (1836); Letters v. and vi. on ‘The Doctrine of Justification,’ pp. 175–233. Dr. Wardlaw gives some pleasing extracts from the writings of Mr. Gurney, which show that his views approximated very nearly to those of the Reformers.

 

NOTE 12, p. 173

The sentiments of Arminius on the doctrine of Justification may be collected from the following parts of his Works:—‘Declaration of Sentiments,’ art. 9, ‘On Justification,’ vol. i. 262; ‘Public Disputations,’ art. 19, ‘On the Justification of Man before God,’ vol. i. 595; ‘Private Disputations,’ art. 48, ‘On Justification,’ vol. ii. 116; ‘Letter to Hippolytus,’ art. 5, ‘Justification,’ vol. ii. 473; ‘Certain Articles to be Diligently Examined and Weighed,’ art. 23, ‘On the Justification of Man as a Sinner, but yet a Believer, before God,’ vol. ii. 504.

That his sentiments were, to a large extent, in accordance with those of the Reformers, will appear from the following extracts:—

Justification by the Moral Law is thus defined: ‘It is that by which a man, having performed the duties of the Moral Law without transgression, and being placed before the tribunal of the severe justice of God, is accounted and declared by God to be righteous, and worthy of the reward of eternal life—in himself, of debt, according to the law, and without grace, to his own salvation’ (welfare?), ‘and to the glory both of divine, and human, righteousness.’—Vol. i. 597.

Justification by faith is thus defined: ‘It is a Justification by which a man, who is a sinner, yet a believer, being placed before the throne of grace, which is erected in Christ Jesus the Propitiation, is accounted and pronounced by God, the just and merciful Judge, righteous and worthy of the reward of righteousness, not in himself, but in Christ,—of grace, according to the Gospel,—to the praise of the righteousness and grace of God, and to the salvation of the justified person himself.’—Vol. i. 598.

These two methods of Justification are thus contrasted: ‘It belongs to these two forms of Justification … to be so adverse, as to render it impossible for both of them at once to meet together in one subject; for he who is justified by the law, neither is capable, nor requires, to be justified by faith; and it is evident that the man who is justified by faith, could not have been justified by the law…. They cannot be reconciled with each other, either by an unconfused union, or by admixture. For they are perfectly simple forms, and separated in an individual point, so that by the addition of a single atom, a transition is made from the one to the other…. A man must be justified by the one or the other of them, otherwise he will fall from righteousness, and therefore from life.’—Vol. i. 599.

From these premises his conclusion is, ‘That Justification, when used for the act of a judge, is either—purely the imputation of righteousness, through mercy, from the throne of grace in Christ the Propitiation, made to a sinner, but who is a believer,—or that man is justified before God, of debt, according to the rigour of justice, without any forgiveness.’—Vol. i. 599.

He considers Justification as an act both of Justice and Mercy. ‘Justification is a just and gracious act of God, by which, from the throne of His grace and mercy, He absolves from his sins, man, a sinner, but who is a believer, on account of Christ, and the obedience and righteousness of Christ, and considers him righteous, to the salvation of the justified person, and to the glory of divine righteousness and grace.’—Vol. ii. 116.

He considers it as an act of Justice, as well as of Grace, because it is founded on a Satisfaction. ‘We say that it is the act of God as a Judge who … contained Himself within the bounds of justice, which He demonstrated by two methods,—first, because God would not justify, except as Justification was preceded by reconciliation and satisfaction, made through Christ in His blood; secondly, because He would not justify any except those who acknowledged their sins and believed in Christ. Yet it is “a gracious and merciful act”—not with respect to Christ, as if the Father, through grace, as distinguished from strict and legal justice, had accepted the obedience of Christ for righteousness,—but with respect to us, both because God, through. His gracious mercy toward us, has made Christ to be sin for us, and righteousness to us, that we might be the righteousness of God in Him; and because He has placed communion with Christ in the faith of the Gospel, and has set forth Christ as a propitiation through faith.’—Vol. ii. 117.

He describes Christ’s righteousness as being both the meritorious and the material cause of Justification. ‘The meritorious cause of Justification is Christ through His obedience and righteousness, who may, therefore, be justly called the principal or outwardly moving cause. In His obedience and righteousness, Christ is also the material cause of our Justification, so far as God bestows Christ on us for righteousness, and imputes His righteousness and obedience to us. In regard to this twofold cause, that is, the meritorious and the material, we are said to be constituted righteous through the obedience of Christ.’—Ibid.

The imputation of faith for righteousness, in the sense in which he held it, was not supposed to be incompatible with the imputation of Christ’s obedience, or proposed as a substitute for it. He includes both, when he speaks of ‘the gracious reckoning of God, by which He imputes to us the righteousness of Christ, and imputes faith to us for righteousness,—that is, He remits our sins to us who are believers, on account of Christ apprehended by faith, and accounts us righteous in Him.’—Vol. ii. 118 also p. 474, quoted in the Lectures.

These extracts may suffice to show both what the doctrine of Arminius was, and also how widely many who are called by his name have departed from it in modern times.

See Arminius, ‘Opera,’ 4to, or in English, 2 vols. 8vo, translated by James Nichols, and a third vol., translated by Rev. W. R. Bagnall, of the Method. Episc. Church, American Edition, 1853. The passages quoted occur vol. i. p. 263, vol. ii. p. 474. Episcopius, ‘Opera Theol.,’ two vols. in one, containing his ‘Institutiones’ and ‘Tractatus,’ 1650. He was prevented by death from completing his ‘Institutiones,’ and has no full discussion of Justification, but refers to it in several places, vol. i. pp. 272, 437, ii. p. 412. Curcellæus, ‘Quaternio,’ a reply to Maresius, 1659, art. iv. ‘De hominis per Fidem et per Opera Justificatione,’ pp. 403–435. Limborch, ‘System of Divinity,’ 2 vols., London, 1718, vol. i. pp. 226, 299, ii. p. 835. Amesius, ‘Contra Remonstrantes,’ Amsterdam, 1658 and 1661, 2 vols., containing ‘Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem,’ and ‘Antisynodalia Scripta.’ These contain a full discussion of the ‘Five Points,’ which have an important, although indirect, bearing on the question of Justification. ‘Acta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechti Habitæ’, Pref. pp. vii. xi. It appears that Arminius was supposed to differ more from the Reformers on the subject of Justification, than appears from his published writings. ‘Gomarus probaturum se suscepit, de primario fidei inostræ Articulo,—de Justificatione, scilicet, hominis coram Deo—sententiam eam docuisse, quæ cum verbo Divino atque Ecclesiarum Belgicarum confessione pugnaret. Ad cujus rei probationem, ipsissima ejus verba protulit, ex ejusdem Arminii autographo descripta, quibus asseruit, in hominis coram Deo justificatione, justitiam Christi, non imputare in justitiam, verùm ipsam fidem. Credere, per graciosam Dei acceptationem, esse justitiam illam nostram quâ coram Deo justificamur.’—P. vii. ‘Quoniam verò is (articulus) qui erat de Justificatione, magis videretur necessarius, ab isto exordiendum, Gomarus putabat; quod et Illust. Ordinibus placuit. De hoc articulo eadem fuit controversia, quæ autem coram suprema Curia agitata fuerat; An, scilicet, fides, qua actus est, secundum gratiosam Dei æstimationem, sit ipsa justitia quâ coram Deo justificamur.’—P. xi. See also Vedelius, ‘De Arcanis Arminianismi’ (1631). Mr. Pemble (of Oxford) says, ‘Arminius, as in other his opinions, so in the publishing of this, used much closeness, and cunning conveyance.’—Vindiciæ Fidei, p. 34.

NOTE 13, p. 175

On the history and doctrines of the Protestant Church in France, see Quick’s ‘Synodicon,’ and Smedley’s ‘History;’ Gale’s ‘Court of the Gentiles,’ vol. ii. pp. 143–147; Scott’s ‘Continuation of Milner’s History,’ vol. ii. p. 471; Hickman’s ‘Animadversions on Heylyn’s Quinquarticular Controversy,’ pp. 383; Rev. James Young’s ‘Life of John Welsh, (1866), pp. 293–366; ’Miscellanies of the Wodrow Society,’ vol. i. p. 559, where Welsh’s Letter is given in the original French, and is more full than in the English translation. Tilenus was answered by P. Du Moulin, the author of ‘Anatome Arminianismi,’ in the ‘Enodatio’ of the Five Points, a ‘Lettre contre Tilenus aux Ministres de France’ in 1613; and in a larger work, not published, but still preserved at Geneva, entitled, ‘Examen de la Doctrine de Tilenus.’—Rev. J. Young’s Life of John Welsh, p. 365. Tilenus became so identified with Arminianism, that his name was used as the title to a controversial piece in England during the controversy there, ‘The Examination of Tilenus before the Triers,’ 1658.

NOTE 14, p. 177

See Dr. Tobias Crisp’s ‘Christ Alone Exalted,’ or ‘Fifty-two Sermons,’ edited with notes by Dr. Gill, 2 vols. 1755. On the combined influence of Arminianism and New Methodism on the Theology of England at this time, the late Dr. M’Crie gave the following opinion: ‘I have thought I perceived a change in the tone and phraseology of the Reformed divines early in the seventeenth century, perhaps from the influence which the Arminian controversy exerted on the strain of Calvinistic writing…. I am inclined to think that an engrossing attention to the points controverted by Arminius and his followers was produced, and that preachers and practical writers became more shy than formerly in using the universal terms employed in Scripture, in proposing the Gospel remedy, and that they were more hampered (to use an expressive Scots word) than was necessary, either from the word of God, or their own declared principles concerning particular redemption, in proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation to sinners, and in calling on them to believe on the Saviour….’ ‘The scheme of the New Methodists, as they were called, in France, who, about the middle of the seventeenth century, attempted a species of conciliation between Calvinists and Arminians on the head of election, and the extent of the death of Christ, added to the embarrassment,—which was still more increased by the Antinomianism of the Cromwellian period, to which you (the late Dr. Watson of Burnt-island) justly refer as producing a partial revulsion from evangelical doctrine. This, as well as a passion for accommodating differences, led the excellent Baxter astray.’—Life of Dr. M’Crie, by his Son, pp. 329–331. See also Dr. Cunningham, Hist. Theology, ii. 47–49.

See Rev. Robert Traill’s ‘Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine of Justification from the unjust charge of Antinomianism,’ Works, vol. i. pp. 304–359,—an admirable treatise.

NOTE 15, p. 178

The Neonomian controversy was extremely voluminous on both sides. The following works may be consulted:—‘Dr. Dan. Williams’ Works’ (1750),—vol. iii. ‘Gospel Truth Stated,’ a reply to Dr. Crisp; vol. iv. contains various replies to objectors; vol. v. ‘An End to Discord;’ vol. vi. some of his pieces in Latin, entitled, ‘Tractatus Selecti,’—viz. ‘Veritas Evangelica,’ in reply to Dr. Crisp, and ‘De Justificatione per Christi Obedientiam.’ John Goodwin, ‘The Banner of Justification Displayed,’ reprinted in 1835, by Thomas Jackson, in the same volume with Goodwin’s ‘Exposition of ix. c. Romans,’ pp. 363–437. And a larger work, entitled, ‘Imputatio Fidei’ (1642); ‘A Treatise of Justification, wherein the Imputation of Faith for Righteousness is explained, etc.,’ in 2 Parts, pp. 440; with a defence of it in reply to George Walker, pp. 161. Isaac Chauncy, ‘Neonomianism Unmasked,’ or ‘The Antient Gospel pleaded against the New Law or Gospel,’ in reply to Dr. D. Williams, ‘Gospel Truth Stated’ (1692), and also his ‘Alexipharmacon, a Fresh Antidote against Neonomian Bane,’ in reply to Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Sam. Clark, 1700. Richard Baxter on ‘Justifying Righteousness,’ a volume in which five pieces on the subject are contained in reply to Dr. Tully and Mr. Cartwright. Dr. Tully, ‘Justificatio Paulina, sine Operibus, ex mente Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ omniumque reliquarum Reform, contra nuperos Novatores,’ Oxf. 1677. Mr. Brown (of Wamphray), ‘Life of Justification Opened;’ this is peculiarly valuable, as containing several chapters devoted to the examination of the treatises of John Goodwin, c. vii–xii. pp. 57–181, and of Richard Baxter, c. xiii.–xvi. pp. 182–246.

Several other treatises might be mentioned, such as John Eaton, ‘The Honeycombe of Free Justification by Christ alone;’ William Eyre, ‘Vindiciæ Justificationis Gratuitæ,’ or ‘Justification without Conditions,’ 1654, in reply to Woodbridge and Baxter; Benjamin Woodbridge, ‘The Method of Grace in the Justification of Sinners,’ in reply to W. Eyre, 1656; J. Crandon, Reply to R. Baxter’s ‘Aphorisms of Justification’ (1654), in two parts, pp. 389 and 298. The author is indebted to Rev. John Laing, of the New College Library, for bringing under his notice the treatises of Woodbridge and Eyre.

An admirable review of the whole controversy will be found in Witsius, ‘Miscel. Sac.’ vol. ii. ‘Animadversiones Irenicæ de Controversiis quæ, sub infaustis Nominibus Neonomorum et Antinomorum, nunc in Britannia agitantur,’ pp. 753–849, and a shorter review of it in English, in Dickinson’s ‘Familiar Letters,’ Lett. 13, pp. 206–237.

NOTE 16, p. 181

See Wesley’s ‘Sermons,’ and his ‘Letter to Hervey,’ Hervey’s Works, vol. iv. pp. v. xviii. 52–71; Richard Watson’s ‘Theolog. Institutes,’ c. xxiii. xxiv., Works, vol. xi. pp. 167–272; Rev. John Walker (Dublin), ‘Expository Address to the Methodists,’ 1802, and his ‘Seven Letters to Alexander Knox, Esq.,’ in defence of it; Southey, ‘Life of John Wesley,’ 2 vols., 1858, containing S. T. Coleridge’s Notes on it, and Knox’s ‘Letter to Southey;’ Fletcher (of Madeley), Works, 2 vols. (1834), containing his ‘Five Checks to Antinomianism,’ vol. i. pp. 115–444; ‘An Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism,’ vol. i. pp. 473–490; ‘The Last Check to Antinomianism,’ vol. ii. pp. 1–178; and many other pieces.

NOTE 17, p. 182

For the early history of the Moravians, see ‘Alregé de l’Histoire des Eglises Esclavonnes, etc.,’ par le Baron de Sekendorf, 1794. For the tenets of the later Moravians, see Spangenberg, ‘Exposition of Christian Doctrine’ (1784), on Justification, p. 256; Southey, ‘Life of J. Wesley,’ vol. i. pp. 110, 117, 120, 125, 138, 166, etc.; Dickinson’s ‘Familiar Letters,’ Lett. xi. pp. 154–180.

Some seem to have differed from others in the statement of their views. One of their number—Christian David—said at Herrnhutt, ‘You must be humbled before God; you must have “a broken and a contrite heart:” but observe, this is not the foundation; it is not this by which you are justified. This is not the righteousness,—it is no part of the righteousness,—by which you are reconciled unto God…. The right foundation is not your contrition,—not your righteousness,—nothing of your own; nothing that is wrought in you by the Holy Ghost; but it is something without you,—the righteousness and the blood of Christ.’ But another,—Peter Boehler,—taught, that when a man has a living faith in Christ, he is justified,—that this living faith is always given in a moment,—that in that moment he has peace with God,—that he cannot have this peace without knowing that he has it,—that being born of God, he sinneth not,—and that he cannot have this deliverance from sin without knowing it.’ Zinzendorf, in his discourses on the ‘Redemption of Man,’ seems to teach the doctrine of universal pardon, and to regard faith as consisting in believing this, and applying it to ourselves; while he often speaks lightly of the obligations of duty, and rejects everything like self-denial. Spangenberg gives little prominence to the doctrine of Justification, and treats of it as if it were merely ‘the forgiveness of sins, for the sake of the blood and death of Christ.’

NOTE 18, p. 188

That we have given a correct account, in substance, of the nature of that assurance for which the ‘Marrow’ divines contended as being involved in the essence of faith, and that their doctrine was, in this respect, in harmony with that of the first Reformers, appears from their own explicit statement. They say that ‘the Assembly had in effect excluded from faith that act by which a person appropriates to himself what before lay in common in the Gospel offer, and thereby turned it into “that general and doubtsome faith” abjured in our National Covenant;’ and they state their belief, that ‘receiving and resting upon Christ for salvation implies that assurance, by which it had been customary for divines to describe the fiducial act, or appropriating persuasion of faith; and that the Confession doth not exclude all assurance from the essence of faith, but speaks of that kind of assurance which is complex, and contains not only what is included in the direct act of faith, but also what arises from spiritual sensation and rational argumentation.’

The ‘Marrow of Modern Divinity,’ with notes by Boston. Dr. M’Crie’s papers in the ‘Christian Instructor,’ ‘Account of the Controversy respecting the Marrow of Modern Divinity,’ (1831) vol. xxx. No. 253, pp. 539–551, 687–699, 811–826; (1832) vol. xxxi. pp. 73–94. It is to be regretted that this valuable series of papers has not been reprinted in his Miscellaneous Writings. See also ‘Life of Dr. M’Crie,’ pp. 330–334. Rev. Eben. Erskine, ‘The Assurance of Faith;’ reprinted in a volume entitled, ‘Saving Faith, as Laid Down in the Word of God,’ along with the ‘Scripture Doctrine of the Appropriation which is in the Nature of Saving Faith,’ by John Anderson, D.D., Pennsylvania, and ‘Aphorisms concerning the Assurance of Faith,’ by William Cudworth, of Norwich (Edinburgh, 1843). Rev. John Brown (Whitburn), ‘Gospel Truth. ’Memoirs of Thomas Boston,’ pp. 291–298, 303–307. Fraser, ‘Life of Ebenezer Erskine,’ p. 528. Principal Hadow, ‘Antinomianism of the Marrow of Modern Divinity Detected,’ in a volume (1721) in the Advocates’ Library, which came from the library of Wodrow, the historian; and which contains also ‘The Politick Disputant,’ the Act of Assembly 1720, the ‘Representation by the Twelve Ministers,’ and ‘Dialogues’ on the Controversy by James Hog of Carnock. For the use of this volume, and of several others, the author is indebted to the courtesy of Mr. Halkett and Mr. Dickson, of the Advocates Library.

NOTE 19, p. 190

See Sandeman’s ‘Letters on Theron and Aspasio,’ 2 vols. 8vo, 4th Ed., Edin. 1803; Andrew Fuller’s ‘Strictures on Sandemanianism;’ Ecking’s ‘Essays;’ Archibald M’Lean (Edinb.), ‘Works,’ vol. i. pp. 359–418, ii. pp. 1–170, 313–388; Thomas Erskine (Linlathen), ‘Essay on Faith,’ and ‘Unconditional Freeness of the Gospel;’ Richard Watson’s ‘Review of Erskine’s Essay on Faith,’ ‘Works,’ vol. vii. pp. 200–224; Joseph Bellamy, ‘Letters and Dialogues between Theron, Paulinus, and Aspasio,’ and ‘True Religion Delineated;’ Dr. John Erskine (Edinb.), ‘Theological Dissertations,’ D. iii. pp. 139–199.

NOTE 20, p. 190

See Dr. Hodge ‘On the Epistle to the Romans;’ three valuable papers on the Doctrine of Imputation in the Princeton ‘Theological Essays,’ 1st Series, pp. 128–217, 285–307; Dr. E. Bennett Tyler, ‘Letters on the Newhaven Theology;’ Crocker’s ‘Catastrophe of the Presbyterian Church in 1837;’ ‘Outlines of Theology,’ by Rev. A. A. Hodge, edited by Dr. Goold (London, 1863),—On ‘Justification,’ pp. 388–404.

---

NOTES TO LECTURE VII

NOTE 1, p. 193

Dr. Cunningham, Preface to ‘Bishop Stillingfleet’s Reply to Gother,’ p. 37. Bishop Gibson’s ‘Preservative’ has recently been reprinted in a more portable form, 9 vols. 8vo, edited by Dr. John Cumming of London.

NOTE 2, p. 194

Alexander Knox, Esq., ‘Remains,’ vol. i. pp. 263–281, 347–355, iii. pp. 51, 55, 85; ‘Correspondence with Bishop Jebb,’ vol. i. p. 349; Dr. Newman, ‘Tract No. xc.,’ recently reprinted, with a commendatory preface by Dr. Pusey; and ‘Lectures on Justification.’ See also G. S. Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine of Justification,’ pp. 68, 71, 79.

NOTE 3, p. 195

Dr. John Kaye (Bishop of Lincoln), ‘Charges,’ 1854, p. 247. See also Hickman’s ‘Animadversions on Heylyn,’ p. 510. ‘The whole question relates to a matter of fact. In this history we search, not what ought to be held, but what hath been held,—not of what mind our Reformers should have been, but of what they were. If Calvinism be truth, it will be truth, though it had never found entertainment in the Church of England; if it be error, it will be error, though all the Church of England be for it: for the Church cannot make truth, it can only declare what is truth and falsehood.’

NOTE 4, p. 196

See Augustus Toplady’s ‘Historical Calvinism of the Church of England,’ 2 vols. 8vo; The ‘British Reformers,’ 12 vols., London Tract Society; The ‘Parker Society’s’ publications, 55 vols., including the ‘Zurich Letters,’ which show how close was the connection between the English and Swiss divines; William Prynne, ‘Anti-Arminianism, or the Church of England’s Old Antithesis to New Arminianism,’ small 4 to, 2d Ed. 1630; Dr. P. Heylyn’s ‘History of the Quinquarticular Controversy in the Church of England,’ Tracts, folio, 1673, pp. 501–639; Hickman’s ‘Animadversions’ on Heylyn’s History, 8vo, 1673. Hickman’s conclusion is thus stated: ‘That is not the doctrine of the Church of England, which, for above threescore years after her first establishment, was not averred in any one licensed book, but confuted in many.’—P. 522. See also ‘Conferences of the Reformers and Divines of the Early English Church on the Doctrines of the Oxford Tractarians,’ held in the Province of Canterbury in 1841; on Justification, pp. 185–224.

NOTE 5, p. 197

See Lecture v. Note 7. Melancthon, ‘In Epistolam ad Romanos,’ 1532, pp. 12–42; P. Martyr, ‘Commentaries on Epistle to Romans,’ in English, folio, 1558, pp. 367–410, in black letter.

NOTE 6, p. 198

Some use has been made of two facts in opposition to this view,—first, the fact that the Lambeth Articles (1595) were not adopted by the Church of England, although they were incorporated in the Articles of the Church of Ireland by Archbishop Usher, 1615; and secondly, that when the English Articles were submitted for revision to the Westminster Assembly, a proposal was made to render them more explicit on some points. The Lambeth Articles are given in Ford’s ‘Ecclesir Anglicanæ Articuli XXXIX,’ 1720, p. 411, and Neale’s ‘History of Puritans,’ vol. iii. p. 520; and the reason of their non-adoption by the Church of England is discussed in Heylyn’s ‘Quinquarticular History,’ c. xxii. p. 628, and Hickman’s ‘Animadversions on Heylyn’s History,’ p. 511. The alterations on the Articles suggested by the Westminster Divines, are given in the ‘Harmony of Confessions,’ by P. Hall, and in Neale’s ‘History of the Puritans,’ vol. v. p. 519.

NOTE 7, p. 199

John Fox, ‘Of Free Justification by Christ, written against the Osorian Righteousness, and other Patrons of the same doctrine of Inherent Righteousness,’ 1583,—reprinted in an abridged form in the ‘British Reformers,’ 1831; Osorio, ‘De Justitia,’ Opera, tom. ii. pp. 186–456; Bishop Davenant, Disputatio de Justitia Habituali et Actuali,’ translated by Allport; Downham (of Derry), ‘Treatise of Justification;’ Bishop Barlow, ‘Two Letters concerning Justification by Faith only,’ reprinted by Rev. C. Bickersteth, 1828, Bishop Barlow’s ‘Genuine Remains,’ p. 578; Wm. Pemble, M.A. of Magdalen Hall, Oxford, ‘Vindiciæ Fidei,’ or ‘a Treatise of Justification by Faith,’ 2d Edition, 1629; Bishop Andrewes, Sermon on the ‘Lord our Righteousness,’ Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology; and Hooker’s Sermon on ‘Justification,’ Works, vol. ii. pp. 601–653.

The 11th Article is entitled of ‘the Justification of man;’ and this title, viewed in connection with the first sentence, shows clearly that the term Justification is used in a forensic, and not in a moral, sense. For ‘the Justification of man’ is described as consisting in this, that ‘we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore,’ it is added, ‘that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.’ It is not said that we are made righteous inherently or by infusion, but that ‘we are accounted righteous before God;’ and this ‘only for the merit of Christ,’—His merit being the sole ground and reason of our being ‘accounted righteous,’ and ‘faith’ being merely the instrument by which we receive a saving interest in it. ‘Our own works or deservings’ are entirely excluded from the ground of our Justification: both our works done before Faith, and after Faith, for they are distinctly specified in the 12th and 13th Articles. Of the one it is said, ‘Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.’ Of the other, it is said, ‘that Good Works which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment;’ while the reason of this latter statement is given in the 9th Article, ‘Although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin;’ and in the 15th, ‘All we, although baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.’

In the ‘Homily of Salvation’ (Homilies, Oxford Edition, 1822, pp. 25–36) the same doctrine is more fully, and very clearly, stated. ‘Because all men be sinners and offenders against God, and breakers of His law and commandments, therefore can no man, by his own acts, works, and deeds, (seem they never so good,) be justified, and made righteous before God; but every man of necessity is constrained to seek for another righteousness or justification, to be received at God’s own hands, that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses, in such things as he hath offended. And this justification or righteousness, which we so receive of God’s mercy and Christ’s merits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted, and allowed of God, for our perfect and full justification.’ … ‘God sent His only Son our Saviour, Christ, into this world, to fulfil the law for us, and, by shedding of His most precious blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, or (as it may be called) amends to His Father for our sins, to assuage His wrath and indignation conceived against us for the same.’ … ‘He provided a ransom for us, that was, the most precious body and blood of His own most dear and best beloved Son Jesu Christ, who, besides this ransom, fulfilled the law for us perfectly.’ … ‘The Apostle toucheth specially three things which must go together in our justification.—Upon God’s part, His great mercy and grace;—upon Christ’s part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of God’s justice, or the price of our redemption, by the offering of His body and shedding of His blood, with fulfilling of the law perfectly and throughly;—and upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ.’ … ‘St. Paul declareth nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith, which nevertheless is the gift of God, and not man’s only work without God. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that, although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not altogether.’ … ‘Christ is now the righteousness of all them that truly do believe in Him. He for them paid their ransom by His death. He for them fulfilled the law in His life.’ … ‘The sum of all Paul’s disputation is this: that if justice come of works, then it cometh not of grace; and if it come of grace, then it cometh not of works.’ … ‘This saying—that we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works—is spoken to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at God’s hands, … and therefore (or thereby, marginal reading) wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto Christ only, and His most precious blood-shedding. This faith the Holy Scripture teacheth us; this is the strong rock and foundation of Christian religion; this doctrine all old and ancient authors of Christ’s Church do approve; this doctrine advanceth and setteth forth the true glory of Christ, and beateth down the vain-glory of man; this whosoever denieth, is not to be accounted for a Christian man, nor for a setter-forth of Christ’s glory,—but for an adversary to Christ, and His Gospel, and for a setter-forth of men’s vain-glory.’ … ‘Justification is not the office of man, but of God; for man cannot make himself righteous by his own works, neither in whole nor in part; … but justification is the office of God only, and is not a thing which we render unto Him, but which we receive of Him,—not which we give to Him, but which we take of Him, by His free mercy, and by the only merits of His most dearly beloved Son, our only Redeemer, Saviour, and Justifier, Jesus Christ. So that the true understanding of this doctrine,—we be justified freely by faith, without works,—or, that we be justified by faith in Christ only,—is not, that this our own act to believe in Christ, or this our faith in Christ, which is within us, doth justify us, and deserve (or merit) our justification unto us, (for that were to count ourselves to be justified by some act or virtue that is within ourselves;) but the true understanding and meaning thereof is, that although we hear God’s word and believe it; although we have faith, hope, charity, repentance, dread, and fear of God within us, and do never so many works thereunto,—yet we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues—of faith, hope, charity, and all other virtues and good deeds, which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as things that be far too weak and insufficient and imperfect, to deserve remission of our sins, and our justification; and therefore we must trust only in God’s mercy, and that sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God, once offered for us upon the cross.’ … ‘As St. John Baptist, although he were never so virtuous and godly a man, yet, in this matter of forgiving of sin, he did put the people from him, and appointed them unto Christ, saying, ’Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world;’ even so, as great and as godly a virtue as the lively Faith is, yet it putteth us from itself, and remitteth or appointeth us unto Christ, for to have only by Him remission of our sins, or justification. So that our faith in Christ (as it were) saith unto us—It is not I that take away your sins, but it is Christ only; and to Him only I send you for that purpose, forsaking therein all your good virtues, words, thoughts, and works, and only putting your trust in Christ.’ … ‘We be justified by faith in Christ only, (according to the meaning of the old ancient authors,) is this—We put our faith in Christ, that we be justified by Him only,—that we be justified by God’s free mercy, and the merits of our Saviour Christ only,—and by no virtue, or good works of our own, which is in us, or that we can be able to have, or to do, for to deserve the same; Christ Himself only being the cause meritorious thereof.’

Some stanch Churchmen oppose the doctrine of their own Articles from inadvertence. Wesley had said, ‘I was fundamentally a Papist, and knew it not; but I do now testify to all … that no good works can be done before Justification, none which have not in them the nature of sin.’ Southey says, ‘This doctrine, however, was not preached in all the naked absurdity of its consequences;’ and Coleridge quietly appends this note,—‘Did Robert Southey remember that the words in italics are faithfully copied from the Articles of our Church?’—Southey’s Life of Wesley, vol. i. p. 175.

The leading divines of the Church of England were all but unanimous in teaching the same doctrine on the subject of Justification, for more than a hundred years after the Reformation. Thus Cranmer: ‘Whatsoever God hath commanded in the ten commandments, which we have not fulfilled because we all are sinners, that Christ Himself hath fulfilled for us; and whatsoever punishment we have deserved to suffer of God for our sins and offences, that Christ hath taken upon Himself, and suffered for us…. By our lively faith in Him, our sins are forgiven us, and we are reconciled unto the favour of God, made holy and righteous. For then God no more imputes to us our former sins; but He imputes and gives unto us the justice and righteousness of His Son Jesus Christ, who suffered for us.’ Bishop Andrewes, High Churchman as he was, preached the same doctrine, in his celebrated sermon on ‘This is the name whereby He shall be called, Jehovah our Righteousness;’ as did many more of the ablest divines of the Church of England, who were called, in their protracted controversy with Rome, to discuss the whole question of Justification, in opposition to the arguments and evasions of such writers as Bellarmine and Stapleton. We give only two specimens—the one from the writings of the ‘judicious’ Hooker, the other from those of the saintly Bishop Beveridge. That Hooker had a leaning towards the sacramental doctrine of Justification is manifest from the general scope of his ‘Ecclesiastical Polity;’ but, however this may affect his personal consistency, it serves, in some respects, to make his testimony all the more striking, when he speaks of ‘the righteousness’ by which alone a sinner can be justified, in the following emphatic terms:—‘ “Doubtless,” saith the Apostle (Phil. 3:8), “I have counted all things loss, and I do judge them to be dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God through faith.” Whether they (the Romish divines) speak of the first or second justification, they make the essence of it a divine quality inherent,—they make it righteousness which is in us. If it be in us, then it is ours, as our souls are ours, though we have them from God, and can hold them no longer than pleaseth Him. But the righteousness wherein we must be found, if we will be justified, is not our own; therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent quality. Christ hath merited righteousness for as many as are found in Him. In Him God findeth us, if we be faithful; for by faith, we are incorporated into Him. Then, although in ourselves we be altogether sinful and unrighteous, yet even the man which in himself is impious, full of iniquity, full of sin, him, being found in Christ through faith, and having his sin in hatred through repentance, him God beholdeth with a gracious eye, putteth away his sin by not imputing it, taketh quite away the punishment due thereunto, by pardoning it; and accepteth him in Jesus Christ, as perfectly righteous, as if he had fulfilled all that is commanded him in the law. Shall I say more perfectly righteous than if himself had fulfilled the whole law? I must take heed what I say; but the apostle saith, ’God made Him which knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.’ Such we are in the sight of God the Father, as is the very Son of God Himself. Let it be counted folly, or phrensy, or fury, or whatsoever. It is our wisdom, and our comfort; we care for no knowledge in the world but this,—that man hath sinned, and God hath suffered; that God hath made Himself the sin of men, and that men are made “the righteousness of God.” ‘—Hooker, Works, Oxford Ed. 1845, vol. ii. p. 606. He says again in regard to our evangelical righteousness: ’There is a glorifying righteousness of men in the world to come, and there is a justifying and a sanctifying righteousness here. The righteousness wherewith we shall be clothed in the world to come is both perfect and inherent. That whereby here we are justified is perfect, but not inherent. That whereby we are sanctified, inherent, but not perfect.’ … ‘You see, therefore, that the Church, of Rome, in teaching Justification by inherent grace, doth pervert the truth of Christ, and that by the hands of His Apostles we have received otherwise than she teacheth…. St. Paul doth plainly sever these two parts of Christian righteousness one from the other … “the righteousness of Justification,” and “the righteousness of Sanctification.” ’—Vol. ii. pp. 603, 606, 607.

‘I believe,’ says Bishop Beveridge (‘Private Thoughts,’ Art. viii. pp. 69, 70, 73), ‘that my person is only justified by the merit of Christ imputed to me…. It is a matter of admiration to me, how any one, that pretends to the use of his reason, can imagine, that he should be accepted before God for what comes from himself. For how is it possible that I should be justified by good works, when I can do no good works at all before I be first justified? My works cannot be accepted as good, until my person be so; nor can my person be accepted by God, till first ingrafted into Christ…. I look upon “all my righteousness as filthy rags;” and it is in the robes only of the righteousness of the Son of God that I dare appear before the Majesty of heaven. The Son, assuming our nature into His deity, becomes subject and obedient both to the moral and ceremonial laws of His Father, and at last to death itself, “even the death of the cross.” In the one He paid an active, in the other a passive, obedience; and so did not only fulfil the will of His Father, in obeying what He had commanded, but satisfied His justice in suffering the punishment due to us for the transgressing of it…. This obedience, being more than Christ was bound to, and only performed upon the account of those whose nature He had assumed—as we, by faith, lay hold upon it,—so God, through grace, imputes it to us, as if it had been performed by us in our own persons. And hence it is that, as Christ is said to be “made sin for us,” so we are said to be “made righteousness in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). But what righteousness? Our own? No, “the righteousness of God,”—radically His, but imputatively ours: and this is the only way whereby we are said to be made “the righteousness of God,”—even by the righteousness of Christ being made ours, by which we are accounted and reputed as righteous before God.’

NOTE 8, p. 199

There is a marked difference in spirit and tone between the ‘Considerationes Modestæ et Pacificæ Controversiarum de Justificatione,’ etc. etc., of Bishop William Forbes of Edinburgh, in reply to Bellarmine, and the ‘Free Justification by Christ’ of John Fox, in reply to Bishop Osorio. The ‘Considerationes’ have been reprinted in Latin and English in the ‘Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology,’ in 2 vols., Oxford, 1850 and 1856. The first volume is entirely on the subject of Justification, and is entitled in English, ‘A Fair and Calm Consideration, of the Modern Controversy concerning Justification, as it is explained in the Five Books of Cardinal Bellarmine.’ It is an able and learned work, but, on several testing questions, indicates a greater leaning to the Popish, than the Protestant, doctrine. The volume extends to 500 pp., one half being occupied with the original Latin, the other with the English version, printed on alternate pages. The author gratefully acknowledges his obligation to Mr. Small, of the University Library, for the use of Bishop Forbes’ work, and some treatises of Cardinal Cajetan. On Mœhler’s work, see Lect. v. p. 145.

NOTE 9, p. 200

See Lect. v. p. 145. Atterbury, writing against an ‘Apologist’ for Popery, strongly condemns what he calls ‘the solifidian and fiduciary errors,’ and seems to speak as if Rome had held, in substance, the same doctrine with the Reformers. ‘Luther teaches that “faith alone” (fides sola justificat, sed non solitaria) justifies, but not the faith that is alone; good works are inseparable attendants on this justifying faith, but they contribute nothing to the act of Justification; they make not just, but are always with them that are made so. This is Luther’s,—was the Church of Rome’s,—and is now the Church of England’s, doctrine.’—Answer to some Considerations, p. 17. Archbishop Wake, speaking of Bossuet’s Exposition, says: ‘Were these things clearly stated and distinguished the one from the other, the difference between us, considered only in idea, would not be very great: … if the doctrine of merit were understood as explained by Bossuet, there would be little to object to it;’—and writing to Du Pin, he speaks as if there were little or no difference between the Anglican and Gallican Churches in point of doctrine, although Du Pin had put this interpretation on the eleventh Article—‘We do not deny that we are justified by faith only in Christ, but by faith, charity, and good works conjoined, which are altogether necessary to salvation, as is acknowledged in the next Article.’—Mosheim, History, vol. vi p. 94. Bishop Burnet, speaking of the difference between the statement of the Romish and Reformed doctrine, says: ‘Yet, after all, it is but a question about words; for if that which they call “remission” of sins be the same with that which we call “justification,” and if that which they call “justification” be the same with that which we call “sanctification,” then there is only a strife of words.’—Burnet’s Exposition of Thirty-nine Articles, Art. xi. p. 151. Dr. Barrow goes so far as to say that, ‘In the beginning of the Reformation, … there did arise hot disputes about this point, and the right stating thereof seemed a matter of great importance…. Whereas yet, so far as I can discern, … there hardly doth appear any material difference; but all the questions depending, chiefly seem to consist about the manner of expressing things which all agree in…. Of which questions, whatever the true resolution be, it cannot, methinks, be of so great consequence—seeing all conspire in avowing the acts, whatever they be, meant by the word Justification, although in other terms; … whence those questions might well be waived as unnecessary grounds of contention, and it might suffice to understand the points of doctrine which it relateth to in other terms, laying that aside as ambiguous and litigious.’—Dr. Barrow, Sermons on the Creed, Sermon v. ‘Of Justification by Faith,’ Works in 8vo, edited by Hughes, 1831, vol. v. pp. 122, 124. Archbishop Laurence, in his Bampton Lectures for 1820, made it his object to show that the English Articles are not Calvinistic, and he tries to obliterate the difference between the Romish and Lutheran doctrine of Justification by affirming, that ‘upon both sides, it is supposed entirely to consist of the remission of sins’ (p. 122). There is a double error here; for, in point of fact, it was not supposed on either side to consist entirely in remission of sins. On the Popish side, it was held to consist in remission and renovation; on the Lutheran side, in remission and acceptance as righteous in the sight of God; and the very passages which he quotes (p. 353) are sufficient to prove that Protestants contended for Justification by a righteousness imputed, while Romanists contended for Justification by grace infused. These extracts are sufficient to show that the radical difference between the Romish and the Reformed doctrine on the subject of Justification had come to be doubted or denied by many of the leading divines of the Church of England.

NOTE 10, p. 201

For an account of Barrett and Baro, see Prynne, ‘Anti-Arminianism,’ p. 8; Heylyn, ‘Quinquart. History,’ pp. 614–624; Hickman’s ‘Animadversions on,’ etc., pp. 502–508; Toplady’s ‘Historic Proof of the Doctrinal Calvinism of the Church of England,’ vol. ii. sec. xix. xx. pp. 213–380.

For an account of Bishop Montagu and his ‘Appello Cæsarem,’ see the same authorities.

Bishop Carleton (of Chichester) published, in 1626, ‘An Examination of those things wherein the Author of the late “Appeal” holdeth the Doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians to be the Doctrines of the Church of England;’ and in the second edition, ‘revised and enlarged,’ there is annexed a ‘joint Attestation, avowing that the discipline of the Church of England was not impeached by the Synod of Dort,’ which was subscribed by Bishop Carleton, Bishop Davenant, Dr. Balcanqual, Dr. Samuel Ward, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, and Dr. Goad,—the English deputies to that Synod. It relates chiefly to ‘Discipline’ or Church Government; but with reference to Doctrine they say, ‘That whatsoever then was assented to, and subscribed by us, concerning the “Five Articles,” either in the joint Synodical judgment, or in our particular collegiate suffrage (styled in the Acts of the Synod “Theolog. Mag. Britan. Sententia”), is not only warrantable by the Holy Scriptures, but also conformable to the received doctrine of our said venerable mother—the Church of England.’ A very curious work appeared in 1626 at London, entitled, ‘Parallelism us Novi-Antiqui Erroris Pelagi-Arminiani,’ in which the old Pelagian and the new Arminian doctrines are exhibited in parallel columns. With a view to revive the old doctrines of the Church, Dr. John Edwards published in 1707 his work, entitled, ‘Veritas Redux,’ ‘Evangelical Truths Restored,’ pp. 558.

NOTE 11, p. 201

Bishop Bull’s ‘Harmonia Apostolica,’ and ‘Examen Censuræ.’ The first occasioned a keen controversy, by Gataker, Truman, Bishop Barlow, Tully, Tombes, Pitcairne, and others; see Nelson’s ‘Life of Bishop Bull,’ pp. 89–265. Dr. Cave’s ‘Antiquitates Apostolicæ,’ answered by Witsius, Misc. Sac. vol. ii.; Bishop Hoadley’s ‘Terms of Acceptance.’

Bishop Bull represented faith, considered as a subjective grace, and the germ of holiness in heart and life, as the righteousness by which we are justified; which is in substance the Romish doctrine of Justification by grace infused and inherent, or by faith ‘informed with charity,’ and scarcely distinguishable from it even in form. As such, his work excited much opposition at the time of its publication; and his biographer says, ‘There arose in the Church no small contention, whether this interpretation of Scripture were conformable to the Articles of Religion and the Homily of Justification therein referred to. Some maintained that it was; some doubted about it; and others downright denied it, and condemned it as heretical.’ Bull himself tells us that ‘tragical outcries’ were raised against it, as if ‘the very foundations both of Law and Gospel were hereby at once undermined and overturned;’ and adds, ‘but matters were come to that pass, that it was hardly safe for any one to interpret either the Articles of our Church, or even the Holy Scriptures themselves, otherwise than according to the standard of CALVIN’S INSTITUTIONS.’ Yet so rapid and widespread was the dissemination of his views, that we find Dr. Samuel Clark affirming that ‘the Bishop’s explication of the doctrine of Justification is now as universally received as it was then contrary to the general opinion of divines,’ and pleading this remarkable change as a reason why Arian subscription to the Articles should not be refused.—Letter to Dr. Wells on Arian Subscription to the Articles, pp. 76, 78.

Dr. Cave’s work (‘Antiquitates Apostolicæ,’ answered by Witsius in four dissertations, ‘De Controversies ætate Apostolorum circa Justificationem,’ Misc. Sac. ii. 668–751) is directed to show that the doctrine of Justification, as taught by the Apostles, excluded, under the name of works, only the ceremonial observances of the Mosaic law, from the ground of a sinner’s pardon and acceptance with God; but did not exclude faith and its fruits,—or faith considered as the germ of all the Christian graces, and the spring of evangelical obedience; that this faith is the entire condition of the New Covenant, but not a special grace having a distinct and peculiar office or function, different from that of other graces, in our Justification, and that it is to be regarded as comprehensive of them all. This doctrine would have been accepted at Ratisbon and Trent.—Bishop Hoadley (‘Terms of Acceptance with God,’ 1727, p. 42; see also, pp. 180, 195, 200, 227, 252, 267, 316) represents the Gospel as a new law of works, differing from the first only in accepting sincere instead of perfect obedience, and in giving the assurance of pardon for all past sins on the fulfilment of the conditions which it prescribes. He speaks, as the Popish Church does, of a first justification which is bestowed on account of the merits of Christ, both on adults who had previously lived in heathenism, as soon as they professed faith in Him, and obedience to Him, as their Master; and also on all who are born within the Christian covenant, and educated in the Christian faith; and he speaks of a final justification at the last day, which will be founded entirely on the obedience which they have rendered to His law. The sins which were committed before baptism are pardoned through the sufferings and merits of Christ; and His people are further indebted to Him for having procured and promulgated a law which accepts sincere but imperfect obedience, while they must depend entirely on their own personal righteousness, and not on His finished work, as the ground of their ultimate salvation. In regard to post-baptismal sins,—or sins committed during their Christian profession,—no other provision seems to be made for their forgiveness except what may be found in their fulfilling the conditions of the new law. These conditions are, first, that they renounce and forsake their sins; secondly, that they practise the contrary virtues; thirdly, that they forgive those who have injured them; and fourthly, that they make restitution, if they have been guilty of dishonesty and fraud: all of them duties of unquestionable obligation, but duties which belong to the life of sanctification, and which are here substituted in the place of Christ’s atoning sacrifice and perfect righteousness, as the ground of their Justification.

NOTE 12, p. 203

See Lect. vi. pp. 158, 176. Robert Traill’s ‘Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine;’ Witsius, ‘Animadversiones Irenicæ,’ Misc. Sac. vol. ii.; M’Crie’s ‘Life of Dr. T. M’Crie,’ p. 330; Dr. M’Crie in the ‘Christian Instructor,’ vol. xxxi. p. 541; Bishop Kaye’s ‘Charges,’ pp. 244, 284.

 

 

NOTE 13, p. 204

Scott’s ‘Continuation of Milner’s History,’ vol. i. pp. 42, 233.

NOTE 14, p. 204

Archbishop Whately on ‘The Errors of Romanism.’ His own doctrine of Justification in his ‘Essays on the Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul,’ Essay vi. pp. 170–198, affords only a fresh exemplification of the tendency of which he speaks. He wrote strongly against the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness: yet it is deeply interesting to learn from his daughter the state of his mind as he lay on his bed of sickness, expecting death. ‘Now it was to be shown to all, how the same simple trust in Christ as the only Saviour, which had smoothed so many an humble deathbed, was to be the stay and staff of the mighty thinker and writer, while crossing the “valley of the shadow of death.” He said. “Read me the 8th chapter of the Romans.” When Dr. West had finished the chapter, he said, “Shall I read any more?” “No, that is enough at a time; there is a great deal for the mind to dwell on in that.” He dwelt especially on the 32d verse, “He that spared not His own Son,” etc. One of his friends had remarked, that “his great mind was supporting him;” his answer,—most emphatically and earnestly given,—was, “No it is not that which supports me: it is FAITH IN CHRIST; THE LIFE I LIVE IS BY CHRIST ALONE.” ’—Life of Archbishop Whately, 2 vols., vol. ii. p. 414 (1866).

NOTE 15, p. 205

Tract No. xc. was prepared by Dr. Newman, and directed to prove that the Articles are not distinctively Protestant, but might be subscribed by Catholics, perhaps by Roman Catholics. It treats of Justification under the 11th Art. p. 12; of Works before, and after, Justification, under the 12th and 13th, p. 14; of Purgatory, Pardons, etc., under the 22d, p. 23; of Masses, under the 31st, p. 59; of the Homilies, under the 35th, p. 66. It gave rise to a voluminous controversy; and was strongly condemned by most of the Bishops,—see Bricknell, ‘The Judgment of the Bishops upon Tractarian Theology,’ extracted from Charges delivered from 1837 to 1842, Oxford, 1845, pp. 752. The charges of Bishop O’Brien are worthy of special notice.—This Tract has recently been reprinted, with a preface by Dr. Pusey; and in his ‘Eirenicon,’—a reply to Dr. Manning (1865),—he says, speaking of the Romish and English Churches, ‘We both alike acknowledge our own unworthiness,—that His merits alone can stand between us and our sins; both alike believe in the efficacy of His “most precious blood,” wherewith He cleanseth us; both in His perpetual intercession for us at the right hand of God…. I believe that we have the same doctrine of Grace, and of Justification. There is not one statement in the elaborate chapters on Justification in the Council of Trent which any of us could fail of receiving; nor is there one of their anathemas on the subject, which in the least rejects any statement of the Church of England.’—P. 19.

Sancta Clara’s ‘Paraphrastica Expositio Articulorum Confessionis Anglicanæ,’ has been reprinted in Latin and English in 1865, and edited, in a handsome volume, by Rev. F. G. Lee, D.C.L. The doctrine of Justification is stated pp. 11–23, and pp. 39–43. There is prefixed the statement of ‘The British Magazine,’ that ‘this remarkable treatise formed the basis of Mr. Newman’s Tract No. xc.’ It is reprinted avowedly to promote the ‘high and holy object of Re-Union,’ i.e. between the Anglican, Greek, and Romish, Churches; and in the advertisements which are appended, we find sufficient proofs of the earnestness and activity of an influential party with a view to that end, in the fact that a ‘Union Review’ has been established; that there is even a ‘Union Review Almanack,’—that ‘Prayers for the Re-Union of Christendom’ have been compiled;—that a first, and second, ‘Series of Sermons on the Re-Union of Christendom’ have been published, and also ‘Essays on the Re-Union of Christendom by Members of the Roman Catholic, Oriental, and Anglican Communions.’ It may be hoped that this utopian project is not likely to be realised; but if it be frustrated, the result will be owing, not to any scruples on the part of its Anglo-Catholic promoters, so much as to the stedfastness with which the heads of the Romish and Greek Churches may adhere to their own distinctive principles. It has not hitherto been received favourably by either of these parties; and already Signor Gavazzi has raised his note of warning from Italy, under the title of ‘No Union with Rome, being an answer to Dr. Pusey’ (1866).

It has become fashionable, in some quarters, to laud the comprehensiveness of the Thirty-nine Articles, as if they had been framed on purpose to make the Church of England a huge ecclesiastical menagerie, that should afford accommodation to all sorts of men, whether their opinions be scriptural or unscriptural. But a creed may be comprehensive and catholic enough, in the sense of leaving some questions open and undetermined, without being ambiguous, with respect to those doctrines which it professes to define. The testimony of Dr. Heylyn, on this point, will be received as that of an unexceptionable witness. He refers to the statement of an opponent to the effect, that ‘the intent of the Convocation in drawing up the Articles in so loose a manner was that men of different judgments might accommodate them to their own opinions,’ and ‘that the Articles of the English Protestant Church, in the infancy thereof, were drawn up in general terms, foreseeing, that posterity would grow up to fill the same,—meaning that these holy men did prudently discover, that differences of judgment would unavoidably happen in the Church, and were loth to unchurch any, and drive them off from ecclesiastical communion for petty differences,—which made them pen the Articles in comprehensive words, to take in all, who, differing in the branches, meet in the root of the same Religion. This hath formerly been observed to have been the artifice of those who had the managing of the Council of Trent, and is affirmed to have been used by such men also as had the drawing up of the Canons of the Synod of Dort.’ ‘But,’ he adds, ‘the composers of the Articles of the Church of England had not so little in them of the “dove,” nor so much of the “serpent,” as to make the Articles of the Church like an upright above which may be worn on either foot,—or like to Theramenes’ shoe, as the adage hath it, fit for the foot of every man that was pleased to wear it; and therefore, we may say of our first Reformers in reference to the book of Articles … that those reverend and learned men intended not to deceive any by ambiguous terms.’ He proceeds to show that if, as had been alleged, our first Reformers did not so compose the Articles as to exclude ‘any liberty to dissenting judgments,’ or to ‘bind men to the literal and grammatical sense,’ ‘they had not attained to the end aimed at, which was “ad tollendam opinionum dissentionem, et consensum in very religione firmandum,” that is to say, to take away diversity of opinions and to establish an agreement in the true Religion. Which end could never be effected, if men were left unto the liberty of dissenting, or might have leave to put their own sense on the Articles, as they list themselves; for where there is a purpose of permitting men to their own opinions, there is no need of definitions and determinations in a National Church, no more than there is of making laws to bind the subjects in an unsettled commonwealth, with an intent to leave them in their former liberty, either of keeping or not keeping them, as themselves best pleased—Quinquarticular History, Heylyn’s ’Tracts,’ pp. 553, 554.

NOTE 16, p. 208

See Maurice, ‘Unity of New Testament,’ p. xxiv.; Brooke’s ‘Life and Letters of F. W. Robertson,’ vol. ii. pp. 67, 69; see also vol. i. pp. 151, 155, 179, 333–337; Rigg, ‘Anglo-Catholic Theology.’

NOTE 17, p. 211

Coleridge’s philosophy, as well as his application of it to Theology, is entirely based on his favourite distinction between the Reason and the Understanding, or the intuitive and the logical faculties. The former he held to be superior to the latter, and the ultimate test and judge of all truth, whether natural or revealed. He always connects this supreme faculty, and sometimes seems even to identify it, with the ‘Logos.’ It is not easy to determine whether he, and his disciples, mean to denote by that term a faculty or a person; but it is the less necessary to do so, because the faculty and the person, even if they be distinct, are held to be inseparable, and to coexist, invariably and universally, in the human mind. It may be that the personal ‘Logos’ is there, to diffuse his light and that Reason merely receives that light and reflects it: or that Reason itself is the ‘Logos’ in man, as ‘the image of God’ in which he was created. It is enough to know that they are either one and the same, or inseparable from each other. Of this ‘Logos’ or ‘Reason’ we are told that ‘there is a Light higher than all, even “the Word that was in the beginning”—the Light, of which light itself is but the schekinah and cloudy tabernacle;—the Word, that is Light for every man, and Life for as many as give heed to it.’ We are further told that ‘the universal Reason’ is ‘the image of God,’ and is ‘the same in all men:’—that ‘the reason and conscience of man, interpreted by the Understanding, is the everlasting organ of the Spirit of truth,’ and that the ‘Reason’ or the ‘Logos’ is ‘the inward Light’ which is not human, but divine. As this light exists in all men by nature, and needs only to be discerned to renew and save them, they are not absolutely dependent on any outward Revelation, although it may be useful in quickening the Reason, while Reason still continues to be the ultimate test and judge even of Revelation itself; and consequently it may be true, as some have thought, that ‘what the best heathens called Reason,—and Solomon, Wisdom,—Paul, Grace in general,—John, Righteousness or Love,—Luther, Faith,—and Fenelon, Virtue,—may be only different expressions for one and the same blessing—the Light of Christ, shining in different degrees under different dispensations.’—Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, xxxix. p. 12; Aids to Reflection, xviii. 4; Biogr. Littera, i. lviii.

Mr. Maurice tells us ‘not to think that the world was created in Adam, or stood in his obedience,’ but that ‘it stood and stands in the obedience of God’s well-beloved Son, the real “image” of the Father, the real bond of human society, and of the whole universe, who was to be manifested in the fulness of times, as that which He had always been, the original and archetype of human nature;’ … that he looks ‘upon Christ’s death and resurrection as revelations of the Son of God, in whom all things had stood from the first,—in whom God had looked upon His creature man from the first:’ that ‘He actually is one with every man;’ that ‘in Him, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, they are one, by the law of their creation;’ and that ‘it is an accursed and godless scheme to drill men into certain notions about books, that they may be prepared to receive that which is an eternal fact, or nothing, namely, that Christ is the head of every man.’ He speaks also of Paul’s belief, that ‘this Son of God, and not Adam, was the true root of humanity; and that from Him, and not from any ancestor, each man derived his life;’ of Job’s thought of ‘a righteousness within him, which is mightier than the evil,’ and which is identified with ‘his Redeemer;’ and of the Baptist’s message, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,’ as amounting to this—‘There is a Light within you, close to you.’ … ‘This light comes from a Person—from the King and Lord of your heart and spirit—from the Word,—the Son of God. When I say, “Repent,” I say, Turn and confess His presence. You have always had it with you; you have been unmindful of it.’—F. D. Maurice, On the Old Testament, p. 41; Unity of the New Testament, pp. 220, 367, 536; Claims of Revelation and Science, p. 90, also pp. 47, 98, 116, 129; What is Revelation? pp. 40, 48, 54, 107, 110; Essays, pp. 57, 59, 117, 202.

‘As I believe,’ says Mr. Kingsley, ‘one common “Logos”—Word—Reason,—reveals and unveils the same eternal truth to all who seek and hunger for it.’ … ‘In calling this person the “Logos,” and making Him the source of all human reason, and knowledge of eternal laws, he (Philo) only translated from Hebrew into Greek the name which he found in his sacred books—“the Word of God.” ’ But ‘Proclus and his teachers despised the simpler, and yet far profounder, doctrine of the Christian schools,—That the “Logos,” the Divine Teacher in whom both Christians and heathens believed, was the very archetype of men, and that He had proved that fact by being made flesh, and dwelling bodily among them, that they might behold His glory full of grace and truth, and see that it was at once the perfection of man and the perfection of God; that that which was most divine was most human, and that which was most human, most divine.’—Kingsley, Alexandria and her Schools, pp. 98, 89, 123. The same views are infused into his lighter works—‘Hypatia,’ ‘Alton Locke,’ ‘Yeast.’

We have already quoted a sentence from the writings of Mr. Robertson, which shows that, in the later years of his ministry, he had adopted substantially the same doctrine. He affirms that all men are ‘the children of God,’ even when they are ignorant or forgetful of their relation to Him. He held the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration to be partly right and partly wrong; right, in affirming that Baptism declares, wrong in implying that it creates, the relation of sonship. And, speaking of one who had been removed by death, he said, ‘We know of him—what is all that we can ever know of any one removed beyond the veil which shelters the unseen from the pryings of curiosity—that he is in the hands of the Wise and the Loving; Spirit has mingled with Spirit; a child, more or less erring, has gone home. Unloved by his Father? Believe it who may, that will not I.’ He speaks, indeed, as if this child, ‘more or less erring,’ might be for a time, but surely not for ever, ‘a child of wrath.’ A heathen is God’s child, if he only knew it. You send a missionary to him to tell him what he is, and to bid him realize his royal character; but being God’s child de jure avails him nothing unless he becomes such in fact; that is, changes his life and character, and becomes like his Father, pure and holy. Then he is regenerate. God’s child before unconsciously, God’s child now by a second birth consciously. Nay, in fact till now he was ‘a child of wrath,’ in which I entirely take the Church’s words—‘by nature a child of wrath.’—Brooke’s Life and Letters of F. W. Robertson, vol. i. pp. 126, 154, 176, 179, 333–337, vol. ii. p. 67.

It is unspeakably sad to read these lines from the pen of one, who in the earlier, and happier, years of his ministry, entertained very different views. ‘It is strange,’ he wrote at that time, ‘into what ramifications the disbelief of external Justification will extend; we will make it internal, whether it be by self-mortification, by works of evangelical obedience, or by the sacraments; and that just at the time when we suppose most that we are magnifying the work of our Lord.’ The Tractarian views ‘amount to nothing less than a direct, or, as Hooker would call it, an indirect, denial of the foundation. Our motto must be, … “Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” But how strangely that yoke steals round our necks, even when we think we are most entirely free from any idea of self-justification!’ ‘I believe there is at this time a determined attack made by Satan and his instruments to subvert that cardinal doctrine of our best hopes—Justification by faith alone; and how far he has already succeeded, let many a college in Oxford testify. It is the doctrine which, more than any other, we find our own hearts continually turning aside from, and surrendering. Anything but Christ,—the Virgin, the Church, the Sacraments, a new set of resolutions,—any or all of these will the heart embrace, as a means to holiness or acceptance, rather than God’s way…. And the Apostle’s resolution, in spite of all we say, is one which we are again and again making, and yet for ever breaking—“To know nothing but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” ’ In conversation with a Socinian, ‘My chief point was to prove the death of Christ not merely a demonstration of God’s willingness to pardon on repentance and obedience, but an actual substitution of suffering; and that salvation is a thing finished for those who believe,—not a commencement of a state in which salvation may be gained.’—Brooke’s Life and Letters, vol. i. pp. 34, 38, 79, 82.

‘The subtleties of Roman law,’ says Dean Stanley, ‘as applied to the relations of God and man, which appear faintly in Augustine, more distinctly in Aquinas, more decisively still in Calvin and Luther, … are almost unknown to the East. “Forensic justification,” “merit,” “demerit,” “satisfaction,” “imputed righteousness,” “decrees,” represent ideas which in the Eastern Theology have no predominant influence, hardly any words to represent them.’ … ‘Ecclesiastical history teaches us that the most vital, the most comprehensive, the most fruitful (doctrine) has been, and is still—not the supremacy of the Bible … not Justification, but the doctrine of the Incarnation…. It is the rare merit of Athanasius, or his rare good fortune, that the centre of his Theology was the doctrine of the Incarnation.’—Dr. A. P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church, see pp. 27, 215, 294. One might be led by this statement to suppose that the ideas of merit and demerit, justification and condemnation, were peculiar to the ‘subtleties of Roman Law,’ as if they were not involved in every code of law whatever, and familiarly known in every community of civilised men; and that the Greek language, copious as it was, had ‘hardly any words to represent them,’ while we find it acknowledged that ‘among the various figures which Athanasius uses to express his view is that of ’Satisfaction,’ and this too, as we are assured, ‘in entire subordination to the primary truth that the Redemption flowed from the indivisible love of the Father and the Son alike.’

NOTE 18, p. 211

See Lect. vi. p. 168; and Brown (of Wamphray), ‘Quakerism the Pathway to Paganism.’

NOTE 19, p. 211

Athanasius, ‘Four Orations against the Arians, and his Oration against the Gentiles,’ by Sam. Parker, 2 vols. 8vo, 1713, Oxford, vol. i. pp. 20, 27, 28. See Bishop Bull, Mr. Treffrey, and Dr. Kidd, on the ‘Eternal Sonship;’ and, on the other side, Professor M. Stuart’s ‘Excursus,’ i. in ‘Commentary on Ep. to the Romans,’ p. 557. See also R. Fleming (jun.), ‘Christology,’ Book ii. ‘Of the Logos, or Christ as such;’ Books ii. and iii. ‘Of the Loganthropos, or as He is, the Word made Man.’

NOTE 20, p. 213

Alexander Knox, Esq., ‘Remains,’ 4 vols.; ‘Correspondence with Bishop Jebb,’ 2 vols. On the ‘Revelation of Wrath,’ see Dr. T. Goodwin, ‘Works,’ vol. x., Nichol’s Ed., ‘An Unregenerate Man’s Guiltiness before God in respect of Sin and Punishment.’

NOTE 21, p. 214

‘Propter incertitudinem propriæ justitiæ, et periculum inanis gloriæ, TUTISSIMUM EST FIDUCIAM TOTAM IN SOLA MISERICORDIA DEI et benignitate reponere.’—Bellar. De Justif. lib. v. c. 7, prop. 3, p. 1095, fol. (1619). He proceeds to explain his meaning: ‘Hoc solùm dicimus, TUTIUS ESSE meritorum jam partorum quodammodo oblivisci, et in solam misericordiam Dei respicere, tum quia nemo absque revelatione certo scire potest, se habere vera merita, aut in eis in finem usque perseveraturum; tum quia nihil est facilius, in hoc loco tentationis, quàm superbiam ex consideratione bonorum operum gigni.’ He then quotes Daniel 9:18, and Luke 22:10; and refers to the public prayers of the Catholic Church, and to several quotations from the Fathers,—Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, and Bernard,—in confirmation of his statement.

NOTE 22, p. 216

Dr. J. H. Newman, ‘Lectures on Justification,’ 2d Ed. 1840; Dr. James Bennett, ‘Justification as revealed in Scripture, in opposition to the Council of Trent, and Mr. Newman’s Lectures,’ 8vo (1840), p. 363; Geo. Stanley Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine of Justification,’ 2d Ed. (1839), p. 427. Mr. Griffith’s ‘Reply to Dr. Newman’s Lectures’ is commended by Bishop Daniel Wilson.

NOTE 23, p. 217

A. G. Ryder, D.D. (Master of the Erasmus Smith Grammar School, Tipperary), ‘The Scriptural Doctrine of Acceptance with God, considered with reference to the Neologian Hermeneutics.’ The Donnellan Lectures for 1863. Dublin 1865. He describes his doctrine thus (p. 196): ‘That theory of Acceptance with God which I have advocated throughout these Lectures—that the Christian covenant, namely, was made between God and the entire human family, but that its benefits shall finally apply, without respect of persons, to those alone who have acted here according to the light given them by God,—who have earnestly availed themselves of such spiritual advantages as His providence had placed within their reach.’ Again (p. 311): ‘While the mysterious sacrifice of Christ sufficiently, yea, more than sufficiently, atoned for all the sins, both actual and original, of Adam and his posterity, and obtained for them the gift of the Holy Spirit,—yet the benefit thereof, in the last great day of account, shall be confined to those who, hearing the true nature of God in the Gospel message, have obeyed from the heart the doctrine therein delivered; and those who, not having heard that message, yet obeyed the law of God, so far as it was otherwise known to them, and their natural depravity allowed.’ The strange statement in the last clause is probably to be explained by p. 148: ‘The decision in each case being made, not by the standard of an impossible perfection, but in equitable and intelligible conformity with all the circumstances and conditions, both external and internal, of each individual.’

NOTE 24, p. 217

A detailed analysis and examination of each of the works, which have been mentioned, was prepared for these Lectures, but there is no room for its insertion, either in the Text or Appendix, within the limits of a single volume. Enough has been said, perhaps, to indicate their general character and tendency.

These works have all been produced by Ministers or Members of the United Church of England and Ireland. But it would be untrue and unjust to represent all the recent attacks on the Protestant doctrine as having proceeded from the Established Episcopal Church. Some lamentable symptoms of departure from it have also appeared among Nonconformists. One remarkable example will be found in ‘Orthodoxy, Scripture, and Reason; An Examination of some of the principal Articles of the Creed of Christendom,’ by Rev. Wm. Kirkus, LL.B. (1865), pp. 416. He seems to belong to the school of Maurice and Kingsley, for he speaks of the relation of the Logos to the human race, in these terms: ‘A race shall be created in the only-begotten Son, of which He should be the Archetype and head, which should be His image, as He is the image of the Father;’ and adds, ‘The race of man is to be seen, not in the first Adam who fell, but in the second Adam, the Lord from Heaven,’—pp. 114, 115. His views of the Mediatorial work of Christ take shape from this fundamental principle, pp. 137–177; and also his views of Justification, pp. 181–230. As a Congregationalist, the author is not bound by the Thirty-nine Articles, or the Westminster Confession; but he seems not to be quite so free as he could wish; for he says: ‘For all practical purposes, every chapel with a doctrinal trust-deed, and the religious belief of the people worshipping in it, is protected by the defences, and bound by the fetters, which cannot fail, both for good and evil, to accompany the establishment of religion,’—p. 45. He seems to desiderate ‘a deed containing not even the faintest allusions to any Christian doctrine.’ This might suit some ministers, but would it be equally suitable to their congregations, who are supposed to have some ‘religious belief?’

Another recent writer, John Fuller, Esq., has published a work, entitled ‘Justification,’ London, 1829, which is directed to disprove ‘the great error, that Justification takes place, either primarily or finally, in this life,’ and to show that ‘it takes place only at the day of Judgment,’ pp. xiii. 14. But see Rom. 5:1, 2, 8:1; Eph. 1:7, etc.

---

NOTE 25, p. 218

‘The Church of Christ in the Middle Ages,’ by the author of ‘Essays on the Church,’ Seeley, 1845, p. 12.

========

 

 

 

 

PART II

NOTE TO INTRODUCTION

NOTE 1, p. 225

See Dr. Owen, ‘Works,’ vol. xi. pp. ii.–iv. 11, 17, 27, 30, etc.; Calvin, ‘Institutes,’ Book iii. c. xi. p. 575; Dr. Shedd, ‘History of Christian Doctrine,’ vol. ii. 263–271, 285.

The late Lord John Scott, of the noble house of Buccleuch, carried about with him continually an excellent tract, entitled ‘Sin no Trifle.’ ‘His mind was deeply penetrated with a sense of the “majesty” of God, and the “awfulness” of our relations to Him, in consequence of the sin that has entered the world, and has infected the whole human race; and therefore he vividly realized the indispensable necessity of Mediation and Atonement, to give hope to sinful man in prospect of the grand account. The origin of that earnestness, and attachment to spiritual religion, which he manifested in his last years, was … the perusal of the tract entitled “Sin no Trifle.” Deep was the impression that tract had made. He read it, and re-read it, and continually carried it about with him, till it was entirely worn away. Under the impression springing from such views of sin, he said, when in the enjoyment of health and vigour, “It is easy to die the death of a gentleman, but that will not do.” His death was not the death of a mere “gentleman;” it was evidently that of a “Christian.” … And in his painful illness, he manifested the supporting power of faith, when faith has respect to “the truth as it is in Jesus,” and appropriates Him as a personal, and Almighty, Saviour.’—Rev. A. Hislop (Arbroath), The Two Babylons, p. xviii. Another short, but impressive, tract ‘On Sin,’ by the Rev. Wm. Burns, now Missionary at Amoy, China, cannot be too highly recommended to those who have no leisure for reading larger works. Of the latter, the following may be mentioned: ‘The Christian Doctrine of Sin,’ by Dr. Julius Müller, Clark, 1852, 2 vols.; ‘The Sinfulness of Sin,’ by Bishop Reynolds, ‘Works,’ vol. i. pp. 101–353; ‘On Indwelling Sin,’ by Dr. Owen, ‘Works,’ vol. xiii. pp. 1–195; ‘On Original Sin,’ by President Edwards, ‘Works,’ vol. ii. p. 79; on ‘The Unregenerate Man’s Guiltiness,’ by Thos. Goodwin, vol. x. Nichol’s Series; ‘On Original Sin,’ Princeton Theological Essays, First Series, Essay v. p. 109, and Melancthon’s ‘Doctrine of Sin,’ Essay ix. p. 218.

---

NOTES TO LECTURE VIII

NOTE 1, p. 227

Dr. Donaldson offers the following criticism: ‘The only great doctrinal difference which they (the Tubingen School) supposed to have existed between the Apostles disappears before a fair interpretation of the passages alleged. The doctrine is that of Justification by Faith. Paul is supposed to have preached a peculiar doctrine on this point. On all hands this peculiar doctrine is allowed to appear in a very modified manner in the subsequent ages; and in the Epistle of James some have supposed that Paul’s doctrine is flatly contradicted. The supposition of a difference arises mainly from two circumstances,—a false meaning attached to δικαιόω, and a forgetfulness that Paul speaks principally of trust in God, not in Christ. The word δικαιόω is not used in the New Testament in its classical sense. We have to fall back on its etymological meaning. This meaning is—either to make a person who is sinful righteous, or to declare a person righteous who is righteous. The meaning attributed to it is, to treat a person who is guilty as if he were really not guilty. Only the most concurring evidence of unquestionable examples of such a use of the word would justify a man in giving it this meaning. And no such examples can be found within the first three centuries at least. Now Paul’s doctrine was this. He is arguing against Judaism. He maintains that if a man’s righteousness is to depend on the performance of the law, then righteousness is an impossibility. No man can do, or ever has done, all that he ought to do. Can man, then, be righteous at all? Unquestionably, says Paul; there is a righteousness which consists in trusting in God. The person may have sinned, but his hope is in God; and whatever he has to do, the motive is his confidence in God…. Now James’s doctrine, instead of being opposed to this, is a representation of the same essential truth, in opposition to a different error. Paul struggled against dead works, James against dead belief.’—Critical History, vol. i. p. 77. The harmony between Paul and James is not the present question, but the meaning of δικαιόω according to the ‘usus loquendi’ of the sacred writers. The great Popish controversy, which has now been waged for more than three hundred years, has always turned on this latter question; and all our British divines—such as Barlow, Davenant, Downham, Owen, Brown, Hooker—have agreed with the Reformers and foreign Theologians in contending for that sense of it which Dr. Donaldson rejects. See Bishop Barlow’s ‘Two Letters,’ pp. 68–71; Bishop Davenant, ‘Disputa,’ vol. i. p. 157; Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise,’ pp. 51–55; Mr. Wm. Pemble, A.M., ‘Vindiciæ Fidei,’ or ‘A Treatise on Justification by Faith,’ delivered at Magdalen Hall, Oxford, Second Edition, 1629, Sec. i. c. 1, 2, ‘Explication of the Terms Righteousness, and Justification,’ p. 1; Dr. Owen, ‘Works,’ vol. xi. pp. 153–161; Hooker, ‘Sermon on Justification,’ vol. ii. p. 696; President Edwards, ‘Works,’ vi. 215; Calvin, ‘Institutes,’ Book iii. c. xi.; De Moori, ‘Commentary,’ iv. 535; Jo. Gerhard, tom. vii. lec. xvii. Sec. iii. ‘Etymologia et Significatio Voca. Justific.;’—and more recently, Bishop O’Brien, ‘Nature and Effects of Faith,’ pp. 70–72, 387; G. S. Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine,’ p. 393; Dr. Cunningham, ‘Historical Theology,’ vol. ii. pp. 34, 40. The importance which has all along been ascribed to this question shows that it was never regarded as a verbal one; as appears sufficiently from the strong statement of Chemnitz, ‘De Vocabulo Justificationis:’ ‘Manifestum est … veram Scripturæ sententiam de Justificatione non posse commodius explicari, intelligi, et conservari, nec contrarias corruptelas rectius et illustrius posse refutari, quam ex propria et genuina significatione verbi—justificare. Neque ignorant hoc Pontificii; … ipsorum enim instituto accommodatius est, si abutantur similitudine analogiœ Latinœ compositionis, ut sicut sanctificare dicetur, ita etiam justificare intelligatur.’—Examen. Conc. Trid. De Justif. p. 130.

It is not wonderful, that those who have failed to see the Protestant doctrine of Justification in the Holy Scriptures, should have been unable to find it in the writings of the Fathers. If they attach an ‘efficient, moral’ sense to δικαιόω, and understand δικαιοδύνη as denoting an ‘inherent, subjective’ righteousness, as these terms are used in the one, they will naturally interpret the same expressions in the same way, when they occur in the other. It is equally true, that those who attach a ‘forensic or judicial sense’ to δικαιόω, and its cognates, in Scripture, will continue to understand them in the same sense, when they meet with them in the writings of the Fathers. In either case, it may be said that both parties interpret the Fathers, according to their respective views of the meaning of Scripture. But there is a wide difference between the two cases. Those who hold the Protestant sense of these terms, have adduced evidence from Scripture itself to prove, that justification is there opposed to condemnation, and does not denote a subjective moral change; and while they find that the word was used in this scriptural sense by some of the Fathers, they are not bound to show that it was never used by any of them to denote the infusion of personal holiness, any more than that it is not so used by some at the present day; for they are quite prepared to expect that its meaning would be obscured and perverted in the growing degeneracy and corruption of the Church. Whereas those who hold the Popish sense of these terms, can scarcely make out their case, unless they are able to show, either that such expressions are incapable of bearing the construction which Protestants have put upon them, or that, in point of fact, they never convey that meaning, either in the Apostolic or Patristic writings. A few clear examples of their being used in a purely ‘forensic’ or ‘judicial’ sense, are fatal to the theory which insists on an exclusively ‘moral’ Justification; and the difference between the two interpretations does not arise merely from verbal criticism, but has a much deeper root.

The difference between them,—and also its real cause,—may be illustrated by comparing what is said of Justification in Spanheim’s ‘Ecclesiastical Annals,’ and Le Clerc’s ‘Historia Eccles. Duorum Primorum Seculorum.’ Spanheim had acquired a clear apprehension of the ‘forensic’ or ‘judicial’ sense of the term, as it is used in Scripture,—in other words, he had found the Protestant doctrine there, (see ‘Elenchus Controversiarum,’ pp. 33, 49, 59, etc., and ‘Dubia Evangelica,’ pp. 126, 421, 525, etc.); and accordingly he finds it also in the writings of some of the Fathers, while he admits that it was gradually corrupted.—Eccles. Annals, pp. 227, 229, 293, 325, 355. Whereas Le Clerc, who had not acquired a clear apprehension of the Apostolic doctrine, is equally at sea in regard to the Patristic.—Hist. Eccles., Prolegomena, p. 130, Sæc. i. p. 399.

NOTE 2, p. 227

Bellarmine, ‘Opera,’ vol. iv. p. 814, ‘De Nomine Justific. et Jus.;’ Osorio, ‘De Justitia,’ lib. v. pp. 302, 425; Perrone, ‘Prælec. Theolog.,’ ‘De Gratia Sanctificante,’ vol. vi. p. 200, and under this title, ‘De Justificationis Essentia et Naturæ,’ p. 204; Dens, ‘Theologia,’ ii. p. 446; Bishop Downham’s ‘Treatise,’ pp. 52, 62–69; Dr. Junkin, on ‘Justification,’ pp. 73–75.

‘The question is—In what sense are the words Justification, and its cognates, used in Scripture? and more especially, should any variety in its meaning and application be discovered there, in what sense is it employed in those passages in which it is manifest, that the subject ordinarily expressed by it is most fully and formally explained?’ ‘Popish writers do not deny that the word is sometimes, nay often, taken in Scripture in a forensic sense…. But they usually contend that this is not the only meaning which the word bears in the Scriptures—that there are cases in which it means to make righteous,—and that, consequently, they are entitled to regard this idea as contained in its full scriptural import…. The position which Protestants maintain on this subject is not, that in every passage where the word occurs there exists evidence by which it can be proved from that passage alone, taken by itself, that the word there is used in a forensic sense, and cannot admit of any other. They concede that there are passages where the word occurs, in which there is nothing in the passage itself, or in the context, to fix down its meaning to the sense of counting righteous, in preference to making righteous. Their position is this,—that there are many passages where it is plain that it must be taken in a forensic sense, and cannot admit of any other; and that there are none, or at least none in which the justification of a sinner before God is formally and explicitly spoken of, in which it can be proved that the forensic sense is inadmissible or necessarily excluded.’—Dr. Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol. ii. pp. 31, 34, 35.

NOTE 3, p. 230

See Downham, ‘Treatise,’ pp. 9, 51–58; Dr. Burgess, ‘The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted and Vindicated,’ pp, 6–9; Dr. Junkin on ‘Justification,’ p. 77; Bishop Bull, ‘Harmonia Apos.’ Diss. i. c. i.: ‘Magdeburg Centuriators,’ Cent. i. B. i. c. iv. p. 94; Owen, ‘Works.’ vol. xi. p. 169; Rev. P. J. Gloag (of Dunning), ‘Treatise on Justification’ (1856), p. 36,—a sound and sensible work, which may be safely recommended to those who have little leisure to study larger treatises. The Centuriators say, ‘ “Justificare” forensem habet significationem, pro absolvere, justitiam tribuere, ut Matt. 12:37, Luke 10:29, 16:15, 18:14…. In hac significatione in presenti negotio, ubi de acceptione hominis coram Deo agitur, hæc vox propriè ac verè accepitur,—nempe quod “justificare” in doctrina de remissione peccatorum coram Deo, Ebraica phrasi, significat absolvi ab accusatione legis,—attribui seu imputari legis obedientiam, seu justitiam per Christum partam, gratis omnibus credentibus, et sic justum in judicio Dei reputari ac pronunciari, ac consistere.’—P. 95.

NOTE 4, p. 232

Downham, ‘Treatise,’ p. 57; Dr. Burgess, ‘True Doctrine,’ p. 15: Hervey, ‘Theron and Aspasio,’ vol. i. p. 57; Bishop Kaye, ‘Charges,’ p. 259.

NOTE 5, p. 238

Bishop Bull, ‘Harmonia Apos.’ Diss. i. c. v.: ‘Judicium Dei in futuro sæculo per omnia respondet Justificatione Divinæ in hac vita’. Dr. Sherlock, ‘Practical Discourse on the Future Judgment,’ c. vii. p. 334. John Fuller, Esq., ‘Justification,’ p. xiii. 4. See Bishop O’Brien’s ‘Sermons,’ pp. 54, 149; Bishop Downham’s ‘Treatise,’ pp. 55–58, 66, 70, 125, 137, 259, 379.

NOTE 6, p. 248

The result is summed up in two positions by Dr. Cunningham:

1. ’That the Apostle James did not intend to discuss, and does not discuss, the subject of Justification in the sense in which it is so fully expounded in Paul’s Epistles to the Romans and Galatians; that he does not state anything about the grounds or principles on which sinners are admitted to forgiveness and the favour of God; and that his great fundamental object is simply to set forth the real tendency and result of that true living faith, which holds so important a place in everything connected with the salvation of sinners….

2. ‘That the Justification of which James speaks, and which he ascribes to works, refers to something in men’s history posterior to that great era when their sins are forgiven, and they are admitted to the enjoyment of God’s favour,—i.e. to the proof or manifestation of the reality and efficiency of their faith to themselves and their fellow-men.’

NOTE 7, p. 249

On the harmony between Paul and James: Bishop Bull, ‘Harmonia Apostol.;’ Rev. A. Pitcairne, ‘Harmonia Evangelica, Apostol. Pauli et Jacobi in Doctr. de Justific. (1685), adversus Socinianos, Pontificios, Arminianos, Curcellæum, Morum, Bullum, Sherlockum, et Alios Novaturientes;’ Dr. Owen, vol. xi. c. xx. pp. 479–493; ‘Dickinson, Familiar Letters,’ Let. xv. p. 260; Witsius, ‘De Mente Pauli circa Justif.,’ Misc. Sac. vol. ii. p. 748; Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise,’ pp. 370, 408, 483, fully discussed pp. 484–497; Brown, ‘Life of Justification,’ pp. 486–506; Gossner, ‘Life of Martin Boos,’ pp. 67, 129, 152; W. Pemble, ‘Vindiciæ Fidei,’ pp. 187, 197; Young, ‘Life of John Welsh,’ pp. 125, 126; Hervey, ‘Theron and Aspasio,’ i. p. 261, iv. p. 109; G. S. Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine,’ Augustine on Paul and James, pp. 165–175; Faber on the same, pp. 297–314; Bishop O’Brien, ‘Sermons on Faith,’ pp. 166–175, 357, 519; Dr. Cunningham, ‘Historical Theology,’ vol. ii. p. 67. Compare these with Dr. Newman, ‘Lectures on Justification,’ pp. 27, 134, 210, 211, 302, 312, 319, 328–333, and his ‘Apologia,’ p. 170; Brooke, ‘Life and Letters of F. W. Robertson,’ ii. p. 64.

---

NOTES TO LECTURE IX

NOTE 1, p. 252

Dr. Burgess, ‘True Doctrine of Justification,’ pp. 11, 12; Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise,’ pp. 61, 126; Dr. Owen, ‘Works,’ vol. xi. pp. 247, 253, 267; Brown, ‘Life of Justification,’ pp. 259, 262; Beart, ‘Vindication of the Eternal Law and Gospel,’ Part i. pp. iv–viii, 12; Dr. Heurtley, ‘Bampton Lectures,’ passim; but see pp. ix. 117; Halyburton, ‘Works,’ edited by Dr. Burns, p. 559; ‘An Inquiry into the Nature of God’s Act of Justification,’ recently reprinted, with other pieces, by an esteemed Elder of the Free Church in Ayrshire, Essay iii. p. 119.

NOTE 2, p. 255

Witsius, ‘Misc. Sac.,’ vol. ii. p. 671; Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise, pp. 33, 38, 42, 48, 208; Brown, ’Life of Justification,’ p. 28; Dickinson, ‘Familiar Letters,’ p. 182; Dr. Junkin on ‘Justification,’ p. 310. John Welsh in Young’s ‘Life,’ p. 311; Beart’s ‘Vindication,’ Part ii pp. 24, 25; Hervey, ‘Theron and Aspasio,’ pp. 38, 44; Bishop O’Brien on ‘Faith,’ pp. 74, 98; Dr. Cunningham, ‘Hist. Theol.’ ii. p. 47.

NOTE 3, p. 255

Dr. Burgess, ‘True Doctrine,’ pp. 50–57; Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise pp. 82–88; Scott, ’Continuation of Milner,’ ii. p. 281.

NOTE 4, p. 256

See Part i. Lect. ii. p. 55. Witsius, ‘De Theol. Judæorum,’ Misc. Sac., vol. ii. p. 714.

NOTE 5, p. 256

Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise,’ pp. 82, 83; Dr. Burgess, ‘Lectures’ pp. 19–23; Dr. Newman, ‘Lectures,’ pp. 40, 47, 69; Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine,’ p. 45.

NOTE 6, p. 257

Knox, ‘Remains,’ vol. i. pp. 244–246, 461, vol. ii. pp. 23, 30, 44, 53, 56, 83, 316, vol. iii. pp. 101, 419, vol. iv. p. 260; Greg, ‘Creed of Christendom,’ pp. 262–297; Kirkus, ’Orthodoxy, Reason, and Scripture pp. 174–179.

NOTE 7, p. 258

Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise,’ pp. 84, 90; Dr. Burgess, ‘True Doctrine,’ pp. 22, 139, 143, 235, 261; Dr. Junkin on ‘Justification,’ p. 77: Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine,’ pp. 188, 192.

NOTE 8, p. 259

Bellarmine, ‘De Justificatione,’ lib. ii. c. i. s. 1. See also Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise,’ p. 208; Roborough, ‘Doctrine of Justification, p. 77; Dr. Cunningham, ’Reformers and Theol. of Reformation,’ Works vol. i. p. 402; ‘Historical Theology,’ vol. iii. p. 14; Scott, ‘Continuation of Milner’s History,’ vol. iii. p. 320; Calvin, ‘Institutes,’ Book iii. c. xi.–xviii.

NOTE 9, p. 261

Southey’s ‘Life of Wesley,’ vol. ii. p. 54; Dr. Cunningham, ‘Hist Theol.,’ vol. ii. p. 54; Bishop O’Brien on ‘Faith,’ p. 418. It is to be regretted that Bishop O’Brien substitutes the term ‘innocence’ for the scriptural one, ‘righteousness,’ pp. 148, 151.

NOTE 10, p. 264

Smith’s ‘Dictionary of the Bible,’ art. ‘Adoption;’ Amesius, ‘Medulla,’ c. xxviii. pp. 127–132; Witsius, ‘De Œconomia Fœderum,’ lib. iii. c. ix. p. 315; Dan. Heinsius, ‘Exercitationes Sacræ,’ p. 138; Mastricht, ‘Theol.,’ lib. vi. c. vii. vol. ii. p. 723; Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise,’ p. 359; Dwight, ‘Theology,’ vol. iii. p. 167; Taylor, ‘Establishment of the Law,’ p. 48; Luther on Epistle to Galatians, p. 322; Hervey, ‘Theron and Aspasio,’ Works, vol. iv. p. 149; Ford, ‘The Spirit of Bondage and Adoption’ (1655).

NOTE 11, p. 264

Dr. Shedd’s ‘History,’ vol. ii. p. 321; Mr. Knox, ‘Remains,’ vol. i. pp. 256, 260; Dr. Newman, ‘Lectures,’ pp. 40, 44, 46, 69; Scott, ‘Continuation of Milner’s History,’ vol. iii. p. 272; Archbishop Wake, ‘Defence,’ p. 25; Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise,’ pp. 49, 80; Dr. Burgess, ‘True Doctrine,’ p. 16.

NOTE 12, p. 265

Principal Hadow, ‘Antinomianism,’ p. 24; Beart, ‘Vindication,’ Part ii. pp. 84, 86; N. Mather, ‘The Righteousness of God,’ p. 41.

NOTE 13, p. 265

Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise,’ pp. 49, 76–81, in fifteen particulars; Mr. Brown, ‘Life of Justification,’ p. 267, in ten particulars; Dr. Burgess, ‘True Doctrine,’ p. 16; Hervey, ‘Theron and Aspasio,’ Works, vol. iii. pp. 348–351, vol. iv. p. 291; Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 77.

---

NOTES TO LECTURE X

NOTE 1, p. 270

See Part i. Lect. i. p. 18; also Rawlin, ‘Christ the Righteousness of His People,’ Sermons at Pinners Hall (1797), p. 19. His propositions are extremely valuable. He shows: ‘(1.) That man is naturally and necessarily under a law to God. (2.) That man being under a law to God, some righteousness is absolutely necessary to his justification. (3.) That every righteousness is not sufficient for this purpose, but it must be such a righteousness as fully answers to the purity and perfection of that law under which man is placed, and which God hath given him as the rule of his obedience. (4.) That we have no such righteousness of our own, nor can any mere creature furnish us with it. (5.) That if ever we are justified, it must be by the righteousness of Christ, consisting in that complete and perfect obedience which He has performed to the law in our room and stead’ (p. 19).

The Rev. John Beart, ‘Vindication of the Eternal Law, and Everlasting Gospel,’ in two parts, reprinted 1753. ‘What is that righteousness, wherein a sinner may stand before God, pardoned and accepted unto eternal life?… That the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ, fulfilled by Himself here on earth, in our room and stead, is that alone righteousness, which answers all charges of all kinds whatsoever, on the behalf of the believer, is the true Gospel answer to this inquiry…. If Christ be owned in His office and works as a Saviour, there are but these two ways supposable, in which He can be so;—either, that making reparation for the breach of the first covenant, He hath procured a Remedial Law of lower terms, condescending to our weakness, that by obedience thereto we might work out a justifying righteousness ourselves, entitling to life and happiness; or, that coming into our place and stead, He hath fulfilled in our room, a justifying righteousness Himself, which, to all intents and purposes, is made ours, for Justification before God, from all condemnation. Here are the two ways; and how contrary these two are—that Christ hath procured by His death an abatement of the Law, that our obedience should justify,—and, on the other hand, that Christ hath altogether fulfilled the Law, and that His righteousness is imputed for Justification, let those believers judge, who have “their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” The bottom of the controversy, therefore, is about the justifying righteousness of a sinner—Whether it is Christ’s, or his own? or, at least, Whether it is Christ’s alone, or Christ’s and his own?—the one, as answering the penalty of the law of works,—the other, as answering another law, that is supposed to have a charge against men, till they have fulfilled its conditions. All other arguings in this controversy are but incidental, and aimed to establish one of these two ways of righteousness.’—Part i. p. iv. He then proceeds to argue against the doctrine of the New Methodists, and Neonomians, as having a tendency to reintroduce Popery, and quotes the remarkable admission of Richard Baxter, as recorded in his Life by Sylvester: ‘My censures of the Papists do much differ from what they were at first: I then thought, that their errors in the doctrines of Faith were their most dangerous mistakes,—as in the points of Merit, of Justification by works, of assurance of salvation of the nature of Faith, etc. But now I am assured that their misexpressions, and their misunderstanding us, with our mistaking of them, and inconvenient expressing our own opinions, have made the difference in these points to appear much greater than it is, and that, in some of them, it is next to none at all’ (Part i. p. ix.). The great value of Beart’s ‘Vindication’ consists in his setting clearly forth the relation which Justification must bear to the Law and Justice of God. His leading positions are these: (1.) That the Law of God, which is the rule of duty and obedience, and which is perfect and unchangeable, is also the role of righteousness for Justification, c. i. ii. (2.) That man, as fallen, even if renewed, is unable to fulfil it, c. iii. (3.) That Christ has fulfilled both its precept and penalty in our stead, c. iv. (4.) That Christ’s righteousness is imputed to all believers, and is their justifying righteousness, c. v. (5.) That Faith justifies, not as a work, but as a means or instrument, c. vi. Part ii. is directed against the Antinomian doctrine of Justification.

See also Dutton, ‘Treatise on Justification’ (1778), Third Edition, pp. iv. viii. and passim; Bragge, ‘Lime Street Lectures,’ pp. 246–295.

NOTE 2, p. 277

On the first covenant of life, see Bishop Hopkins on the ‘Two Covenants;’ Samuel Petto, ‘The Difference between the Old and New Covenant,’ 1674; Witsius, ‘De Œconomia Fœderum Dei;’ Burmann’s ‘Synopsis;’ Boston, Strong, Taylor, Russell (Dundee), Colquhoun (Leith), etc. etc.

The theory of Pre-existence is adopted in preference to the doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s guilt to his posterity, by Dr. H. W. Beecher, ‘The Conflict of Ages,’ B. v. pp. 362–516. It was mooted by Bishop Rust, ‘Lux Orientalis,’ an ‘Inquiry into the Opinion of the Eastern Sages concerning the Pre-existence of Souls,—a Key to Unlock the Grand Mysteries of Providence;’ by Joseph Glanville, ‘Essays,’ p. 53; by Dr. H. More, ‘Philosophical Works,’ ‘Immortality of the Soul,’ pp. 111–114; ‘The Cabbala,’ pp. 86, 147; ‘General Preface,’ pp. xx. xxv.

On the new views which have sprung up in America on the Imputation of Adam’s guilt, see Dr. Boardman, ‘On Original Sin,’ and three papers on ‘Imputation’ in the ‘Princeton Theological Essays.’

NOTE 3, p. 286

On the supposed Abrogation, or Relaxation, of the Law, see Beart, ‘Vindication,’ p. 9. See also supra, Lect. vi. p. 176.

NOTE 4, p. 288

Archdeacon Hare, ‘Vindication of Luther,’ p. 94.

NOTE 5, p. 291

Dr. Owen, ‘Treatise on Divine Justice,’ Works, vol. ix. pp. 320–502; President Edwards, ‘God’s Chief End in all His Works,’ vol. i. pp. 443–535; Dr. Shedd, ‘History of Christian Doctrine,’ vol. ii. pp. 246, 305, 306.

---

NOTES TO LECTURE XI

NOTE 1, p. 293

Dr. Bates, ‘Harmony of the Divine Attributes in the Work of Man’s Redemption.’

NOTE 2, p. 294

Dr. Waterland, ‘Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity,’ p. 66.

NOTE 3, p. 294

Witsius, ‘De Œconomia Fœderum Dei,’ c. iii.; ‘De Pacto Patris et Filii,’ p. 110; Do., ‘Misc. Sac.’ vol. ii. pp. 820–823, 843; Dr. Junkin ‘On Justification,’ c. xiii. p. 192; Fraser’s ‘Life of Ebenezer Erskine,’ pp. 235–238; Hervey’s Works, ii. pp. 51, 54, 263, iv. pp. 162–165; Jones. ‘The Mediation of Jesus Christ;’ Buddeus, ‘Misc. Sac.’ tom. iii. c. x. ‘Jesus Melioris Fœderis Sponsor,’ pp. 361–402.

NOTE 4, p. 297

M’Laurin, ‘On Glorying in the Cross of Christ;’ Sir Matthew Hale. ‘Contemplations,’ vol. i. p. 160; Owen, Works, vol. ix., ‘On the Death and Satisfaction of Christ;’ Rev. C. Jerram, ‘Treatise on the Atonement.’ pp. 27–45; Dr. Symington, ‘On the Atonement,’ pp. 56–65, 303–309. 328; Dr. Stevenson, ‘Dissertation on the Atonement,’ pp. 15–45; N. Mather, ‘Righteousness of God,’ p. 19; Dr. Janeway, ‘Letters on the Atonement,’ pp. 56, 167–200.

NOTE 5, p. 301

Beart, ‘Vindication of the Eternal Law,’ etc., P. i. p. 41; N. Mather. ‘The Righteousness of God,’ p. 17. The question whether Christ suffered (idem or tantundem) the punishment of His people is discussed by Dr. Owen, ‘Exercitation on Epistle to the Hebrews,’ vol. ii. p. 130, vol. iii. p. 420; Brown, ‘Life of Justification,’ p. 443.

NOTE 6, p. 303

Sir M. Hale’s ‘Knowledge of Christ Crucified,’ Medit. vol. i. p. 162. Some divines in a former age doubted whether the Incarnation itself formed any part of the vicarious work of Christ. See Nath. Mather, ‘The Righteousness of God,’ pp. 11–14. On the general doctrine of the Incarnation, see Zanchius, ‘De Incarnatione Filii Dei;’ Dr. Owen, ‘Christologis,’ and ‘Meditations on the Person of Christ,’ vol. xii.; Rev. Marcus Dods. ‘The Incarnation of the Eternal Word;’ Archdeacon R. I. Wilberforce. ‘The Doctrine of the Incarnation,’ Second Edition, 1849; Petavius, ‘De Incarnatione,’ in 16 Books, Opera, vol. v. vi.; Peter Lombard, ‘Sententiarum,’ lib. ii.

NOTE 7, p. 307

The Active and Passive Obedience of Christ. See Bishop O’Brien. ‘Essays on Faith,’ pp. 88–101, 432–440; Dr. Cunningham, ‘Reformers’ Works, i. pp. 402–406; ‘Historical Theology,’ i. 54; Bishop Downham. ‘Treatise,’ pp. 18, 24–27, 151–159; Brown (of Wamphray), ‘Life of Justification,’ p. 431; Roborough, ‘On Justification,’ pp. 7:13:24: Dr. Shedd, ‘History,’ ii. pp. 282, 348; Fraser, ‘Life of Ebenezer Erskine, pp. 97, 101; Young, ’Life of John Welsh,’ pp. 293, 363; Dr. Tully, ‘Justine. Paulina,’ c. xi. p. 117; Beart, ‘Vindication,’ P. i. pp. 38, 40, 42, 49, 95, ii. pp. 46, 47; Hervey, Works, ii. pp. 64, 170–187, iii. 46, 47, 366.

NOTE 8, p. 308

Robert Ferguson, ‘Justification only upon a Satisfaction’ (1668). Ferguson became a political partisan and intriguer in troublous times, and suffered in consequence both in his reputation and usefulness; but he was endowed with great ability, and well versed in theology, as appears from this work, and another on ‘The Interest of Reason in Religion.’ He is referred to both by Bishop Burnet and Lord Macaulay. See ‘Essays and Reviews Examined,’ p. 145. On Christ’s Satisfaction, see the works mentioned in Note (8), Lect. vi. p. 459.

---

NOTES TO LECTURE XII

NOTE 1, p. 317

Wesley, ‘Letter to Hervey,’ Hervey’s Works, vol. iv. ‘Does “the righteousness of God” ever mean “the merits of Christ?” I believe not once in all the Scripture. It often means, and particularly in the Epistle to the Romans, “God’s method of justifying sinners.” ’—P. xii. ‘The “righteousness of God” signifies, the righteousness which God-man wrought out. No. It signifies “God’s method of justifying sinners.” ’—P. xix. ‘Therein is revealed “the righteousness of God,”—God’s “method of justifying sinners.” ’—P. xx. Prof. Moses Stuart, ‘Commentary on Epistle to the Romans:’ ‘Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ is the Justification which God bestows, or the Justification of which God is the Author, or … that state of pardon and acceptance which is the result of mercy proffered in the Gospel, and dispensed on account of the atonement made by Christ.’—P. 62. And he quotes with approbation J. A. Turretine’s interpretation: ‘Apostolus noster, ubi agit de justificatione et salute hominum, sæpe vocat “justitiam Dei” eam justificationis rationem quam Deus hominibus commonstrat;’ or, ‘Justitia Dei … est ipsamet hominis justificatio, seu modus quo potest justus haberi apud Deum.’—Pp. 69, 70. Dr. John Brown (Edinburgh), ‘Analytical Exposition of Epistle to the Romans,’ refers to Store’s ‘Opuscula,’ Voorst’s ‘Annotations’ on Romans 1:17, to Zimmermann, ‘De vi et sensu δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ,’ to Moses Stuart and Fritzsche; and then gives his own view to this effect,—that δικαιοσύνη usually signifies Justification, either as a privilege bestowed by God, or as a benefit enjoyed by men—that when it is said, ‘Christ is made of God unto us righteousness,’ the meaning is, that we are justified. ‘In the 3d chapter it exactly suits “the divine method of Justification,” and it suite nothing else. I, therefore, consider “the righteousness of God” here, as meaning “God’s way of treating a sinner,” as if he were just in consistency with His own righteousness,—the Divine Method of Justification.’—Pp. 9, 10. This interpretation is far too vague to be satisfactory. The loose paraphrase of δικαιοσύνη Θιοῦ by ‘the divine method of justifying sinners,’ leaves the question open—What that method is? and whether it be by a personal and inherent, or by a vicarious and imputed, righteousness? whereas the Apostle specifies the righteousness by which we are justified, and contrasts it with another righteousness which is excludes. And then, when it is described as ‘God’s method of treating a sinner, as if he were righteous, in consistency with His own righteousness,’ the statement is defective; first, because God’s treatment of a sinner, as if he were just, must necessarily imply a righteousness which, in the case of a sinner, cannot be personal; secondly, because mere treatment is not as that is implied in Justification, for it presupposes a judgment by which the sinner is constituted and pronounced righteous, as the ground or reason of that treatment; and thirdly, because the phrase, ‘in consistency with His own righteousness,’ is either altogether unmeaning, or it must refer to some provision, such as the satisfaction and vicarious obedience of Christ, by which God is ‘declared to be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.’

NOTE 2, p. 322

Prof. M. Stuart, ‘Commentary on Epistle to the Romans,’ pp. 575, 581, 584.

NOTE 3, p. 326

Dr. Owen, Works, xi. pp. 209–216; ‘Princeton Theological Essays, First Series, three excellent papers on ’Imputation,’ Essays vi. vii. viii. pp. 128–217; Dr. Boardman (Philadelphia) on ‘Original Sin,’ p. 52.

NOTE 4, p. 327

Antinomian misrepresentations of the Protestant doctrine have been made the ground of Popish, Socinian, and Neonomian objections against it. Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise,’ pp. 25–40, 245; Bishop Davenans ‘Disputations,’ i. pp. 176–193; Brown, ‘Life of Justification,’ pp. 38–57, 188–214, 226, 242, 506; Roborough, ‘The Doctrine of Justification,’ P. i. p. 45, P. ii. pp. 1–50; Dr. Prideaux, ‘Lecs. Decem,’ pp. 162, 171; Dickinson, ‘Fam. Letters,’ pp. 185–200; Knox, ‘Remains,’ iii. 160; Beart ‘Vindication,’ P. i. 66, 73; Luther on Epistle to the Galatians, p. 207; Hervey, Works, ii. 180, 240, iii. 53, 57.

NOTE 5, p. 329

Placæus advocated the doctrine of a ‘mediate’ imputation in the case of original sin; and was followed by Stapfer. The doctrine of a ‘mediate imputation in the case of Christ’s righteousness, is involved in the Popish and Neonomian scheme of Justification; and in the former there is even a ’mediate’ imputation of Christ’s passive obedience by means of our personal sufferings or penance. This is evidently implied in the statement of Vasquez, where he says that, God’s grace being supposed, ‘Nos re ipsa nunc satisfacere Deo pro nostro peccato et offensa.’ And then, referring both to mortal and venial sins, he adds, ‘Si contritio præcederet infusionem gratiæ habitualis ex parte efficientis, non solum satisfaceret pro maculâ peccati condignè, sed etiam condignè mereretur gratiæ habitualis infusionem…. Ita concedimus homini justo pro suo peccato veniali condignam et perfectam satisfactionem, ut ea non indigeret favore Dei condonantis peccatum, vel aliquid illius, aut acceptantis satisfactionem, sed talis sit, ut ex naturâ suâ deleat maculam et pœnam peccati venialis.’—Archbishop Wake, Defence, p. 34. It may be doubted whether this is so much as a doctrine of ‘mediate’ imputation; since the grace of God in the infusion of righteousness only is spoken of, and no mention is made of the satisfaction of Christ.

NOTE 6, p. 332

On Imputed Righteousness, see a brief but clear and forcible statement of the doctrine by Dr. Chalmers, in his preface to Mr. Russell’s (of Muthil) ‘Sermons;’ Rev. D. Wilson, ‘The Doctrine of Justification through Imputed Righteousness a Divine Doctrine,’ reprinted in 1845 by a respected elder of the Free Church in Edinburgh; Nath. Mather, ‘The Righteousness of God through Faith,’ Second Edition, 1718; Rev. T. Cole, ‘The Incomprehensibleness of Imputed Righteousness for Justification by Human Reason,’ 1692; Bishop O’Brien, ‘Essays on Faith,’ pp. 88–97, 408–415, 424–440; Dr. Cunningham, Works, i. pp. 404, iii. 20, 45, 51, 116; Witsius, Misc. Sac. ii. pp. 735, 789–791; Ro. Traill, ‘Vindication,’ Works, i. p. 310; Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise,’ pp. 15–27, 39–42, 69, 125–138, 157–171, 371, etc.; Bishop Davenant, ‘Disputation,’ i. pp. 163, 176, 186, 230, 236–253; Brown, ‘Life of Justification,’ 22–25, 38–57, 58–97, 98–117, 118–179, 180–247, 431–446; Roborough, ‘The Doctrine of Justification,’ pp. 55–58, 139, 143–160; A. Burgess, ‘The True Doctrine,’ 17, 20; Dr. John Prideaux, ‘Lec. Decem,’ p. 163; Dickinson, ‘Familiar Letters,’ pp. 181–192; Dr. Junkin, ‘Treatise,’ pp. 109, 309; Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine,’ pp. 17–26, 126, 178, 195–197; Bishop Kaye, ‘Charges,’ p. 259; Dr. Owen, Works, ix. 248–254; Bishop Andrewes, vol. v., on Jer. 23:6, pp. 116, 123, etc. etc.

NOTE 7, p. 334

Wesley’s ‘Letter to Hervey,’ Hervey’s Works, vol. iv.; Richard Watson, ‘Theol. Instit.,’ vol. xi. c. xxiii. pp. 172, etc.

‘It has been the general opinion of Christians,’ says a profound writer, ‘that Christ suffered instead of sinners, and that we have remission of sins through faith in His blood-shedding; but the opinion of an imputed righteousness is far from being general, though a substitution is every whit as intelligible, and perhaps as much wanted, in one case as the other; and the same reasons that hold for the rejecting one, will equally hold for the rejecting of both…. There is no more absurdity in trusting wholly to Christ, than there is in trusting to Him only in part; to His atonement and righteousness, or to His atonement only.’—Adam Private Thoughts, pp. 152, 174. ‘As Christ was “made sin for us,” ’ says another distinguished ornament of the Church of England, ‘so we are “made the righteousness of God in Him.” But what righteousness? Our own? No, “the righteousness of God,”—radically in Him, but imputatively ours; and this is the only way whereby we are said to be made “the righteousness of God,” even by the righteousness of Christ being made ours; by which we are accounted and reputed as righteous before God. These things considered, I very much wonder how any man can presume to exclude the active obedience of Christ from our Justification before God; as if what Christ did in the flesh was only of duty, not all of merit; or as if it was for Himself, and not for us. Especially, when I consider, that suffering the penalty is not what the law primarily requireth, for the law of God requires perfect obedience.’—Bishop Beveridge, Private Thoughts, p. 74.

Many Wesleyan Methodists, following the example of their founder, have strenuously defended the doctrine of a free remission of sin through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and have as keenly opposed that of His imputed righteousness. They have taught with great earnestness, that ‘He who knew no sin was made sin for us,’ but have not been equally clear and explicit in showing, that ‘we are made the righteousness of God in Him.’ Much of the success of their preaching has arisen from their bold proclamation of some of the peculiar doctrines of the Gospel, such as those of original sin, in so far as it consists in inherent hereditary depravity, of the imputation of our sins to Christ as our substitute, and of His atoning sufferings and death; for these great truths have commended themselves to the hearts and consciences of many anxious inquirers. even among the rudest classes of society; and no one will doubt, what even Southey and Coleridge have admitted, that we are largely indebted to them for the preservation of vital religion in many a neglected district of our land. All this may be granted, and yet we may still maintain the fundamental importance of the doctrine of Christ’s imputed righteousness. For although they refuse to admit it, and often argue keenly enough against it, this arises, in many cases, either from some misconception of its meaning, or from some sincere but groundless apprehension of its moral tendency; and we cannot doubt that some earnest souls even in the Romish Church, and not a few amongst our Wesleyan brethren, really believe all that we mean by that doctrine, when, emptied of all self-righteousness, they cast themselves down at the foot of the Cross, and trust only in the ‘merits of Christ.’ It has been well said, that it is safer to judge of some men from their prayers, than from their professed opinions: for some will object in controversial discussion to the doctrine which affirms the irresistible efficacy of divine grace, and yet, when they fall down on their knees, they will make use of the Psalmist’s prayer, ‘Create in me a clean heart, renew in me a right spirit;’ and others will object to the doctrine which affirms the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and yet, when they come into the divine presence, can find no language more suitable to their case, or more expressive of their feelings, than this: ‘If Thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquity, O Lord, who shall stand? Enter not into judgment with me, for in Thy sight shall no flesh living be justified.’

For this reason we can cheerfully acquiesce, and cordially concur, in the truly catholic deliverance of Dr. Owen, when, speaking of the sentiments of Calvinistic divines on this point, he says: ‘They do not think nor judge, that all those are excluded from salvation who cannot apprehend, or do deny, the doctrine of the imputation of righteousness, as by them declared. But they judge that they are so, unto whom that righteousness is not really imputed; nor can they do otherwise, whilst they make it the foundation of all their own acceptation with God and eternal salvation. These things greatly differ. To believe the doctrine of it, or not to believe it, as thus or thus explained, is one thing; and to enjoy the thing, or not enjoy it, is another. I no way doubt, but that many men do receive more grace from God than they understand or will own, and have a greater efficacy of it in them than they will believe. Men may be really saved by that’ (irresistible, efficacious) ‘grace which doctrinally they do deny; and they may be justified by the imputation of that righteousness which in opinion they deny to be imputed. For the faith of it is included in that general assent which they give unto the truths of the Gospel; and such an adherence to Christ may ensue thereon, as that their mistake of the way whereby they are saved by Him, shall not deprive them of a real interest therein. And for my part, I must say, that notwithstanding all the disputes that I see and read about Justification, I do not believe but that the authors of them (if they be not Socinians throughout, denying the whole merit and satisfaction of Christ) do really trust unto the Mediator of Christ for the pardon of their sins, and for acceptance with God, and not unto their own works or obedience. Nor will I believe the contrary, until they expressly declare it.’—Dr. Owen, Works, xi. p. 203.

NOTE 8, p. 336

Archdeacon Hare, ‘Contest with Rome,’ p. 31; Dr. Junkin, ‘Lectures on Justification,’ pp. 50–64. G. S. Faber gives ‘A Barrister’s Opinion,’ p. 428. A professional friend has kindly supplied the following note:—‘A “fictio juris” is something quite different from a presumption. Those things are presumed which are likely to be true; but a “fictio juris” is a supposition of law that a thing is true, which is either certainly not true, or at least is as probably false as true; and it is defined by some doctors, an assumption of falsehood for truth in a possible thing that it may have the effect of truth, in so far as is consistent with equity. Thus, in the Roman law, one was by adoption held for the son of him who adopted, though he was not his son…. A “fictio juris” exists, where law, disregarding evidence and probability, holds as true what may be untrue, or what cannot possibly be true. Thus summonses narrate a complaint to the Sovereign by the real party, which might be true, but is always false; while the rules, that “the Sovereign cannot do wrong,”—that “an heir is eadem persona cum defuncto,” and that “the person of a wife is sunk in that of her husband,” are examples of impossible fictions.’—Erskine’s Institutes, B. iv. t. ii. sec. 38; Principles, B. iv. t. i. sec. 5, p. 178.

NOTE 9, p. 337

Prof. M. Stuart, ‘Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,’ and Albert Barnes, Introduction, p. xii. to ‘Notes’ on the same Epistle.

---

NOTES TO LECTURE XIII

Note 1, p. 341

The Socinian doctrine is referred to, Lecture VI., p. 161, and Notes.

NOTE 2, p. 343

The Council of Trent rejects the meaning of the term GRACE which has been generally received by Protestants. Sess. vi. Canon xi. De Justificatione: ‘Si quis dixerit, homines justificari, vel solâ imputatione Justitiæ Christi, vel solâ peccatorum remissione … aut etiam GRATIAM, quâ justificamur, esse tantum favorem Dei, anathema sit.’

Bellarmine treats of it at large, tom. iv. lib. i., ‘De Gratia in genere, id est, de nomine, definitione, et partitione Gratiæ,’ p. 470. Tourneley, ‘Prælectiones Theol. De Gratia Christi,’ 2 vols. (1725), vol. i. pp. 2, 3, 5, 7: ‘Proprie, nomine Gratiæ intelligimus donum quod cunque, seu beneficium supernaturale creaturæ rationale gratis concessum … Gratia vulgò definitur, donum supernaturale creaturæ rationali gratis à Deo concessum intuitu passionis et meritorum Christi, ordinatum ad vitam æternam,’ p. 5. See Osorio, lib. v. p. 315; and Dens, Theologia, ii. 402, ‘Quid est Gratia? Est beneficium Divinum supernaturale creaturæ intellectuali gratis datum, in ordine ad salutem æternam.’ See also iv. p. 39.

M. de Fontenay, ‘De la Grace de Dieu,’ 1787: ‘La nature de la Grace consiste principalement dans l’amour de Dieu;’ … ‘l’amour, la Grace intérieure,’ pp. iv. vi. Lombard treats ‘De Gratia’ in lib. ii., and says, ‘Gratia est duplex.’—Dist. 26 a. ‘Gratia operans et co-operans. Gratis Dei prævenit voluntatem hominis.’—Dist. 26 c, d. ‘Gratia præveniens voluntatem est FIDES CUM DELECTIONE.’—Dist. 26 e, u. ‘Gratia principal is est bona voluntas,’ etc. Petavius, ‘Dogm. Theol.’ tom. ii. lib. viii. c. 4, 5, 10, 11. ‘Justificatio et Adoptio filiorum Dei per ipsam Spiritus Sancti substantiam communicatam nobis,’ c. iv: ‘Spiritus Sancti substantiam ipsam donum esse, illamque ad justos et adoptivos Dei filios efficiendos divinatus effundi,’ p. 457. ‘Interior, sive spiritalis missio tum fit cum, … Spiritualia dona, quæ dicuntur charismata. tribuuntur, Præcipuum tamen, et quod unum propemodum communem appellationem sibi propriam facit, est charitatis donum,’ p. 458. The χαρισματα seem to supersede the χαρις, from which alone they are derived. The subject is fully treated by M. Arnauld, in his ‘Instructions sur la Grace, selon l’Ecriture, et les Peres;’ by M. Barcos, in his ‘Exposition de la Foi de l’Eglise Romaine touchant la Grace;’ ‘et plusieurs autres Pieces sur ce Sujet,’ in a volume published at Cologne, A.D. 1700. The Jansenists held sounder views on this subject than were commonly received in the Romish Church.

NOTE 3, p. 349

Archbishop Whately, ‘Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul,’ Essay vi. pp. 182, 185.

NOTE 4, p. 351

The proof of this point is much more fully stated by President Edwards, ‘Works,’ vol. vi. pp. 240–254,—an admirable specimen of moral proof.

NOTE 5, p. 357

On the relation of Faith to Works, see Bishop O’Brien, ‘Essays on Faith,’ 140, 146, 186–194, 253–260; Dr. Cunningham, Works, iii. 79–84, 105, 108; Witsius, ‘Misc. Sac.’ ii. p. 824, 840; Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise,’ pp. 48, 351, 389–395, 502; Bishop Davenant, ‘Disput.’ i. 274–283, 294–302; Brown, ‘Life of Justification,’ pp. 24, 30, 254; Dickinson, ‘Familiar Letters,’ iii. pp. 229–333, 285–306; Dr. Junkin on ‘Justification,’ pp. 317, 321; Dr. Owen on ‘True Gospel Holiness,’ Works, iii. p. 75.

NOTE 6, p. 359

Osorio, Bellarmine, Wesley, Whately, M. Stuart, and many others, have agreed in setting aside the latter part of Romans 7:14–end, as a proof of remaining sin in believers. On this subject, see Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise,’ pp. 137–157, 249, 255, 454, 463; Bishop Davenant, ‘Disput.’ pp. 20, 50, 56, 83, 104–111, 286, 330–340, 373; ii. 7–28, 209–215; Brown, ‘Life of Justification,’ pp. 273; Dr. Burgess, ‘The True Doctrine,’ pp. 23, 58–79, 111, 139; Dickinson, ‘Familiar Letters,’ pp. 130, 142; Dr. Shedd, ‘History,’ ii. 69; G. S. Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine,’ pp. 271–286; Bossuet, ‘Exposition,’ p. 13. See Dr. Owen’s Treatises on ‘Indwelling Sin,’ and ‘The Mortification of Sin in Believers,’ Works, vol. xiii.; Carmichael, ‘The Believer’s Mortification of Sin by the Spirit,’ edited by the late Dr. W. K. Tweedie, Free Tolbooth Church, Edinburgh (1846); and Fraser (of Alness) on ‘Sanctification.’

Those who have laboured to show that the passage in Rom. 7:14–25 does not relate to the experience of Paul as a converted man, seem to have forgotten that the doctrine of indwelling sin does not rest on that passage alone, but is declared in general terms in Gal. 5:17: ‘The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.’ The doctrine generally received among Protestants is, that the prevailing power of sin is broken, but its presence is not excluded, by the new birth of the soul: its dominion is taken away, but its influence is still felt, throughout the whole course of a believer’s life on earth. This important practical truth is manifest from the Apostle’s experience, as it is recorded in the latter part of the seventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, where he says,—as every true believer since his days has had occasion to say (Rom. 7:14–25),—‘That which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that I do.’ ‘To will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.’ ‘I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.’ ‘I see a law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.’ Many strenuous attempts have been made to show that in this passage the Apostle is not speaking of his own experience as a believer, but is personating an unrenewed man, or a sinner awakened for the first time to a sense of the corruption of his nature. But the experience of a sinner under his first convictions is vividly delineated in the preceding verses, where he says, ‘I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died;’ and the subsequent verses contain expressions which cannot be applied to the case of any unrenewed man, consistently with the doctrine of Scripture, that ‘the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.’ For how can any man whose carnal mind is ‘enmity against God, and not subject to the law of God,’ be supposed, without a great intervening change, to express himself thus: ‘I consent to the law, that it is good,’—‘I delight in the law of God after the inward man,’—it is ‘the law of my mind,’—and, ‘With my mind I serve the law of God?’ Is this the language of unrenewed nature, in which ‘there dwelleth no good thing;’ and if it be, why was Pelagianism denounced by Augustine, and rejected by the Church, as an unscriptural and dangerous perversion of God’s revealed truth?

NOTE 7, p. 363

The Christian community is much indebted to two elders of the Free Church—the late Mr. John Johnstone, for a new edition of Dr. Owen’s Works, carefully edited by the Rev. Dr. Goold; and to the late Mr. Nichol, for his excellent Series of the ‘Puritan Divines,’ published at a price which makes them accessible to every Pastor and Preacher who is really interested in the study of divine truth.

NOTE 8, p. 364

The title to eternal life depends entirely on the mediatorial work of Christ; the ‘meetness for the inheritance of the saints in light’ is equally necessary, and depends on the renewal of our nature by the inward work of the Holy Spirit. See infra, Lec. xv.

---

NOTES TO LECTURE XIV

NOTE 1, p. 367

See supra, Lec. iv. Note (1), and infra, Lec. xv. John Foxe, ‘Free Justification by Christ,’ in reply to Osorio, ‘De Justitia,’ pp. 223–228.

NOTE 2, p. 370

Dr. Tuckney (of Cambridge), ‘Prælectiones Theologicæ,’ p. 79; on Rom. i. 17, pp. 20–161; on Rom. iv. 1, pp. 177–196; on Rom. iv. 3, pp. 196–312. A solid and learned work, which,—like those of Dr. Owen, Dr. T. Goodwin, and Mr. Pemble,—shows what the Theology of the English Universities once was, and what it might yet become, were suitable men appointed to conduct a course of systematic study, and were candidates for the ministry required to give regular attendance on their Lectures and Examinations.

NOTE 3, p. 373

Dickinson, ‘Familiar Letters,’ pp. 203–206; Bishop O’Brien, ‘Essays on Faith,’ pp. 445, 465–471.

NOTE 4, p. 376

Works on Saving Faith are innumerable. The following may be mentioned:—Dr. T. Goodwin, ‘The Object and Acts of Faith,’ Works, vol. viii.; Dr. T. Jackson (of Oxford), ‘Justifying Faith, or the Faith by which the Just do Live’ (1631), 2d Edition; John Downe, B.D. (of Cambridge), ‘Treatise of the True Nature and Definition of Justifying Faith,’ Oxford, 1635; John Ball, ‘A Treatise of Faith, in Two Parts—the Nature and the Life of Faith,’ 1632; Polhill on ‘Precious Faith;’ James Fraser (of Brae), ‘A Treatise on Justifying Faith,’ 1749; Rutherford’s ‘Trial and Triumph of Faith;’ Rev. Andrew Gray, ‘The Mystery of Faith,’ 1755; Dr. John Erskine, ‘Dissertation on the Nature of Justification;’ Rev. W. Romaine, ‘Treatises on the Life, Walk, and Triumph of Faith,’ 2 vols., 1824, with Essay by Dr. Chalmers; Henry Grove, ‘A Discourse concerning Saving Faith,’ 1736; ‘Saving Faith: a Series of Works by Dr. John Anderson, U.S., Rev. Ebenezer Erskine, and Rev, William Cudworth,’ Edinburgh, 1843; Dr. James Carlile (of Dublin), ‘The Old Doctrine of Faith,’ 1823; Rev. William Burgh, ‘Six Discourses on the Nature and Influence of Faith,’ Dublin, 1835; Bishop O’Brien, ‘Essays on the Nature and Effects of Faith,’ 2d Edition; Mr. T. Erskine (Linlathen), ‘Essay on Faith;’ Rev. A. M’Lean, Works, i. 186, ii. 96–146, etc. etc.

NOTE 5, p. 379

On the assurance which is involved in the direct act of Faith, see Lec. vi. p. 185, and the Note.

On the assurance which springs from the reflex exercise of Faith, see Boston’s ‘Marks of True Conversion,’ appended to ‘The Covenant of Grace;’ Guthrie’s ‘Trial of a Saving Interest in Christ.’ ‘Effectual calling,’ says Archbishop Leighton, ‘is inseparably tied to eternal fore-knowledge or election on the one side, and salvation on the other. These two links of the chain are up in heaven, in God’s own hand; but this middle one is let down to earth, into the hearts of His children; and they, laying hold of it, have sure hold on the other two, for no power can sever them. If, therefore, they can read the characters of God’s image in their own souls, those are the counterpart of the golden characters of His love, in which their names are written in the book of life. Their believing writes their names under the promises of the revealed book of life, the Scriptures; and so ascertains them, that the same names are in the secret book of life, that God hath by Himself from eternity. So, finding the stream of grace in their hearts, though they see not the fountain whence it flows, nor the ocean into which it returns, yet they know that it hath its source, and shall return to that ocean which ariseth from their eternal election, and shall empty itself into that eternity of happiness and salvation.’—Commentary on First Epistle of Peter, on c. i. v. 2d, p. 14.

NOTE 6, p. 379

The Antinomian view of the function of faith as a mere evidence or manifestation, and not a means, of Justification, is refuted by Dr. Burgess. ‘The True Doctrine,’ pp. 189–215; Beart, ‘Vindication,’ P. ii. iv.–viii. Pref.; Nath. Mather, ‘The Righteousness of God,’ p. 78; see Lec. vi Antinomians, and Note.

NOTE 7, p. 380

On the term ‘Condition,’ see Dr. Cunningham, ‘Historical Theology’ ii. 74, 76; Dr. John Edwards’ ‘Survey of Dispensations,’ i. pp. 368, 375; Barrett on ‘The Covenants,’ pp. 135–143, 183; Witsius, ‘Misc. Sacra,’ ii. pp. 742, 743, 801–804, 820, 821, 843; Bishop Downham, ‘Treatise,’ pp. 306, 307, 331, 372; Brown, ‘Life of Justification,’ pp. 20, 341–350; Dickinson, ‘Fam. Letters,’ p. 249; Fraser, ‘Life of Ebenezer Erskine,’ p. 235; M’Carie’s ‘Life of Dr. M’Crie,’ pp. 333, 334; Dr. M’Crie on ‘Marrow Controversy,’ Christ. Instructor, xxx. pp. 542, 692; Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine,’ pp. 72–80; Hickman, ‘Animadversions,’ pp. 355, 457; Walker (Dublin), ‘Seven Letters to Alex. Knox, Esq.,’ pp. 312, 313; Rev. J. Taylor, ‘Establishment of the Law,’ p. 37; Beart, ‘Vindication,’ Pref. xviii. xix. xxv.; Hervey, ‘Works,’ iv. pp. 124–128; Wesley’s ‘Letter to Hervey,’ Hervey’s Works, iv. x. xiv. xv., Hervey iv. pp. 63, 172–175.

NOTE 8, p. 381

On the Reason and Warrant of Faith, see Owen, ‘The Reason of Faith,’ Works, iii. p. 233; Halyburton, ‘Works,’ edited by Dr. Burns, reprinted 1865; ‘An Essay on the Ground and Formal Reason of Saving Faith,’ pp. 3–87; Boston, ‘Warrant of Faith,’ appended to ‘Covenant of Grace;’ ‘Sum of Saving Knowledge,’ appended to ‘Westminster Confession of Faith,’ p. 435.

NOTE 9, p. 385

On the phrase ‘by faith only,’ see Bishop O’Brien, ‘Essays on Faith,’ pp. 99–105, 117–123, 138, 474; Dr. Cunningham, ‘Works,’ i. 146, iii. 23, 56, 61, 69, 72, 77; Bishop Downham, pp. 15, 179, 327–831, 366, 442, 494; Bishop Davenant’s ‘Disput.’ i. pp. 313, 314; Bishop Barlow, ‘Remains,’ p. 601; Brown, ‘Life of Justification,’ pp. 417, 422; Dr. John Prideaux, ‘Lectiones Decem,’ pp. 155, 157, 168; Faber, ‘Primitive Doctrine,’ pp. 72–80, 228, 229; Scott, ‘Continuation of Milner,’ i. pp. 84, 98, 99, 238, 254, 264, ii. 235, 271, 272, 357; Bishop Kaye, ‘Charges,’ p. 263, etc. etc.

A recent work by the Rev. R. F. Collis, Rector of Kilconnel (Dublin 1856),—entitled ‘The Three Tribunals, or the Vicarious Justification of Sinners in Christ,’—attacks the Lutheran doctrine of ‘Justification by Faith only’ as being unscriptural, and the last clause of the 11th Article of the Church of England, with the homily on salvation to which it refers, as containing that doctrine, pp. x. xi. 105, 109, 122, 124, 131, 169. It contains an elaborate and unfavourable criticism on Bishop O’Brien’s ‘Sermons on Faith’ (1st Edition), pp. 110–168,—which evidently proceeds on the supposition that the Bishop substitutes faith for the righteousness of Christ, as the ground of our acceptance with God. But although one or two expressions in his ‘Sermons’ might possibly bear such an interpretation, the general tenor of his reasoning points to the satisfaction of Christ as the ground, and to Faith merely as the means or instrument, of Justification. Mr. Collis speaks of three Tribunals,—that of God’s holiness and justice,—that of man’s conscience and experience,—and that of the final judgment; and of three corresponding aspects of Justification,—that of our justification at the bar of God’s holiness and justice, where neither faith nor repentance has any place, but only the vicarious righteousness of Christ; that of our justification in foro conscientiœ, where faith, but not faith only,—since it must be a living and not a dead faith, such as is associated with all other graces,—is the evidence of Justifications and that of our Justification at the judgment of the great day, where neither faith nor repentance, but good works, will be the evidence. He does not speak of more than one Justification, but merely of its different aspects; but his three distinctions may all be reduced to that between actual and declarative justification, unless his theory of the ‘Vicarious Justification in Christ of believers,’ should be intended to refer, not to their actual justification in time, but their justification merely on the eternal purpose of God, in which case faith can only be an evidence, and not in any sense a means, of their enjoying that privilege. The aged Rector promises another work, which may probably make his doctrine more complete; at present, he seems to confound Election with Justification, and to make faith a mere manifestation, and not a means, of our acceptance with God. See Note 5, Appendix, p. 509.

NOTES TO LECTURE XV

NOTE 1, p. 389

‘Christianity,’ says Bishop Butler, ‘contains a revelation of a particular dispensation of Providence, carrying on by His Son and Spirit, for the recovery and salvation of mankind, who are represented in Scripture to be in a state of ruin. And, in consequence of this revelation being made we are commanded to be “baptized,” not only “in the name of the Father,” but also “of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;” and other obligations of duty, unknown before, to the Son and the Holy Ghost, are revealed. Now, the importance of these duties may be judged of, by observing that they arise, not from positive command merely, but also from the offices which appear from Scripture to belong to these Divine Persons in the Gospel dispensation, or from the relations which, we are there informed they stand in to us. By reason is revealed the relation which God stands in to us. Hence arises the obligation of duty which we owe to Him. In Scripture are revealed the relations which the Son and Holy Spirit stand in to us. Hence arise the obligations of duty which we are under to them.’—Analogy, P. ii. c. i. p. 321. See also Dr. Waterland, ‘The Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity,’ passim.

NOTE 2, p. 392

Dr. Thomas Goodwin has distinct treatises on the work of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in the scheme of Redemption; see vols. iv. v.

NOTE 3, p. 397

Dr. Thomas Goodwin, ‘The Work of the Holy Ghost in our Salvation,’ Works, vol. v.; Dr. Owen, ‘Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit,’ Works, vols. ii. iii. (Russell’s edition); Dr. Jamieson, ‘Reality of the Spirit’s Influence;’ Howe, ‘The Work of the Holy Spirit with reference to particular Persons;’ Archdeacon Hare, ‘Mission of the Comforter;’ and M’Laurin’s ‘Essay on Divine Grace,’ vol. ii., and ‘Sermon,’ vol. i.

NOTE 4, p. 399

Dr Heurtley’s ‘Bampton Lectures,’ passim, and his previous work on ‘Union to Christ;’ Dickinson, ‘Familiar Letters,’ pp. 311–334, ‘The Nature and Necessity of our Union to Christ.’

NOTE 5, p. 402

Dr. Samuel Clarke, ‘Discourse of the Being and Attributes of God,’ p. 39. Dr. Clarke strikes at the root of the Antinomian error, when, speaking of ‘the manner of our conceiving the eternity of God,’ he says, ‘The scholastic writers have generally described it to be, not a real perpetual duration, but one point or instant comprehending eternity, and wherein all things are really co-existent at once. But unintelligible ways of speaking have, I think, never done any service to religion. The true notion of the divine eternity does not consist in making past things to be still present, and things future to be already come (which is an express contradiction). But it consists in this, and in this it infinitely transcends the manner of existence of all created beings, even of those which shall continue for ever,—that, whereas their finite minds can by no means comprehend all that is past, or understand perfectly the things that are present, much less know, or have in their power, the things that are to come,—but their thoughts and knowledge and power must of necessity have degrees and periods, and be successive and transient as the things themselves,—the Eternal, Supreme Cause, on the contrary, has such a perfect, independent, and unchangeable comprehension of all things, that in every point or instant of His eternal duration, all things, past, present, and to come, must be,—not, indeed, themselves present at once (for that is a manifest contradiction); but they must be as entirely known and represented to Him in one single thought and view, and all things present and future be as absolutely under His power and direction, as if there was really no succession at all, and as if all things had been,—not that they really are,—actually present at once.’—Ser. i. p. 81.

 

NOTE 6, p. 404

‘A Modest Enquiry: Whether Regeneration or Justification has the precedency in order of Nature,’ by Professor Halyburton, ‘Works,’ edited by Dr. Burns, pp. 547–558, reprinted in 1865, along with ‘The Reason of Faith,’ etc., pp. 9–118.

NOTES TO CONCLUSION

NOTE 1, p. 408

Reinhard published a striking work on this subject, from which copious extracts are given in the Appendix to the late Dr. Morren’s ‘Biblical Theology.’ See also Brown, ‘Life of Justification,’ c. vi. p. 34; ‘What Mysteries are in Justification;’ Dr. Shuttleworth, ‘Consistency of Revelation with itself and Human Reason,’ pp. 223–250.

NOTE 2, p. 410

Charles Hodge, D.D., ‘Essays and Reviews’ (1857), pp. 575, 581.

NOTE 3, p. 411

Le Blanc’s ‘Theses Theolog.,’ pp. 248–316; Curcellæus, ‘Quaternio, Diss. iv. p. 463; Dr. Pusey, ’Eirenicon,’ p. 19.