Page images

power is not afforded, it is proper to wait till it be so ordered by an act of convocation, sanctioned by parliament; if, indeed, such a proviso would not be deemed a sanction for the omission of the services on these and other special days.

12. On the Litany. It is the habit of some readers to preface this so. lemn service with, "The prayers of the church," or "of the congregation," "are desired for a person very ill," or "for a poor man lying at the point of death," or "for a sick member of this congregation," or "for John Thompson," or "for Sarah Jones," &c. Now, without weighing the arguments, pro and contra, in either or any of these cases, they are all irrubrical, and therefore should be all avoided. Enough is done when the parenthesis is used, contained in the "prayer for all conditions," and which used to be inserted also in the Litany, till the late increased demand, wide circulation, rapid printing, and consequently careless getting up, of the Books of Common Prayer, caused its omission. Nor is this the only innovation made in modern times; witness the "directions" and "companion" which, heterodox as they are, are often bound up with them.

13. On the occasional Prayers and Thanksgivings.-If the churchwardens, or any other persons of the congregation, do not ask the clergyman to offer up the prayers for rain, for fair weather, &c. he should do it of his own accord; this would tend to shew his people the concern he felt for their temporal welfare, as well as for their spiritual; and might tend to lessen their prejudices against the Gospel, and even to recommend the Saviour to their hearts. The allusion to the deluge, and the expression "a plague of rain and waters," by no means necessarily identify them with any wet season; but, even if the latter be allowed,

[blocks in formation]

used, it would not be objected


The prayers for the four Ember Weeks are seldom used, for want of recollecting when they happen. It would be well for the clergyman to write the following note in the margin opposite to the Ember Prayers: "Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday AFTER the first Sunday in Lent; Whitsunday; Sept. 14; and Dec. 13. The prayers would be advantageously read the two Sundays before and after these three days.

The "prayer that may be said after any of the former," from being only permitted, though one of the brightest gems in the church's diadem, is too often omitted. Why do not deacons, who do not read the absolution, use it, instead of an unauthorized Collect, or instead of leaving the people longing for the assurance that "there is forgiveness with God?"

The "prayer for the parliament" is not to be omitted during any recess, but must be read from its meeting to its prorogation or dissolution.

On the "general thanksgiving" the same sort of remark may be made as was made on the Litany; with this difference, that the parenthesis, here still retained, is not to be used for any other persons whatever than for those "that have been prayed for." The intention here is, not so much to thank God for other special and extraordinary mercies, as to exhibit him as, and to thank him for being, a hearer and an answerer of the united prayers of his believing church and praying people.

The thanksgiving "for plenty" cannot, with any propriety, be used, except the prayers "in the time of dearth and famine" have been actually offered up in the church before; and the evils deprecated, removed.

14. On the Collects.-The collect for "the first Sunday in Advent," as well as that for Ash Wednesday, should either be printed as often as

it is to be said, or have the same sort of Rubric printed after the subsequent Collect, as is appended to that for "St. Stephen's Day; unless indeed, which would be better still, every church and chapel were provided with an annual sheet, shewing the days of the moveable feasts, &c. of that specific year, which will, ere long, be attempted by some unauthorized, and perhaps incompetent, individual, unless our ecclesiastical rulers do it.


Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer.

I AM much pleased with the tone and spirit of the replies of Philo, G. J., and G., in the Christian Observer for August, to my questions in your Number for June (pp. 341— 343), "What is justification?" and "How is a sinner justified ?" but I think that no satisfactory answer has yet been given to either of the questions, so as to make me consider otherwise than that justification is conveyed to man, and received by him, "through" faith, rather than "by" it.

If it be tolerated to say, "The first day of the month," in announcing the Psalms, would it be amiss to say, "The first Sunday in Advent?" Not two in ten know the name of the Sunday, who yet do know the day of the month. I do not deny, but rather mainFew are such ritualists as to obtain, that "by" may often be corserve the Rubric before the first rectly used to signify "by means collect respecting the vigil; al- of," or "by the instrumentality though a perusal of the "table of of;" but I also maintain, that, as the vigils," &c., placed just before applied to faith, through is, as to the account of the Ember Weeks, verbal accuracy, more correct than would shew the great propriety and by. We are not operators or aufacility of so doing. thors of the great blessing of justification, but recipients of it.

Whenever there are two Sundays between Christmas-day and the Epiphany, a great want is felt of a proper collect for the second Sunday, instead of that for the circum

cision of Christ.

Not only is a collect wanting for the twenty-sixth Sunday after Trinity for which day proper Lessons are appointed-but also an Epistle and a Gospel. This would often prevent the mistake made in these services a few Sundays before Ad


When a Sunday is also a saints' day, some clerical readers, to mark their diametrical opposition to the least approach to an appearance of resemblance to Popery, preferring the Lord to the servant, omit the services for the saint; but they should recollect that that saint's day cannot often happen on a Sunday; why not read both Collects, and the Epistle and Gospel for the saint's day?

(To be continued.)

My meaning may be more clearly seen, and the distinction of "by and "through" may be more readily allowed, if I premise that I consider justification itself, as wrought and conferred by God, is the making a pardoned sinner just or righteous; and, as received and believed by man, is his being made so. God, by his grace, justifies the sinner; the sinner, through his faith, believes that God has justified him: this be lieving does not make him just, but assures him that he is so. God's part is active, conferring it; man's part is passive, receiving it. The former is an act, the latter is a state: the first is a justifying, the last is a being justified. If I were distinguishing these terms in Latin, I should say God's act is justificatio; man's state is justitia, Deus hominem justificat: Homo apud Deum justus est.

I do not, however, so nicely distinguish "by" and "through," as being applied, the one to faith, and

the other to man; but as applied, the former to grace, and the latter to faith; the former to God, and the latter to man. Nor do I un. derstand the expression, "justification through faith," as if faith was our justifier, or as if faith justified us; but that we, through faith, be lieve that Christ is our justifier. We do not believe, and therefore are justified, but we believe that we are justified. My meaning, however, is so well expressed in the Homily on Salvation, that I beg leave to make a few extracts from it.

"Three things 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, which yet is not ours, but by God's working in us. Saint Paul, in the third chapter to the Romans, 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.

"In our justification by Christ it is not all one thing, the office of God unto man, and the office of man unto God. Justification is not the office of man but of God.

"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 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.

"As great and as godly a virtue as 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 thus,-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.

"The very true meaning of this proposition or saying, We be justified by faith in Christ only, 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 work of our own that 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.

"God of his mere mercy, through the only merits and deservings of his Son Jesus Christ, doth justify us. Nevertheless, because faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins, and that by faith given us of God we embrace the promise of God's mercy, and of the remission of our sins, (which thing none other of our virtues or works properly doth), therefore Scripture useth to say, that faith without works doth justify." (See the Homily on Salvation, passim.)

I admit that both the Greek and English prepositions, "by" and "through," are occasionally confounded, or used interchangeably, the one for the other, to express either agency and instrumentality, or medium and means; but I contend that it is more verbally accurate, in this case, to keep them distinct.

When I quoted the texts, "the work of faith," and, "this is the work of God, that ye believe," I did not mean to expound them; much less did I take them as proofs that faith is a work; I merely put the case hypothetically, "if we," &c. By the former text I conceive is meant "laborious faith," and by the latter, "a complying with the command of God," to believe in his son.

Thus far in reply to Philo

To G. J. I beg to offer my respectful thanks for his courteous rejoinder; and to express my regret, that in this enlightened age any clergyman, who professes to believe what I am privileged to do, could be thought capable of confounding justification with sanctification, which, for a quarter of a century, I have thus distinguished: Justification is being made just or righteous in our person, before God; sanctification is being made holy or pure in our hearts, before man: justification is instantaneous, and always complete; sanctification is gradual, and often defective: justification is the office of God the Son; sanctification is the office of God the Spirit: justification is wrought for us; sanctification is done in us: justification is imputed; sanctification is imparted: justification acquits us from the guilt of sin; sanctification delivers us from the power of sin: lastly, justifica tion restores us to God's favour; sanctification restores us to his image. Again, when I included God the Spirit's work, in what I professed to understand by justification, I intended to confine it to his production of faith in our hearts; and did not mean to extend it to his sanctification of our nature.

I did indeed, and still do, maintain, that in all cases justification and sanctification are inseparable, but not contemporaneous: the former may be complete when the latter is incipient: the publican was justified fully, but his sanctification was only in the bud: the dying thief was pardoned and justified; and, had he lived, would have grown in grace, as his latest breath evinced.

[ocr errors][merged small]

posing a question, which was lately proposed to me, "Where, in the English New Testament, does the expression, the righteousness of Christ' occur?" Many, like myself, will be astonished to be told— no where! But still it is correct, and, though not in English, yet in the original, Scriptural; for it does occur in the Greek (which is lost to the English reader, being incorrectly rendered), namely, in 2 Pet. i. 1; which, instead of being, as it ought to be, rendered "faith in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ," (a noble attestation of the Divinity of Christ), is translated, "through the righteousness of God, and our Saviour, Jesus Christ:" i. e. of God the Father, and of his Son.

I do not, however, at this time, so much insist on "faith in the righteousness," (though the same preposition (ev) is used in Rom. iii. 25, "faith in his blood;" in Ephes. i. 15, "faith in the Lord Jesus ;" and in Col. i. 4, "faith in Christ Jesus"), as I do on the other part of the proposed version, rendered necessary by the position, use, and meaning, of the Greek article, whose presence is implied twice in the present version, making "God" and "our Saviour refer to two persons, whereas, by the Greek, only one is intended; but, if what I propose, "faith in the righteousness," &c. be correct, it exactly agrees with what the Homily states to be the office of faith, and sanctions my idea of the part faith has in our justification; that is, believes in Christ our justifier, our righteousness, our all in all.

[ocr errors]

I am, moreover, so far from believing that we are justified by works, that I exclude even faith, as well as works, from the office of justifying; and, referring all to the grace of a Triune God, maintain that faith has nothing to do towards our justification but to accept what is already wrought to its hand, and offered to its acceptance.

Lastly, if the distinction of “by”

and "through" is maintained to be futile, I will not any longer dispute the point. I am more concerned for the doctrine, than for the preposition: let justification be allowed to be the act and work of God; a free gift, a pure favour, and an unmerited mercy; and let it be conceded that faith does not itself justify us, or make us righteous; but that Christ is our justifier and our righteousness, and I will admit that we, through believing that Christ is our Justifier, may thus be said to be justified by faith; although I think that "by" makes faith an agent, whereas "through" makes it, what it is, only a medium in our justification.




siders the wheat, as if all the rest were chaff. Some divines, to shew the typical character of the Mosaic economy have spoken of "the Gospel according to Leviticus;" the phrase may be too strong, but would that be the Gospel from which Leviticus was excluded? The late Mr. Scott's hearers approved of his discourses on two thirds of the Epistle to the Ephesians; he then preached "the essential doctrines of the Gospel;" but they were displeased, and thought he had gone back to the law, when he enforced the remainder. A lay acquaintance of mine expounded the essence of the Gospel to be, "Do as much good as you can, and as little harm, and God will approve and reward you for Jesus Christ's sake;" which was about as correct, or rather as incorrect, an exhibition of the Gospel as that of Mr. Scott's Antinomian critics. I once al

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. most forced a well-read theological

CAN any of your readers inform me what is meant by such phrases as, "The essential doctrines of the Gospel," or "the distinguishing doctrines," or "the saving doctrines," "the practical doctrines," with other like epithets ? Is there then any part of the Gospel not essential and not conducive to salvation? And does not this kind of language tend to circumscribe Christianity within the narrow bounds of some human system, instead of exhibit ing it in its complete latitude and longitude, as revealed by its Divine Author! Are not the Revelations of St. John as essential as his Gospel; and the Sermon on the Mount as the eighth chapter of the Romans? If any of your correspondents are accustomed to use such expressions as the above, I would that they could inform me what is their import. I do not comprehend this system of making a little narrow Gospel of our own, out of the full revealed Gospel of God; or winnowing out what each man con

friend to confess that he considered the whole of the word of God to be in a large sense the Gospel, unless perhaps it were unfulfilled prophecy, which he did not think we had much to do with. I beg leave to inquire, whether it is not the duty of the ministers of Christ to preach all that their Divine Master has put into their lips. If the Millennium, and what is called the personal reign of Christ upon earth, are revealed truths-which I for one do not think them to be--they are among "the essentials" of the Gospel; for if not essential, why revealed? The essence of faith is implicit deference to all that God has spoken; and of unbelief, sitting in judgment to determine what portion of it we think important to be received and insisted upon, and what may be overlooked or slighted with impunity. But is not this to make man wiser than God? And is it not one chief cause of the lamentably stinted growth and spiritual decrepitude of many who are honest in their Christian profession, but who have sys

« PreviousContinue »