|

ence of St. Paul as an example, from his conviction for Scriptures plainly mean by justification, not sanctificasin by the law of God, revealed to him in its spirituality, tion, but simply the remission of sin, as already estato his entrance into the condition and privileges of a blished. The passages, also, above quoted, show that justified state. We see here, guilt, fear, a vain struggle those who hold this doctrine reverse the order of the with bondage, poignant distress, self-despair, readiness Scriptures. The sanctification which constitutes a to submit to any effectual mode of deliverance which man inherently righteous, is concomitant with justifimay be offered, acceptance of salvation by Christ, the cation, but does not precede it. Before condemnaimmediate removal of condemnation, dominion over tion" is taken away, he cries out "Oh, wretched man sin, with all the fruits of regeneration, and the lofty that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this hopes of the glory of God. So far, then, is the doc- death;" when "there is now no condemnation," he trine of justification by faith alone from leading to a "walks not after the flesh but after the Spirit." In the loose and careless conduct, that that very state of mind nature of things, too, justification and sanctification in which alone this faith can be exercised. is one which are distinct. The active sanctification of the Spirit, excites the most earnest longings and efforts of mind taken in itself, either habitually or actually, and as into be free from the bondage of sin, as well as from its herent in us, can in no wise be justification, for justifipenalty; and to be free from its penalty in order that cation is the remission of sins. God gave this Spirit to freedom from its bondage may follow. As this is proved angels, he gave it to Adam in the day of creation, and by the 7th chapter of the epistle referred to, so the this Spirit did sanctify, and now doth sanctify the blesformer part of the 8th, which continues the discourse sed angels, yet this sanctification is not remission. (unfortunately broken by the division of the chapters), Sanctification cannot be the formal cause of justificashows the moral state which is the immediate result of tion, any more than justification can be the formal "being in Christ Jesus," through the exercise of that cause of glorification; for however all these may be faith, which alone, as we have seen, can give us a per- connected, they are things perfectly distinct and differsonal interest in him. "There is now no condemna-ent in their nature. "There be two kinds of Christian tion to them that are in Christ Jesus." This is the first righteousness," says Hooker, "the one without us, result of the pardon of sin, a consequent exemption which we have by imputation; the other in us, which from condemnation. The next is manifestly concomi- consisteth of faith, hope, and charity, and other Christant with it," who walk not after the flesh but after tian virtues. God giveth us both the one justice and the Spirit," which is now in its fulness imparted to them; the other; the one by accepting us for righteous in and by which being regenerated, they are delivered from Christ, the other by working Christian righteousness the bondage before described, and "walk" after his in us."(4) will, and under his sanctifying influence. This brings us precisely to the answer which the apostle himself gives to the objection to which we are referring, in the 6th chapter-"What shall we say, then? shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid; how shall we who are dead to sin live any longer therein ?" The moral state of every man who is justified is here described to be that he is "dead to sin." Not that justification strictly is a death unto sin, or regeneration; but into this state it immediately brings us, so that though they are properly distinguished in the order of our thoughts, and in the nature of things, they go together; he to whom "there is no condemnation," walks not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; and he who experiences the " abounding of the grace of God" in his pardon, is "dead to sin," and cannot, therefore, con tinue therein. This is the effect of the faith that justifies; from that alone, as it brings us to Christ our deliverer, our entire deliverance from sin can follow; and thus the doctrine of faith becomes exclusively the doctrine of holiness, and points out the only remedy for sin's dominion.

It is true, that some colour would be given to the contrary opinion, were it to be admitted, that this act of faith, followed by our justification, did indefeisibly settle our right to eternal blessedness by a title not to be vitiated by any future transgression; but this doctrine, which forms a part of the theory of the Calvinists, we shall, in its place, show to be unscriptural. It is enough here to say, that it has no connexion with the doctrine of justification by faith alone, though so often ignorantly identified with it. Our probation is not terminated by our pardon. Wilful sin will infallibly plunge us again into condemnation, with heightened aggravations and hazards; and he only retains this state of favour, who continues to believe with that same faith which brings back to him, not only the assurances of God's mercy, but the continually renewing influences of the Holy Spirit.

The doctrine of justification by faith alone, as stated in the Scriptures, needs not, therefore, any of those guards and cautions, which we have enumerated above, and which all involve serious errors, which it may not be useless to point out.

1. The error of the Romish church is to confound justification and sanctification. So the Council of Trent declares, that "justification is not only the reraission of sins, but also the sanctification of the inner man; and that the only formal cause of justification, is the righteousness of God, not that whereby he is just, but that by which he makes us just ;" that is, inherently 80. That justification and sanctification go together, we have seen; but this is not what is meant by the Council. Their doctrine is, that man is made just or holy, and then justified. The answer to this has been already given. God "justifieth the ungodly ;" and the

2. To the next opinion, that justifying faith, in the Christian sense, includes works of evangelical obedience, and is not, therefore, simple affiance or fiducial assent, the answer of Whitby is forcible. "The Scripture is express and frequent in the assertion, that believers are justified by faith, in which expression either faith must include works, or evangelical obedience, or it doth not if it doth not, we are justified by faith alone; and that it doth not formally include works of evangelical righteousness, appears, I. From the plain distinction which the Scripture puts between them, when it informs us, that faith works by love, is shown forth by our works, and exhorts us to add to our faith virtue, to virtue knowledge; and, 2. Because it is not reasonable to conceive, that Christ and his apostles, making use of a word which had a known and fixed import, should mean more by this word than what it signified in common use, as sure they must have done, had they included in the meaning of the word the whole of our evangelical righteousness."(5) To this we may add, that in every discourse of St. Paul, as to our justification, faith and works are opposed to each other; and farther, that his argument necessarily excludes works of evangelical obedience. For as it clearly excludes all works of ceremonial law, so also all works of obedience to the moral law; and that not with any reference to their degree, as perfect or imperfect, but with reference to their nature as works; so then, for this same reason, must all works of evangelical obedience be excluded from the office of justifying, for they are also moral works, works of obedience to the same law, which is in force under the Gospel; and however they may be performed; whether by the assistance of the Spirit or without that assistance; whether they spring from faith or any other principle, these are mere circumstances which alter not the nature of the acts themselves, they are works still, and are opposed by the apostle to grace and faith. "And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace; but if it be of works, then is it no more (of) grace, otherwise work is no more work." Rom. xi. 6.

3. A third notion which has been adopted to guard the doctrine of justification by faith is, that faith apprehends and appropriates the merits of Christ to make up for the deficiency of our imperfect obedience. There must, therefore, be a sincere endeavour after obedience, and in this the required guard is supposed to lie; but to secure justification where obedience is still imperfect, though sincere, requires faith.

It is a sufficient refutation of this theory, that no intimation is given of it in Scripture, and it is indeed contradicted by it. Either this sincere and imperfect obedience has its share in our justification, or it has not;

(4) Discourse of Justification.
(3) Preface to Galatians.

are only necessary on supposition that there is time | and opportunity for them; for in many instances there is not; but God cuts short his work, and faith prevents the fruits of repentance. So that the general proposition is not overthrown, but clearly established by these concessions, and we conclude still, both on the authority of Scripture and the church, that faith alone is the proximate condition of justification."(7)

If regeneration, in the sense in which it is used in Scripture, and not loosely and vaguely, as by many divines, both ancient and modern, is then a concomitant of justification, it cannot be a condition of it; and as we have shown, that all the changes which repentance implies fall short of regeneration, repentance is not an evidence of a regenerate state; and thus the theory of justification by regeneration is untenable. A second theory, not indeed substantially different from the former, but put into different phrase, and more formally laboured, is that of Bishop Bull, which gave rise to the celebrated controversy of his day, upon the publication of his Harmonia Apostolica; and it is one which has left the deepest impress upon the views of the clergy of the English church, and contributed more than any thing else to obscure her true doctrine, as contained in her articles and homilies, on this leading point of experimental theology. This theory is professedly that of justification by works, with these qualifications, that the works are evangelical, or such as proceed from faith; that they are done by the assistance of the Spirit of God; and that such works are not meritorious, but a necessary condition of justification. To establish this hypothesis, it was necessary to avoid the force of the words of St. Paul; and the learned prelate just mentioned, therefore, reverses the usual practice of commentators, which is to reconcile St. James to St. Paul on the doctrine of justification; and assuming that St. James speaks clearly and explicitly, and St. Paul, on this point things" hard to be understood;" he interprets the latter by the former, and reconciles St. Paul to St. James. According then to this opinion, St. James explicitly asserts the doctrine of justification of sinful men before God by the works which proceed from faith in Christ: St. Paul, therefore, when he denies that man can be justified by works, refers simply to works of obedience to the Mosaic law; and by the faith which justifies, he means the works which spring from faith. Thus the two apostles are harmonized by Bishop Bull. The main pillar of this scheme is, that St. James teaches the doctrine of justification before God by works springing from faith in Christ; and as it is necessary in a discourse on justification, to ascertain the meaning of this apostle in the passages referred to, both because his words may appear to form an objection to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which we have established; and, also, on account of the misleading statements which are found in many of the attempts which have been made to reconcile the two apostles, this may be a proper place for that inquiry; the result of which will show, that Bishop Bull and the divines of that school, have as greatly mistaken St, James as they have mistaken St. Paul.

destitute of a real change in the moral frame and con
stitution of their minds, and give no evidence of this in
a holy life, it became necessary for him to plead the
renovation of man's nature and evangelical obedience,
as the necessary fruits of real or living faith. The
question discussed by St. Paul is, whether works
would justify; that by St. James is, whether a dead
faith, the mere faith of assent, would save.
3. St. Paul and St. James do not use the term justį.
fication in the same sense. The former uses it, as we
have seen, for the pardon of sin, the accepting and
treating as righteous one who is guilty, but penitent.
But, that St. James does not speak of this kind of jus
tification is most evident, from his reference to the
case of Abradam. "Was not Abraham, our father,
justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son
upon the altar?" Does St. James mean, that Abraham
was then justified in the sense of being forgiven? Cer-
tainly not; for St. Paul, when speaking of the justifi-
catton of Abraham, in the sense of his forgiveness before
God, by the imputation of his faith for righteousness,
fixes that event many years previously, even before
Isaac was born, and when the promise of a seed was
made to him; for it is added by Moses, when he gives
an account of this transaction, Gen. xv. 6, “ And he be-
lieved in the Lord, and he counted it to him for right-
eousness." If, then, St. James speaks of the same kind
of justification, he contradicts St. Paul and Moses, by
implying that Abraham was not pardoned and received
into God's favour, until the offering of Isaac. If no one
will maintain this, then the justification of Abraham,
mentioned by St. James, it is plain, does not mean the
forgiveness of his sins, and he uses the term in a dif-
ferent sense to St. Paul.

4. The only sense, then, in which St. James can take the term justification, when he says that Abraham was "justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar," is, that his works manifested or proved that he was justified, proved that he was really justified by faith, or, in other words, that the faith by which he was justified, was not dead and inoperative, but living and active. This is abundantly confirmed by what follows. So far is St. James from denying that Abraham was justified by the imputation of his faith for righteousness, long before he offered up his son Isaac, that he expressly allows it by quoting the passage, Gen. xv. 6, in which this is said to have taken place at least twenty-five years before; and he makes use of his subsequent works in the argument, expressly to illustrate the vital and obedient nature of the faith by which he was at first justified. "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was his faith made perfect, and the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God' (in a transaction twenty-five years previous), and it was imputed to him for righteousness, and he was called the Friend of God." This quotation of James, from Gen. xv. 6, demands special notice. "And the Scripture," he says, "was fulfilled, which saith," &c. Whitby paraphrases, "was again fulfilled;" some other commentators say it" was twice fulfilled," in the transaction We observe, then, 1, that to interpret St. Paul by St. of Isaac, and at the previous period to which the quoJames involves this manifest absurdity, that it is inter- tation refers. These comments are, however, hasty, preting a writer who treats professedly, in a set dis- darken the argument of St. James, and have indeed course, on the subject in question, the justification of no discernible meaning at all. For, do they mean a sinful man before God, by a writer who, if he could that Abraham was twice justified, in the sense of be allowed to treat of that subject with the same de- being twice pardoned; or that his justification sign, does it but incidentally. This itself makes it was begun at one of the periods referred to, and clear, that the great axiomata, the principles of this doc-finished twenty-five years afterward? These are abtrine, must be first sought for in the writer who enters surdities; and if they will not maintain them, in what professedly, and by copious argument, into the inquiry. sense do they understand St. James to use the phrase But, 2, the two apostles do not engage in the same "and the Scripture was fulfilled?" The Scripture argument, and for this reason, that they are not ad- alluded to by St. James, is that given above, "and he dressing themselves to persons in the same circum- believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for stances. St. Paul addresses the unbelieving Jews, righteousness." When was the first fulfilment of who sought justification by obedience to the law of this Scripture, of which they speak? It could not be Moses, moral and ceremonial; proves, that all men are in the transaction of Abraham's proper justification, guilty, and that neither Jew nor Gentile can be justified through his faith in the promise respecting "his seed" by works of obedience to any law, and that therefore as mentioned, Gen. xv. 6, for that Scripture is an hisjustification must be by faith alone. On the other hand, torical narration of the fact of that, his justification. St. James, having to do, in his epistle, with such as The fact, then, was not a fulfilment of that part of professed the Christian faith and justification by it, but Scripture, but that part of Scripture a subsequent nar erring dangerously about the nature of faith, affirming ration of the fact. The only fulfilment, consequently, that faith, in the sense of opinion or mere belief of doc- that it had, was in the transaction adduced by St. trine, would save them, though they should remain James, the offering of Isaac; but if Abraham had been, in the proper sense, justified, then that event could be no fulfilment, in their sense, of a Scripture,

(7) Sermons.

which is a narrative of what was done twenty-five |
years before, and which relates only to what God then
did, namely, "count the faith of Abraham to him for
righteousness." The only senses in which the term
"fulfil" can be taken in this passage are, that of accom-
plishment, or that of illustration and establishment.
The first cannot apply kere, for the passage is neither
typical nor prophetic, and we are left, therefore, to the
second; "and the Scripture was fulfilled," illustrated,
and confirmed, which saith, "Abraham believed in
God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness."
It was established and confirmed that he was, in truth,
a man truly justified of God, and that the faith by
which he was justified was living and operative.

tinguished as evangelical, though with many it is also much mingled with the scheme of Bishop Bull. "Faith and belief," says Bishop Tomline, "strictly speaking, mean the same thing." If, then, a penitent Heathen or Jew, convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, the promised Saviour of the world, "having understood that baptism was essential to the blessings of the new and merciful dispensation, of the Divine authority of which he was fully persuaded, would eagerly apply to some one of those who were commissioned to baptize; his baptism, administered according to the appointed form to a true believer, would convey justification; or, in other words, the baptized person would receive remission of his past sins, would be reconciled to God, and be accounted just and righteous in his sight."(8) fences, was, as far as the person himself was concerned, the sole requisite for justification; no previous work was enjoined; but baptism was invariably the instrument, or external form, by which justification was conveyed."(9)

The confusedness and contrariety of this scheme will be obvious to the reader.

5. As St. James does not use the term justification in the sense of the forgiveness of sin, when he speaks"Faith, therefore, including repentance for former of of the justification of Abraham by works, so neither can he use it in this sense in the general conclusion which he draws from it; "Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." The ground on which he rests this general inference is the declarative justification of Abraham, which resulted from his lofty act of obedience in the case of Isaac, and which was eminently itself an act of obedient faith; and the justification of which he speaks in the general conclusion of the argument, must, therefore, be taken in the same sense. He speaks not of the act of being justified before God, and the means by which it is ef fected; but of being proved to be in a manifest and scripturally approved state of justification. "Ye see, that, then, by works a man is" shown to be in a "justified" state; or how his profession of being in the Di-was, no doubt, often given as a part of the grace of vine favour is justified and confirmed "by works, and not by faith only," or mere doctrinal faith; not by the faith of mere intellectual assent, not by the faith which is dead, and unproductive of good works.

Lastly, so far are the two apostles from being in opposition to each other, that, as to faith, as well as works, they most perfectly agree. St. James declares, that no man can be saved by mere faith. But, then, by faith he means, not the same faith to which St. Paul attributes a saving efficacy. His argument sufficiently shows this. He speaks of a faith which is "alone" and "dead," St. Paul of the faith which is never alone, though it alone justifieth; which is not solitaria, though it is sola in this work, as our old divines speak; the faith of a penitent, humbled man, who not only yields speculative assent to the scheme of Gospel doctrine, but flies with confidence to Christ, as his sacrifice and Redeemer, for pardon of sin and deliverance from it; the faith, in a word, which is a fruit of the Spirit, and that by which a true believer enters into and lives the spiritual life, because it vitally unites him to Christ, the fountain of that life-"the life which I now live in the flesh, I Live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself

for me."

There is, then, no foundation in the Epistle of St. James for the doctrine of justification by works, according to Bishop Bull's theory. The other arguments by which this notion has been supported are refuted by the principles which have been already laid down,

and confirmed from the word of God.

A third theory has, also, had great influence in the Church of England, and is to this day explicitly asserted by some of its leading divines and prelates. It acknowledges that, provided faith be understood to be sincere and genuine, men are justified by faith only, and in this they reject the opinion just examined; but then they take faith to be mere belief, assent to the truth of the Gospel, and nothing more. This is largely defended by Whitby, in his preface to the Galatians, which, in other respects, ably shows that justification is in no sense by works, either natural, Mosaic, or evangelical. The faith by which we are justified, he describes to be "a full assent to, or firm persuasion of mind concerning the truth of what is testified by God himself respecting our Lord Jesus Christ," and in particular, "that he was Christ the Son of GOD." "This was the faith which the apostles required in order to baptism;" "by this faith men were put into the way of salvation, and if they persevered in it would ob

tain it."

Nearly the same view is taught by the present Bishop of Winchester, in his Refutation of Calvinism, and his Elements of Theology, and it is, probably, the opinion of the great body of the national clergy, not dis

It will not be denied to Dr. Whitby, that the apostles baptized upon the profession of a belief in the Messialiship and Sonship of our Lord; nor is it denied to Bishop Tomline, that when baptism, in the case of true penitents, was not only an outward expression of the faith of assent; but, accompanied by a solemn committal of the spiritual interests of the baptized to Christ, by an act of confidence, the power to do which baptisin, justification would follow ;-the real question is, whether justification follows mere assent. This is wholly contradicted by the argument of St. James; for if dead faith, by which he means mere assent to dectrine, is no evidence of a justified state, it caunot be justifying; which I take to be as conclusive au argument as possible. For St. James does not deny faith to him who has faith without works; if then he has faith, the apostle can mean by faith nothing else certainly than assent or belief: "Thou believest there is one God, thou doest well;" and as this faith, according to him is "alone," by faith he means mere assent of the intellect. This argument shows, that those theologians are unquestionably in error, who make justification the result of mere assent to the evidence of the truth of the Gospel, or doctrinal belief. And neither Dr. Whitby nor Bishop Tomline is able to carry this doctrine throughout. The former contends that this assent, when firm and sincere, must produce obedience; but St. James denies neither firmness of conviction, nor sincerity to his inoperative faith, and yet, he tells us, that it remained alone," and was "dead." Besides, if faith justifies only as it produces obedience, it does not justify alone, and the justifying efficacy lies in the virtual or actual obedience proceeding from it, which gives up Whitby's main position, and goes into the scheme of Bishop Bull. Equally inconsistent is Bishop Tomline. He acknowledges that "belief, or faith, may exist, unaccompanied by any of the Christian graces;" and that "this faith does not justify." How then will he maintain that justification is by faith alone, in the sense of belief? Again, he tells us, that the faith which is the means of salvation, "is that belief of the truth of the Gospel which produces obedience to its precepts, and is accompanied by a firm reliance upon the merits of Christ." Still farther, that "baptism is the instrument invariably by which justification is conveyed."(1) Thus, then, we are first told, that justifying faith is belief or assent; then that various other things are connected with it to render it justifying, such as previous repentance, the power of producing obedience, reliance on the merits of Christ, and baptism! All this confusion and contradiction shows, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, in the sense of belief or intellectual assent only, cannot be maintained, and that, in order to avoid the worse than Antinomian consequence, which would follow from the doctrine, its advocates are obliged so to explain, and qualify, and add, as to make many approaches to that true doctrine against which they hurl both censure and ridicule.

The error of this whole scheme lies in not consider-
(9) Ibid.

(8) Refutation of Calvinism, chap. iii.
(1) Ibid.