« PreviousContinue »
e from justification are again restored to it? “ The grant of repentance,"
says the sixteenth article, “is not to be denied to such as fall into fin after baptism. And they are to be condemned which deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent." Though repentance only is
here mentioned, yet faith is manifestly suppoled, and the truth is that * the conditions of this restoration are exactly the same as those of being
juftified at first, viz, repentance and faith : That this is the sentiment of the church appears, both from her always requiring confession of
fins before absolution, and from the forms of abfolution themselves... K “ He pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent and unfeignSedly believe his holy gospel.” “Almighty God, our Heavenly Father,
who, of his great mercy, hath promised forgiveness of fins to all them, that with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him, &c.” To
these proofs we may add the following passage from the Homily on salIr vation, in which the same doctrine is expressed most luminously :
“ They, which in act or deed do sin after their baptism, are washed by
Christ's facrifice from their fins, when they turn again to God unfeigna sedly." (Pp. 16-19.)
Nor does the church, without good reason, consider repentance, as well
as faith, to be a condition of justification ; for the scripture does the 'fame. Our Saviour himself began his preaching by saying, "repent ye
and believe the gospel.” St. Peter, too, when the people asked him what they should do, replied, “repent, and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of fins, and ye shall receive so the gift of the Holy Ghost." If repentance be not here expressly
made a condition of justification, it is not easy to say what a condition is.
“You may, however,” says this learned and logical divine, “ still y think that your opinion is supported by the XIth article. You say, Ep. 218. "when the church is treating directly on the means, or condic
tion, or, whatever it is called by which we obtain justification, the says, “It is by FAITH ONLY, BY FAITH WITHOUT WORKS; by faith at it is perfectly distinct from obedience to the law.' This reference to what the church is supposed to fay on the means or condition of jura tification, is evidently to what is contained in the XIth article. But what will you think, when you find, as I undertake to say is true, that the Xlth article treats entirely of the meritorious cause of justifia cation, and says nothing of the means or condition." (Pp. 20, 21.)
In order that this may be distinctly seen, Mr. Pearson compares the - meaning of St. Paul in the celebrated passage (Rom. iii. 28.) on which
the article is built, with that of St. James; and the result of the comparison is as follows:
When St. Paul says, that "a man is justified by' faith without the deeds of the law” he is speaking of the meritorious cause of justification. We are justified by the Christian religion, or by the Christian dispensation (for which, as being the object of faith, the word faith itself is put by a figure); that is, we are justified by the merits of Christ alone, to the exclusion of all other meritorious causes. What' SA
St. Partea in Rom, Chrift (Gal. Hoth in
St. Paul here expresses by being “justified by faith,” he elsewhere exo presses thus: being “justified by the faith of Christ.” (Gal. ii. 16.) · This last expression, Mr. Pearson, ininks, may, perhaps be more rea- i
dily allowed to signify “the Christian religion.” We ourselves have to no doubt that this is its signification. - You, at least, Sir," says our author, “who seen disposed to lay sufficient stress on prepositions, 3 : will hardly deny that the faith of Christ' niay be somewhat differenti from ' faith in Chrift.” The words, in the original, were, in truth, remarkable: å finouglas av@pwros et époyav you8, EAN MH AIA Tewç Iyor Xpeça “A man is not justified by the works of the law, EXCEPT (or UNLESS) through the faith of Jesus Christ.” We are much mistaken if these words do not teach the important doctrine that the Jewish law surnished no justification, but as prefigurative of the gospel of Christ. St. Paul, however, in other places, expresses the same thing which is expressed in Rom, iii. 28, without any mention of the word faith: i thus, “justified by Christ (Gal. ii. 17.),” and “justified by his grace (Tit. iii. 7.).” In either case, both where faith is mentioned, and where it is not, the meaning of St. Paul is precisely the same with a that of St. Peter, when he says, “ Neither is there salvation in any 30 other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts iv. 12.) - When St. James (ii. 24.) says that " by works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” he is ípeaking of the conditional cause of juftification, and of continuing in a ftate of salvation, fo as at last, to be actually saved. This appears from the question, “ Can faith save him?" And what he maintains is, that no faith can do this but such as produces good moral conduct. The seeming difference, then, between St. Paul and St. James, is wholly owing to their speaking of different subjects. For St. Paul is speaking of the meritorious cause of our being admitted into a state of salvation, while St. James is speaking of the conditional cause of our continuing in a state of falvation, and of being finally saved. " When St. Paul," as Mr. Pearson observes, " is speaking of the conditional cause of our continuing in a ftate of salvation and of being saved, he uses a language perfectly confonant to ihat of St. James. See Rom. ii. 6–16. the whole of Rom. vi.
the whole of Rom. viii. Gal. y. 16, to the end, and innumerable other - passages of his epistles.”. (Pp. 19–25.)
* In the XIth. Article, the doctrine w of the Justification of Man" is described by two different modes of expression, which are plainly equivalent to one another. . The first is : “ 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.". That this expression relates to the meritorious cause of man's justification is universally allowed. But the second, "we are justified by faith only,". must relate to the same subject exactly, as appears by the use of the word "wherefore :” for, otherwise the article would reason incontequentially. The meaning of both is precisely that of St. Paul, when he says that " a man is justified by faith without ihe deeds of the law;"
reform the Homily, fole meritorio fefers to i
that is, by the merits of Christ alone, to the exclusion of all other meritorious causes whatsoever. The same conclusion is most evident from the Homily, the great object of which is to establish the doctrine that Christ is the sole meritorious cause of our justification; and with this view it is that the Article refers to it. But when the Homily comes to mention faith as a condition, it expressly says 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.” These graces then are not shut out as conditions, but as meritorious causes; and, in this respect, faith, as a grace or virtue, is equally shut out: for, says the Homily, “In that respect of merit and deferuing, we forsake, as it were, altogether again, faith, works, and all other virtues." The Ho. mily, it is farther to be observed, treats, not of justification only, but also of salvation, that is, of retaining our justification, and of being finaily Javed. And when it comes, in the third part, to mention what is required for this purpose on the part of man, or, in other words, the conditions of salvation, it adds, as St. James does, good works to faith. Our office is not to pass the time of this present life unfruitfully and idly, after that we are baptized or justified, not caring how few good works we do, to the glory of God, and the profit of our
neighbours. Much less is it our office, &c.” The force of this de. duction we deem impregnable; and we cannot help thinking that Mr. Pearson is right in the observation with which he concludes it.
" When, therefore, p. 198, expressing your opinion of the condition of justification in the words of the Article, but departing, as I conceive, from its meaning, you declare, in the name of yourself and your frienils, that, if you cannot prove, beyond all reafonable room for controversy, that this is the unequivocal opinion of our Church and Reformers, you will renounce your claim to churchmanship for ever, you make a declaration for which, probably, your friends will not think you much'entitled to their thanks." (pp. 25-28.) . .
. . . . Our author having considered the conditions of being justified at first, and of being restored to a justified state, after falling away from it; which conditions we have seen to be repentance and faith, the only remaining enquiry is, “What are the conditiops of continuing in that Itate, and being finally saved ?" But this part of the subject, he says, he has anticipated, and has, therefore, little more to do than to add, in positive terms, that these conditions are faith and good works. He thinks it proper, however, to recal our attention to the Baptismal vow, which contains the conditions of all the three, The last part of that vow, according to the explanation of it in the Catechism, is a promise to observe the Ten Commandments, as comprehending our duty to God, our neighbour, and ourselves. The performing of this promise, or the leading of “a pure and holy life," is declared, in the form of daily abfolution, a condition of our continuing in a state of talvation, and of is coming, at the last, to God's eternal joy, through
Jesus Christ our Lord.” The same condition is plainly expressed in
- The case is," says this discriminating writer, « that when we look
Mr. Pearson sums up, in a very neat and perfpicuous manner, the
2. “ The consequence of our being justified, at the lait day will be, that we shall be saved, or made partakers of salvation. This, by some divines, is called our last or final justification.”
3. “ The sole meritorious cause of our being juftified at ary time, and of our being finally saved, is Jesus Christ.”
4. " The conditions of our being at first justified, or of being admitted into a state of salvation, are repentance and faith." . 5. “ The conditions of our continuing in a state of salvation, and of being finally saved, are faith and good works."
6.5. The conditions of being restored to a state of salvation, after having fallen away from it, are the fune as those on which we are first admitted into it, namely, repentance and faith.”
7. “ The means or instrument, 'hy which we are at first admitted into a zate of salvation, is the facrament of baptism."
8.“ The means or instruments, by which we are continued in a state of lvation, are prayer, the hearing or reading of the Scriptures, and the partipation of the facrament of the Lord's Super; including the alliance of the ace which is promised to the use of them.” (Pp. 33-35.)
We have thus given a very faithful and full analysis of this excellent and interesting pamphlet, which, we venture to say, will be allowed, by every unprejudiced mind, to have settled the much disputed point of justification by faith, “beyond all reasonable room for controversy.” But, although we are perfe&ly satisfied that Mr. Pearson's arguments can never be confuted, yet we do not expect that they will have great effeet on our Calvinistic, evangelical, “True Churchmen." . While these gentlemen retain their fundamental dogma of UNCONDITIONAL AND ARBITRARY DECREES, the sustaining link on which every one of their peculiar tenets is suspended, it is impossible that any one of these tenets should be relinquished by them. We cannot, however, conclude without observing, that notwithstanding Mr. Overton's pompous display, in the preface to his work, of the care with which he has guarded against the " iniquity of quotation,'' not a single writer has appeared against him (as far as our knowledge reaches) who has not convicted him either of some unfair quotations, or of some gross and palpable misrepresentation of the authors to whom he refers, Mr. Daubeny, in particular, has proved against him numerous instances of both. On this subject Mr. Pearson, with that mild and charitable politeness which is natural to him, expresses himself thus :
“ In general, I am not disposed to deny you the praise of candour. With respect to this, however, and for the sake of those of yo:vr readers who are likely to be influenced by the authority of the writers whom you quote, I think it necessary to oblerve that your reprelentation of their sentiments is not always to be implicitly received. Yon have not, I think, so carefully guarded against the iniquity of quotation,' as you feem to have intended. I shall be content with giving an instance or two of this. In p. 131, you say, “Professor Hey luggelis a doubt whether the disorderly propensities of man were owing to Adam's transgression. This, which, I believe, is your first quotation from Dr. Hey's work, gives the idea that Dr. Hey himself entertains such a doubt. But Dr. Hey only says, “I should rather think, that the intention of the compilers was, lo leave men a liberty of assenting, who should doubt, whether the disorderly propensities of man were owing to Adam's transgression. Norr. Lect, Vol. III. p. 152. Again, in p. 260, with a reference to the Norrisian Lectures, you say, "We dare not suggest our doubts whether all men may not be happy ultimately.' Hence allo it might be concluded that Dr. Hey entertains these doubts. Whether he does or not, I do not pretend to say. I contend; however, that this does not appear from his words, but rather that the contrary appears. His words are, ' It is owing to the moderation of our Church, that we are not called ppon to fubscribe to the eternity of Hell's torments: nay, we are not required even to condemn those, who presume to affirm, that all men will be finally saved, though that was required in the lait Article of Edward VI. and I think reasonably,' Norr. Leci, Vol. II, p. 390,” (Pp. 35–37.)