Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

all his works: let them reflect upon the gracious invitation he gives to his creatures in this psalm, to call upon him in the day of trouble. He will hear them. Let them not, how ever, cherish the vain expectation that a miracle will be wrought in their behalf, or judge the proof of divine interference to consist only in the removal of their misfortunes: it is sufficient if God, in his own way, answers their petitions. He may, perhaps, endue them with a patience and resignation, which may cause them even "to glory in tribulation:" he may give them in exchange, blessings intinite in value, as a compensation for temporal loss. Let them, however, be instructed in the nature of true prayer, and learn that it is inseparable from that holiness of life, to which all who pray are bound to devote them selves. To him that ordereth his conversation aright, will I shew the salvation of God.

[blocks in formation]

THE object of the present inquiry is to ascertain what were the real opinions of the first reformers on the important doctrine of JUSTIFICATION. There are two methods of ascertain ing these: the one by a direct reference (similar to that made in the former part of this paper to the writings of the Martyrologist Fox) to their own explicit statements, both in public and private documents; the other, by examining into the assertions of their Romish adversaries, and thence deducing, with accuracy, what it was that the Protestants opposed and de-, nied. These two methods mutually reflect light upon each other, and correct any erroneous conclusions which a perusal of one side of the question alone might lead to. Experience, shews, that persons, of very opposite sentiments, frequently appeal to the writings of the old divines, in support of opinions diametrically opposite to each other; both challenging the same expressions, as declarative of their own statements of doctrine. Now nothing can be more certain, than that every one of those learned

and pious writers had a determinate meaning in their own discussions on every important point, and designed to use such words as should express that meaning. Yet it so happens, that either from the occasionally dubious nature of language itself, or from some accidental peculiarity in the mode of statement, or from some strong expressions designed to clear their doctrine from false imputation and abuse, sometimes from the ruling prejudices and deep-rooted systematism of the reader, and very frequently from a want of experience in the style, language, and mode of reasoning, adopted by the old authors, accompanied by considerable ignorance of minute but essential historical facts: from one or more of these causes, I say, modern writers, of very different sens timents on controverted doctrines, think, (and I readily admit, that they often conscientiously think) they can each find confirmation of their own respective ideas, in the writings of the reformers and their immediate successors. But although both may be conscientious in their conclusions, yet it is impossible they can both be right. Under this dilemma, there fore, it appears to be a very decisive method of settling the dispute, to ap peal to the declared opinions of their popish adversaries, who never failed to express themselves in unequivocal plainness of speech against the Pro testants, and thus to interpret what may be deemed the doubtful language of the latter, by comparing it with those principles of the former, which it was their avowed purpose to op pose and refute.

I shall select a statement of the Romish doctrines on the controverted points of justification, faith, and good works, from the decrees of the Council of Trent, from the annotations on the New Testament by the English Papists at Rheims, and from the writings of Cardinal Bellarmine. The principal points of controversy between the Papists and the Reformed were these:

1. What faith is?

2. Whether there are different kinds of faith?

from charity, that is to say, piety to God 3. Whether true faith is separable and benevolence to man; or in other words, whether true faith is necessarily productive of good works?.

4. In what manner faith justifies?

5. Whether faith alone justifies? that is, whether faith, in the art of justification, or the applying the merits and righteousness of Christ to the soul of the believer, does or does not require the active co-operation of hope, charity, and other graces and good works?

b. Whether good works be not only necessarily present in order to obtaining salvation, but whether they be also necessy, as efficient causes together with faith, of our salvation?

7. Whether there can be any good works without faith, or previous to justification ?"

Many subordinate articles, connected with the foregoing, were agitated between them; but these are quite sufficient for our present purpose, and comprehend every essenial point of controverted doctrine. On these questions the Papist held,

1. That faith has its proper seat only in the understanding, not in the heart and affections. (Card. Bell. lib. i. de Justithat. cap. 6.) That justifying faith is no enfidence of the heart.-(Decr. conc. Trid. sep. 6. can. 13). That faith is only an act of the understanding.-(Annot. Rhom. Test. in 2 Corinth. xiii. sect. 1). That the Faith which justifies is simply a general or universal believing of the articles of Christ's death, resurrection, &c. without any particular application of the promises to the soul of the believer.— (Rhem. Annot. Rom. iv. sect. 9).

2. That there are three kinds of faith,

and that the three are in substance but

one, viz. an historical faith, which is to

believe the truth of whatever is contained in Scripture; the faith, or gift of working miracles; and the faith which justifies, or an assured belief of God's promises made in Christ; also that the faith which St. James calls a dead faith, is nevertheless a true faith, in substance the same with justifying faith.-(Rhem. Annot. in 1 Cor. xii. 9. and James ii. sect. 12. Card. Bell. de Justificat. lib. i. c. 4).

3. That true justifying faith may be separated from love and other Christian virtues, and may exist in the soul wherein these are not present. (Bell. de Justificat.

lib. i. c. 15. Rhem. Annot. 1 Cor. xiii. James ii).

4. That faith, so far as it justifies, does not do so as an instrument in apprebending the justice or righteousness of Christ, but as a proper and true cause it actually justifies, by the dignity, worthiDess, and meritorious work thereof.(Bell. lib. i. de Justificat. cap. 17. Rhem. Annot. Rom. iii. sec. 3).

5. That faith is not only the cause of our justification, but there are other co

operating and procuring causes also, as hope, love, and various good works, such as fasting, alms deeds, &c. &c.-(Rhem. Annot. Rom. viii. sect. 6. and Bell. lib. i. de Justificat. cap. 13). That works are more efficacious than faith in the matter of justification.-(Rhem. on James ii. sec. 7). Whosoever saith, that a man is justified only by faith, and that nothing else is required to justification, we pronounce him accursed.-(Dec. conc. Trid. sep. 6. can. 9).

6. That good works are not only necessary to salvation, necessitate præsentir, because they must necessarily be present, and we cannot be saved without them; but also necessitate efficientiæ, they are necessary as efficient causes, together with faith, of our salvation.-(Bell, on Justificat. cap.7). Consequently, that God giveth everlasting life and glory to men, not only according to, but for, their works; and that works proceeding from grace, or inherent justice, as it was called, do deserve or merit heaven by their worthiness.-(Rhem. on Rom. ii. sect. 2. and I Cor. iii. sect. 2).

7. That works done without true Christian faith, or before justification, may be meritorious towards salvation.-(Rhem. Annot. Rom. xiv. sect. 4).

To these articles may be added, that the Papists maintained a twofold justification, a first and a second; the first, wherein a sinner is made righ teous by infusion of habitual righteousness; the second, wherein the just man maketh himself more just by the practice of actual righteousness, that Rhem. Annot. sparsim). is, of good works. (See Bell. and

Having thus stated the principal points which they held in opposition to the Reformers, both at home and abroad, I will contrast the foregoing representation of the Popish doctrines with a summary of the Protestant system on the same articles, and this summary it shall be the business of some future numbers of the HORE VECTENSES, to prove to be strictly conformable to the sentiments of the Reformed Churches in general, and of our own in particular, which, so far as I have been able to investigate, is in perfect unison with the sister Protestant Churches on the doctrine of justification.

The Protestants held on the first article.

1. That faith is compounded of an assurance of the heart with a light of the understanding and knowledge of the mind, whereby we apply the promises of God

made unto us in Christ to our own souls; or faith is a personal application to our own hearts, on scriptural grounds, of St. Paul's definition, Faith is the substance of things >hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'

2. That the faith of miracles, and the historical faith, are by no means of the same nature with justifying faith; and that a dead faith, or one productive of no good works, and a true faith, are totally different in kind, as well as in effects.

3. That faith, and charity under which name was comprehended good works in general, as they are two different gifts and graces of the spirit, so in nature and property they may be distinguished: but in use they can never be separated; for where a true lively faith is, there also. is charity; and where true love and charity is, it is an infallible sign of the presence of faith that sanctification, therefore, is the necessary consequence of real faith, and that every pretence to the possession of true faith, unless it be a faith that worketh by love, is false, vain, and presumptuous.

4. That faith does not justify by the worthiness and dignity of it, or as it is a quality inherent in man, by any meritori ous act, or by the work of believing, or as a proper efficient cause, but by way of an instrument only, being, as it were, the hand of the soul, whereby the sinner apprehends the righteousness of Christ.

5. That faith whereby we are justified, is to be considered partly as it is passive, partly as it is active; it is passive in apprehending the promises of God in Christ, and applying Christ with all his benefits, in which respect faith only justifies. It is also active in bringing forth good fruits and quickening us to every good work, but so it justifies not. Faith then is inseparably joined with hope and charity, and necessarily bringeth forth in us good fruit: but none of these concur with faith, in the act of justification; for wholly independent

of its fruits, it is the office of faith alone to apply unto us the righteousness of Christ,

whereby only we are made righteous before God. Faith alone, therefore, justifies the sinner, yet it is afterwards invariably productive of good works, which are the fruits and evidences of a justified state; just as fire is possessed of the two properties of heat and light, which cannot be separated from each other; notwithstanding these two qualities may act independently of each other in producing particular effects. The good tree is never without good fruit, yet the good fruit does not help to make the tree good: the tree is first good itself, before it can bring forth good fruit. So good works do not help to justify, that is, to make a man good; but first he is made righteous by the efficacy of faith, and then he bringeth forth good fruits, without which consequent production of

fruits it is evident no man can be in a state of justification.

6. Hence it follows, that there is an indispensable necessity of good works, as lively testimonies of our faith, without which there is neither faith nor life, for "without holiness no man shall see the Lord;" but works are not the efficient or procuring causes of salvation; for holiness is a consequent of justification; men are first justified by faith through the grace of God, and after that, good works are wrought. So that neither shall any man be saved for his good works, nor will any man be saved without them, that is, with out a real conversion of the heart from a state of sin to a state of holiness.

7. No works done without or before faith, and the inspiration of the spirit of Christ, can be good in any Christian or saving sense: the tree must first be made good before the fruit can be good, so a mau must be made good before he can bring forth good works. Now by justification, he is first inade righteous and holy; before it, therefore, he can do no good works.

On the foregoing principles, the Reformers consequently denied the distinction which the Papists made of a first and second justification, as will be hereafter seen by a review of their arguments on this subject.

Let it, however, in this, and in all of the Bible and the Church, be our our attempts to illustrate the doctrine aim to do so with a spirit of meckness and moderation; and if opposition should ever arise to the genuine principles of Protestantism, let us fight with the weapons of love: if, as we daily see, the odium theologicum should, on one hand, give birth to rancorous and abusive language, let their opponents testify the superiority of their own cause, by exhibiting firm, though temperate, argument, untainted by that scurrility, hatred, and uncharitableness, which are so apt to betray the weakness of a cause, and which, at this moment, disgrace the pages of the majority of modern polemics. "There will come a time when three words uttered with charity and meekness, shall receive a far more blessed reward, than three thousand volumes written with disdainful sharpness of wit." Such was the maxim of the incomparable Hooker, and such must be the actuating principle of all Christian disputants, if they wish to see good days, and to contribute to the peace of Jerusalem.

L. R.

EXTRACTS FROM DR. NOWELL'S CATECHISM.

(Continued from p. 5):

The following is an abridgement of the Exposition of the Ten Commandments, given by the Pupil omitting the Questions of the Master.

THE exordium, "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," implies, that God is our creator, our preserver, our governor, and benefactor, and that we are under the strongest obligation to obedience. God, indeed, rescued the Israelites from bodily slavery, but he in like manner delivers all his people from the spiritual bondage of sin, and the tyranny of Satan, by his son. This kind of deliverance equally belongs to all men, who place their confidence entirely in God, and diligently conform to his laws: they who neglect to do this, are here denounced guilty of the blackest ingratitude, by a commemoration of the wonderful kindness God has shewn them. But he will make a very unsuitable return for his deliverance from Satan, sin, and hell, who does not shew every mark of obedience and respect to the author of his liberty.

By the injunction, "Thou shalt have no strange Gods before me," we are to understand the prohibition of idolatry, and a command to confide in Jehovah alone as our God, and not to transfer to another the least part of that regard which belongs only to him. We are to revere him, and love him, make him our refuge and strength, and thankfully acknowledge him as the author of all our joys, by committing ourselves and all our concerns into his hands. The words "before me," signify that God observes the least possible advance towards idolatry, even in thought.

As in the first precept we are commanded to adore and worship the true God alone, so in the second we are forbidden the use of any outward form or bodily representation whatever, as highly unbecoming a "pure spirit," and as leading to superstition; but especially are warned against idolatry, the most stupid of all vices. God confirms and strengthens this law, by annexing sanctions to it. As a jealous God, he cannot bear any riCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 14.

val; for after he has given himself for us, of his own rich mercy, and not for our deserts, he may justly claim us as his own, and demand our entire submission. This is that band of a marriage union, as it were, between God and the souls of the faithful, who thus become his spouse. Hence it is expected, they should be faithfully attached to him alone, and love and honour him above all others.

In order to shew to what degree he detests idolatry, God threatens to punish, not only the offenders themselves, but their children also, and descendants; for as he testifies his love and mercy towards the pious, by defending and cherishing their posterity, and imparting that salvation which they did not merit; so he executes his indignation upon the ungodly, by depriving their children of this favour. Yet this conduct is perfectly just: for he is not bound to bestow that grace upon them, which they have no claim to; but may leave them to their own natural dispositions, such as he found them. But lest God should seem to compel us merely by threatenings, he invites us also by promises of blessing the righteous together with their posterity. This blessing proceeds, in some measure, from the pious manner in which they educate their children, who become, as it were, the successors to their reverential fear, and love of God; but the most certain reason is, God's own promise, who is righteous in all his ways. This, indeed, is not an invariable rule; because pious parents have sometimes wicked children. Yet the conduct of God, in this respect, varies so little, that the rule may be considered as general.

In the third commandment, "taking God's name in vain," means the abusing of it, either by perjury, or foolish and rash swearing, or even naming it, without a just and weighty cause. We must not even mention the name of God without the greatest reverence. Concerning God and his works we are bound to think, and speak, in the most honourable manner.

In fine, whoever uses the name of God, unless for reasons the most important and sacred, abuses it.

All such as profane this holy name, by evil habits, or thoughtless levity, grievously offend the majesty of hea ven. They, however, sin in a way

K

much more daring and dreadful, who abuse the name of God to any superstitious purpose, or invoke it in curses, incantations, or. execrable wishes. We are permitted to use the name of God in taking an oath, when there is a just occasion given, either to vindicate truth, or in obedience to the civil magistrate: but we must see that the business be important, that the honour of God be not infringed, northe peace of human society broken.

It is added, "that Jehovah will not hold him guiltless who taketh his name in vain." In order to shew how much he regards the glory of his name, as well as to restrain us more effectually from profaning it, by a strong representation of the evils to which all who vilify it are exposed. The sabbath by the fourth commandment, is set apart for the worship of God, and consequently all secular affairs must be suspended, that the godly may attend to religion, and piety, without distraction. So far as it is merely ceremonial, it respects the Jews only. But there are other important ends which render this law of perpetual obligation. On this day the people of Christ assemble together to hear his doctrine, to make confession of their faith, offer up to God their prayers in public, thankfully acknowledge his benefits, and praise him for his glorious displays of power and goodness; and lastly, to partake of the mysteries which are divinely instituted.

It is moreover most equitable, that our servants, together with us, worship one common Lord and Father; since he has adopted them, as well as us, into his own family through Christ; besides the advantage resulting to the masters themselves, that their servants, after a seasonable relaxation from work, may return to it with renewed vigour and alacrity.

The sabbath is also necessary as a "spiritual rest" that is, a cessation from worldly business, and our own peculiar engagements and occupàtions, in order to keep this day as a sacred kind of holiday, giving up ourselves entirely to the service of God, "that he may work in us that which is well pleasing in his sight." And that whilst we "crucify the flesh," that is, restrain the irregular motions and desires of the mind, by moderating our affections, we may obey the spirit of God. Thus shall

we in the best manner apply this form of external "rest" to its real purpose and meaning; taking care, however, that on other days we lay not aside our regard to this subject, but that we persevere through the whole course of our lives.

(To be continued.)

For the Christian Observer.
ON THE NATURE, OBLIGATIONS, AND
ENDS OF FASTING.

By fasting is intended either a total or
partial abstinence, for a limited time,
from our usual bodily refreshments; to
be regulated by a regard, on the one
hand, to health, and on the other to the
several moral uses which may be an-
swered by the practice. An occasional
abstinence from one or two meals in a
day, which is the most rigorous kind
of fasting here in view, is unquestion-
ably conducive to health in most per-
sons; and there are few, if any,
cases, in which some restraint as to
the usual quantity and quality of food
would be either prejudicial or incon-
venient. Where any reasonable
doubt, however, can exist on this
head, the physician may, perhaps,
be more properly consulted than the
divine. Christianity no more allows
us to injure our bodies than our souls.
To keep the soul in health and vigour,
the body must, it is true, be subject-
ed to discipline; but if that discipline
be carried to excess, of which in our
times there is little danger, it will de-
feat its own end, and by impairing
the animal functions, will proportion-
ably weaken the powers of the mind.
The true end of Christian temperance
and self-denial is, to preserve, as much
as possible, a sound mind in a sound
body.

In considering, secondly, the obligation of fasting, it must be acknowledged, that no express command is to be found in the scriptures, either of the Old or New Testament, which enjoins fasting as a constant or a universal duty, indispensably necessary to all persons, and at all times, in the same manner as prayer, repentance, and other Christian duties. Nor do the sacred writings inform us what degree of rigour should be observed in our fasts, how long they should continue, or how frequently they should recur. But, though neither the practice itself be absolutely

« AnteriorContinua »