Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

Church on the subject of this article. They consider remission of sins as distinct from justification. This is freely given to us in Christ Jesus, and consists in the infusion of inherent righteousness into the individual, whereby he becomes truly just, and is therefore justified by God. On this point, the difference between us seems a debate about words, since what they call remission of sins we call justification, and what they call justification, we call sanctification. Yet even in this we have the Scriptures clearly on one side, for they speak of sanctification as a thing different from, and subsequent to justification: "Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified."-1 Cor. vi. 11.

There are other points, however, on which the difference between us is considerable. They hold that the receiving of the sacraments, if men do not put a bar to them, though they have only imperfect acts of repentance accompanying them, supplies that imperfection, so as to justify them. This doctrine we reject, as tending to

This they called the first and second justification. See Conc. Trid. sess. 6. de Increm. Justifi. c. 9, 10, 11.

b See Vega, Trid. dec. de Justifi. Ex. p. 76. Bellar. de Justifi. 1. 1. c. 21. and Conc. Trid. sess. 6. c. 4.

See Hooper's Discourse on Justification, and a curious tract called, Discovery of the Jesuitical Opinion of Justification, London,

without date.

d See Archbishop Laurence, ser. 6. with notes.

enervate all religion, and to make the sacraments, which were intended to excite our piety, become means of deadening our devotion.Further, they hold, that after the infusion of inherent righteousness, the acts of good men become of their own nature so perfect, that they merit by their own condignity, the reward of final justification. We, on the contrary, admit, that God is indeed pleased with the inward reformation that he sees in good men, and accepts of their sincere intentions; still there remains so much imperfection, that even his acceptance of this is an act of mere mercy.

Our justification by faith is a doctrine full of comfort, for if we believed that it was founded on our inherent justice, as the ground on which we receive it, we should have just cause of fear and dejection, since we could not reasonably promise ourselves so great a blessing upon so poor a consideration. But when we know that this is only the condition of it, then when we feel it is sincerely received and believed, and carefully observed by us, we may conclude that we are justified, and so long as we continue "to "work out our own salvation with fear and

trembling," we may depend on the propitiation of Christ, which extends to all who believe and obey his Gospel.

ARTICLE XII.

OF GOOD WORKS.

ALBEIT 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, YET ARE THEY PLEASING AND ACCEPTABLE TO GOD IN CHRIST, AND DO SPRING OUT NECESSARILY OF A TRUE AND LIVELY FAITH, INSOMUCH, THAT BY THEM A LIVELY FAITH MAY BE AS EVIDENTLY KNOWN, AS A TREE DISCERNED BY THE FRUIT.

THIS Article consists of two parts:

I. Good works are imperfect, and II. They are necessary and pleasing to God.

[ocr errors]

I. Good works are imperfect.

66

They cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of "God's judgment."

With respect to the nature and consequences of good works, the Roman Catholic Churcha hold two doctrines: 1st. That men by their good works have so fully satisfied the law of God,"

a See Conc. Trid. sess. 6. cap. 16. can. 32.

The possibility of keeping the laws of God perfectly, was also held by the Anabaptists. See Bullinger, Adv. Anab. 1. 4. c. 3.

that nothing is wanting to complete their perfection. The falsehood of this opinion and the

a

truth of our own, appear from the following considerations:

[ocr errors]

(1.) Our imperfection is mentioned in Scripture. Thus, Gen. vi. 3. Every imagination of the heart of man is only evil continually." St. James says, "in many things we offend all." (Jas. iii. 2.) And even St. Paul, "counts that " he had not yet apprehended, but still pressed "toward the mark." (Phil. iii. 13.) And (in Ps. cxxx. 3.) it is said, "if God should straitly mark iniquity, who can stand before him?"

(2.) We are desired to pray constantly for pardon. The prayer given to us by our Lord is to be used daily, as is implied by the clause, "Give us this day our daily bread." But a standing petition in it, is "Forgive us our trespasses;" we must therefore sin daily, since we always need a pardon.

(3.) This imperfection is confirmed by the experience of mankind. Thus we see that the best men in all ages, have been complaining and humbling

A denial of this doctrine was one of the five propositions of the Jansenists, condemned by Pope Innocent X. See Maresii. Apol. pro Jansen. Cont. Pontif. Par. 3. p. 69.

a A Roman Doctor has not hesitated to say, that "no accession "of dignity is made to the works of the just by the merits or person "of Christ." Vasquez Comment. in 1, 2. qu. 114. disp. 214.

themselves before God for their sins even in their best actions, for their vanity and desire of glory, for the distraction of their thoughts in devotion, and for the affection which they bore to earthly things.

2d. The Roman Catholic Church hold that these works are meritorious of eternal life. This has been decreed by the council of Trent,a but as if conscious of the impiety of the doctrine, they endeavour to soften it by adding: "None ought to glory in himself, but in the "Lord, whose goodness is such, that he makes "his own gifts to be merits in us :" and, " that "because in many things, we offend in all,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

every one ought to consider the justice and

severity as well as the mercy and goodness of God, and not to judge himself, even though he "should know nothing by himself." In these points then, all seem to agree. 1. That our works cannot be good, except as we are assisted to

a Sess. 6. cap. 16. It is worth observing, that this council did not decree what they meant by the words " truly meriting;" and the consequence has been, that scarcely any two Roman Doctors agree on the subject. See Stillingfleet's Works, v. 6. p. 466. Ed. Lond. 1710.

b Nothing can be more absurd than this use of terms. Bellarmine endeavours to prove, that there is no inconsistency between merits in us and free mercy in God, co-operating to produce the same effect. Oper. Tom. 4. de Justifi. 1. 1. c. 21. p. 787. Ed. Paris,

« AnteriorContinua »